| Revision as of 02:02, 24 September 2016 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Akhilleus/Archive 17) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:02, 21 October 2023 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Akhilleus/Archive 18) (bot | ||
| (32 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{administrator}} | {{administrator}} | ||
| {{not around|date=30 October 2018}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 75K | |maxarchivesize = 75K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 18 | ||
| |algo = old(14d) | |algo = old(14d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