| Revision as of 02:21, 28 April 2015 view sourceLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →Blocked: yes, please.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024 view source MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,451 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (358 intermediate revisions by 63 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Archives}} | {{Archives|search=yes|collapsed=yes}} | ||
| {{nobots}} | |||
| == Get well soon == | |||
| Sorry to see the note on the top of this page. At least you were allowed back last year and got in 278 edits. Hope to see you back sometime in 2023. ] (]) 18:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Kaffeeklatsch update== | |||
| I have ] that were here. All the brouhaha had died down. If it fires up again in the future, I'll take care of it then. ] (]) 00:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I am back. Worked on (still working on, actually) a few things with my doctors and I'm feeling quite a lot better. Knock wood, it sticks. I created a new article today. Would you like to look it over? It's about Amy Kelly, author of ''Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings''. It needs a little more work, but I think it's a good start. I'll probably take a break for a bit... Don't want to overdo it. ] (]) ] (]) 22:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk:Nazi gun control theory == | |||
| ::Super. If you can improve on that you're a better writer than me. Based on "evidences of seriousness of purpose and promise of success" I recommend you for the honor roll of WikiProject historical biography writers. Prose of this quality has not appeared on Misplaced Pages in many a long day. | |||
| ::I took a look at the lead of ] and it cracked me up a bit. After fifteen years of marriage and two daughters her husband agreed to an annulment (heaven forbid royalty ever divorce) on the grounds of ] within the fourth degree (but why was the marriage allowed in the first place, and it took 15 years to figure that out?) So then she just remarries other royalty committing the same crime in the third degree! I can see how that's fodder for a best-selling book (and maybe a TV miniseries too). Sure, take it easy, no need to work harder than you feel up to. – ] (]) 02:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::What kicked this off was hubby and I were watching ''The Lion in Winter'' (one of our favorite "Christmas" movies). Then we got to talking about Eleanor. He likes to read historical nonfiction, so I said, You should read ''Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings''. And I bought him a used copy. So he's sitting there looking at it, and then his phone, and he said, There's no Misplaced Pages article on Amy Kelly. And I said, What? And there you go! | |||
| :::Thanks for the positive feedback. I truly appreciate it. BTW, what is the "Review" process? It doesn't leave anything in the reviewer's history. I've always wondered about that. ] (]) | |||
| ::::There are multiple review processes. One is ]. Another is ] (see ]). Another is ] (see ] – you too may apply to join the ]). Another is ] (behold that detailed flowchart!). You can see in my that I marked revision 1136740705 of page ] patrolled – that's just a matter of checking a box. I confess I didn't use that flowchart as part of my review process. Your writing is so many levels above the average I see that I didn't think it was necessary. The new page reviewers are a more elite group (currently , plus administrators). And then there's ], which uses a "Curation Toolbar". I have trouble keeping track of it all. That's why there's a disambiguation page! ''']'''. – ] (]) 21:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I see. I was aware of peer reviews, but not all the others. Thanks for explaining - and for your kind words. ] (]) | |||
| == Pending Proposal for Kessler Foundation == | |||
| I have just asked you to let me voice my own opinions on the subject of the article - which clearly does not amount to a request for you to trawl through my previous posts and copy them there. So unless it is actually your intention to get into an argument with ''everyone'' on the talk page, I'd ask that you remove your latest post, and stop trying to tell people what I think. Not only is it bad manners (particularly after I'd made an explicit request not to do it), but it is counterproductive, since it looks very much like an attempt to turn the whole thing into an us-vs-them faction-fight, rather than a discussion of how Misplaced Pages policy relates to the issue. Your suggestion of an RfC was misguided in my opinion, and you might do better to simply let the discussion evolve, rather than trying to corral everyone into an entirely inappropriate vote. ] (]) 01:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. I see you’re a member of the WikiProject Medicine/Society and medicine task force. I’ve made a number of proposals to update the article about ], a charity that supports people with disabilities. Several have been reviewed but a few remain. The request is posted here ]. I have a conflict of interest, and do the edits myself. Would you possibly have time to look at these? I appreciate your time. ] (]) 20:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Civility in the Talk:Nazi gun control theory == | |||
| :Sorry, I don't remember joining a medicine task force. Good luck with your proposals. ] (]) | |||
| == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
| The discussion should remain civil. I would appreciate it if you would stop using the term "Godsy-preffered", because it conveys that you know what I'd prefer (which you do not) AND incorrectly conveys my actual positions or speculates to what they might be. I do not advocate a personal view, I advocate policy (they may not necessarily line up), so to use the phrase it in that manner is inaccurate. <small>—]</small><sup>(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub> 20:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| :''So if we don't go back to your preferred version in your preferred way, you believe it will be detrimental to the discussion. That's not quite how it works ], but thanks for the input.'' <small>trying to illustrate a point, not intentionally being sarcastic or claiming to know what you believe/think</small> 01:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC), Godsy | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :Your "preferred" comment preceded mine by 18 hours. I think you should cool down and go read some of the past material about this Nazi-gun-control debate on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Please stay off my page for now, unless you come to give notice of starting a formal process. ] (]) 21:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| ==AN notice== | |||
| </div> | |||
| ] This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice--> Grognard Extraordinaire ] ] Ping when replying 03:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1187132049 --> | |||
| == Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == | |||
| :The discussion Chess started: ] | |||
| <section begin="announcement-content" /> | |||
| == Yet more insinuations of sockpuppetry == | |||
| :''] '' | |||
| Dear Wikimedian, | |||
| I see that you have yet again ignored my advice, and the comments in the thread regarding your behaviour at WP:AN, and have continued to make unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry at ]. Consider this fair warning - if you persist with this, I may very well change my position regarding the proposal that you be topic banned. You are achieving ''precisely nothing'' beyond antagonising people. Either file a SPI, or let the matter drop. ] (]) 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. | |||
| I have just blocked you for violating the ] policy in your post on AN I just suppressed. If you want to appeal this block, please use the {{tlx|unblock}} template. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 19:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ]. | |||
| {{u|Salvio giuliano}}, can you tell me (email, I guess) what I "outed"? ] (]) 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Mail sent. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. | |||
| *I'm not sure this block is purely over the outing concern — I see on AN that there are other concerns — but if it is, I think it's excessive. I saw the post before it was suppressed, and of course I don't want to discuss any details of it, but IMO a warning would do. ] | ] 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC). | |||
| **On second thoughts, it's probably fairer to describe Lightbreather's conduct as a way to harass another editor all the while being able to claim deniability. Either way, I believe a block is necessary. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 20:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***At the time Salvio blocked me, he had only 24 other edits for the month of April - nothing at the Administrators' noticeboard. Considering some of his past comments about me: | |||
| :::# "Lightbreater is conducting herself as a vexatious litigant and a forum shopper, which is disruptive." | |||
| :::# "I could support this only if Lightbreather was also topic banned from administrative noticeboards and restricted from requesting, suggesting, supporting, opposing, or even hinting at the possibility that another editor may be sanctioned, otherwise we are simply encouraging (and rewarding) vexatious litigations and forum shopping." | |||
| :::# " behaviour is, IMHO, generally disruptive: I consider her a vexatious litigant and a person who never drops the stick." | |||
| :::# "72.223.98.118 and 69.16.147.185 (Lightbreather denies having operated the latter, but I didn't believe her and still don't)." | |||
| :::# "Well, now we can add personal attacks to your list of transgressions." | |||
| :::# "Yes, really. I commented on this personal attack because it's the one I saw." | |||
| :::And that he called me a liar/fibber at least ''four'' times in this ], after I was blocked (despite numerous explanations, private and public - such as this one (scroll down to "Fifth") - about why I had edited while logged out) for "sock puppetry" back in November... | |||
| On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> | |||
| :::I believe Salvio is lacking in ] (at least when it comes to me), and unable to maintain the non-biased, ] position an admin should assume when judging a situation. Further, considering the evidence I just gave, as well as the reason he gave me privately about why he assumed I was outing someone, I believe it's possible that he's watching me for opportunities to block. ] (]) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Welcome to the club. Perhaps you might like to explain why you came to my talk page yesterday? ] ] 21:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 --> | |||
| :::::Fuck off, Eric. This is completely the wrong time for you to be posting here. I might review the block as an uninvolved admin tomorrow, unless the august company of oversighters have got somewhere with their discussion by then. Most of us ordinary middle-management admins can't review it, because they don't have access to the post Salvio blocked over, but I happened to see it before it was suppressed, as I noted above. I'll sleep on it. Very late here. ] | ] 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC). | |||
| ::::::{{small|This comment was ]. ] <small>]</small> 22:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| ::::::I'd be quite happy to "fuck off" Bishonen, if you'd be equally happy to tell Lightbreather to "fuck off" from my talk page. Which you don't appear to have done. ] ] 00:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| {{unblock | reason=Can someone get involved privately? I've got an email from Salvio - this was no outing. I am getting ready to go to my son's house, but I will check in if I can via phone, otherwise I'll be home later. ] (]) 19:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| :Wow; this is a tremendously inappropriate block, regardless of the merits, for Salvio to be making. Salvio: your many comments about Lightbreather over an extremely long period demonstrate that there is ''no way'' you are uninvolved enough to make a call here. Someone - you or someone else - needs to unblock Lightbreather so that the situation can be evaluated by somebody who ''hasn't'' repeatedly declared LB to be acting in bad faith. ] (]) 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| ::Can you please link to my many comments? I remember having commented on her conduct once after blocking her for block evasion, which is an interaction in my admin capacity, and once in an ANI or AN thread. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 20:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| :::Well, let's see off the top of my head, describing her as , , who should be banned from the administrative noticeboards, and an entire talkpage section, ending , about LB's behaviour, with extensive commentary from you. Yes, these were largely administrative in nature, and ] does have (for very good reason) an expectation that people will not be considered involved solely for their work on a site administration basis. But that exception is based on the idea that it is ''purely'' administrative and never devolves from the relatively detached viewpoint an admin (ideally) maintains while dealing with users in a dispute; the example the policy provides is {{quote|Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.}} | |||
| :::The attitude you've displayed in the diffs above, and the attitude you have displayed ''in this discussion'' ('it's probably fairer to describe Lightbreather's conduct as a way to harass another editor all the while being able to claim deniability') does not suggest that you have that detached viewpoint; it suggests that you have strong views about LB that does make you involved. And to quote from the policy again, "Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards". This block may be completely justified - I'm not in the position to judge because I don't have OS access. But it should not have been performed by you. I'm agreed with and grateful to GW below for reaching out and getting more (qualified) eyeballs on this block. ] (]) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I had entirely forgotten about my comments on ARCA. Then again, as you recognise, those are all in an admin/arb capacity and, therefore, are not enough for me to be deeed involved. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 20:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That sort of neatly glosses over the entire thing about what makes an admin or arb action uninvolved or involved, but whatever; it looks like other oversighters are on the problem, and your approach here is reading a lot like you realised you were wrong and decided the solution was to hunker down. This place'd work a lot better if people stopped being scared of admitting they made a bad call; everyone makes them. ] (]) 21:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : {{ec}} I'm not going to be the one to review the block, but I'm just noting here that I've emailed Salvio to clarify/discuss. An outside set of (oversighter) eyes might be valuable. ] <small>]</small> 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| ::{{u|Bishonen}}, {{u|Ironholds}}, and {{u|GorillaWarfare}}: How can I go about getting an (uninvolved or less involved, I hope) admin to review this? ] (]) 19:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Salvio is going to begin a discussion on the oversight mailing list. ] <small>]</small> 20:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Do you know when this will happen, how long it might take, and whether or not I will I be able to participate? There is a ] where I am being misrepresented, and from here I have no way to defend myself. ] (]) 20:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Or can I at least, for now, be granted permission to make a statement in that (ARE) discussion? ] (]) 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Newyorkbrad}}, {{u|Callanecc}}, and {{u|Bishonen}}: Since I have been talked about prominently in the currently open EC ARE, I hope you would not close it before my block has been properly reviewed. I should like to make a statement. ] (]) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Discussion has begun there now. I'm sure if any of the oversighters require your input, they will contact you. As for your participation in the AE discussion, I'll leave that up to the administrators that are helping with that request. ] <small>]</small> 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Put your statement here (maybe in a new section, but it's your talk page) and someone can copy it across to AE for you. Do want the section below copied over as a "statement"? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 02:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, thank you. I think I'm signing off for tonight. ] (]) 02:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Allegations and baiting at ARE - and here == | |||
| </div> | |||
| Regarding Eric Corbett once again being brought before ARE and the statements that have been made about me: | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 --> | |||
| *''What a coincidence.'' I can't speak for Gobonobo, but for me, yes - a coincidence. | |||
| *''Where have these people been for the last three weeks?'' I've mostly been working in my preferred subject areas, which you have started to get involved in. | |||
| *''Eric has plenty of watchers.'' And plenty of enablers, who love to start discussions on his page that they ought not to, and encourage him when he starts discussions there that he'd be better off avoiding. | |||
| <ins>''The question is, why did she reignite that thread?''</ins> | |||
| Sitush, I ended up on Eric's page because of your participation in a ] Your first comment wasn't bad, but it was followed by several that showed you were getting over stimulated. (The last one showed you were willing to make an arbitrary call about any editor who agreed with an edit of mine, whether you knew who they were or not.) I've learned that when this happens, you might be talking about me on Eric's page - risky as it is for him. I went there, and lo! Eric himself had started a discussion about RfA and GGTF, ending with: "Now block/ban me, and see if I care." So Eric can thank you, and he owes you thanks for leading me to his page more than once now. | |||
| That discussion that Eric nailed to his own talk page on Easter, did I respond to him? No - well not at first anyway. My comment was to two other editors. ''Then'', I asked Eric a simple question: ''What is your purpose when you start discussions like this?'' Of course, you, Sitush - within the minute that I asked my question - then took the ball and ran with it. ''LB, are you hallucinating?'' I wasn't baiting anyone; you were! ] (]) 01:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{replyto|EChastain}} If the examples you gave of "baiting" ''are'' baiting, then I've been baited pretty much from the day I started actively editing here. They were certainly no more bait-like than Eric's posts, including the one that he started the discussion with. (see next) Hell, one of the diffs you gave was of me fixing a typo! | |||
| Let's record Eric's opening salvo here. He titled it "Forbidden topics." | |||
| :''I'm forbidden to comment on RfA or the GGTF, but nevertheless I want to sign off by commenting on both.'' | |||
| ::''RfA is a vicious travesty that ought to have been stopped long ago.'' | |||
| ::''The GGTF is also a travesty, fuelled by comments made by the terminally dim Sue Gardner, and which will cost the WMF lots of money in funding daft projects that will not make the slightest difference to anything.'' | |||
| :''Now block/ban me, and see if I care. Eric Corbett 20:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)'' | |||
| --] (]) 01:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{replyto|Karanacs}} I did NOT go to Eric's page to bait him. If you read the @Sitush section above, you will learn exactly why I went to Eric's page. So he made his comment three weeks ago? If he hadn't made it at all (afterall, he's not supposed to be doing things like that), neither his fans or I would have had a comment to make and Gobonobo wouldn't have come here to ARE. ] (]) 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{replyto|Montanabw}} As long as Eric and others use his talk page to talk about me or projects that I work on - one that he's banned from - I think that would be unfair. ] (]) 02:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|Newyorkbrad}}, {{u|Callanecc}}, {{u|Bishonen}}, and {{u|Ymblanter}}: Bishonen already knows this, but y'all are the ones who've responded at "Result concerning Eric Corbett" so far. Today, Eric came to my talk page to make these comments: | |||
| *''Welcome to the club. Perhaps you might like to explain why you came to my talk page yesterday?'' | |||
| *''I'd be quite happy to "fuck off" Bishonen, if you'd be equally happy to tell Lightbreather to "fuck off" from my talk page.'' | |||
| *''Which you don't appear to have done. | |||
| He's dared you block him. He's asking to be blocked. He thinks this is a joke. He thinks I am. He thinks you are. He thinks civility is. And he is completely comfortable that he has enough fans to protect him from a long block or a ban.'' --] (]) 02:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024
Get well soon
Sorry to see the note on the top of this page. At least you were allowed back last year and got in 278 edits. Hope to see you back sometime in 2023. wbm1058 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I am back. Worked on (still working on, actually) a few things with my doctors and I'm feeling quite a lot better. Knock wood, it sticks. I created a new article today. Would you like to look it over? It's about Amy Kelly, author of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings. It needs a little more work, but I think it's a good start. I'll probably take a break for a bit... Don't want to overdo it. Lightbreather (talk) Lightbreather (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Super. If you can improve on that you're a better writer than me. Based on "evidences of seriousness of purpose and promise of success" I recommend you for the honor roll of WikiProject historical biography writers. Prose of this quality has not appeared on Misplaced Pages in many a long day.
- I took a look at the lead of Eleanor of Aquitaine and it cracked me up a bit. After fifteen years of marriage and two daughters her husband agreed to an annulment (heaven forbid royalty ever divorce) on the grounds of consanguinity within the fourth degree (but why was the marriage allowed in the first place, and it took 15 years to figure that out?) So then she just remarries other royalty committing the same crime in the third degree! I can see how that's fodder for a best-selling book (and maybe a TV miniseries too). Sure, take it easy, no need to work harder than you feel up to. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- What kicked this off was hubby and I were watching The Lion in Winter (one of our favorite "Christmas" movies). Then we got to talking about Eleanor. He likes to read historical nonfiction, so I said, You should read Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings. And I bought him a used copy. So he's sitting there looking at it, and then his phone, and he said, There's no Misplaced Pages article on Amy Kelly. And I said, What? And there you go!
- Thanks for the positive feedback. I truly appreciate it. BTW, what is the "Review" process? It doesn't leave anything in the reviewer's history. I've always wondered about that. Lightbreather (talk)
- There are multiple review processes. One is Misplaced Pages:Peer review. Another is Recent changes (see Misplaced Pages:Recent changes patrol). Another is Misplaced Pages:Pending changes (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes – you too may apply to join the 7,813 reviewers). Another is Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol (behold that detailed flowchart!). You can see in my patrol log that I marked revision 1136740705 of page Amy Kelly patrolled – that's just a matter of checking a box. I confess I didn't use that flowchart as part of my review process. Your writing is so many levels above the average I see that I didn't think it was necessary. The new page reviewers are a more elite group (currently 726 members, plus administrators). And then there's Misplaced Pages:Page Curation, which uses a "Curation Toolbar". I have trouble keeping track of it all. That's why there's a disambiguation page! Misplaced Pages:Reviewing. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I see. I was aware of peer reviews, but not all the others. Thanks for explaining - and for your kind words. Lightbreather (talk)
- There are multiple review processes. One is Misplaced Pages:Peer review. Another is Recent changes (see Misplaced Pages:Recent changes patrol). Another is Misplaced Pages:Pending changes (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes – you too may apply to join the 7,813 reviewers). Another is Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol (behold that detailed flowchart!). You can see in my patrol log that I marked revision 1136740705 of page Amy Kelly patrolled – that's just a matter of checking a box. I confess I didn't use that flowchart as part of my review process. Your writing is so many levels above the average I see that I didn't think it was necessary. The new page reviewers are a more elite group (currently 726 members, plus administrators). And then there's Misplaced Pages:Page Curation, which uses a "Curation Toolbar". I have trouble keeping track of it all. That's why there's a disambiguation page! Misplaced Pages:Reviewing. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Pending Proposal for Kessler Foundation
Hi. I see you’re a member of the WikiProject Medicine/Society and medicine task force. I’ve made a number of proposals to update the article about Kessler Foundation, a charity that supports people with disabilities. Several have been reviewed but a few remain. The request is posted here Talk:Kessler_Foundation#Kessler Foundation Edit Requests – October 2022. I have a conflict of interest, and do the edits myself. Would you possibly have time to look at these? I appreciate your time. Dogmomma529 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't remember joining a medicine task force. Good luck with your proposals. Lightbreather (talk)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)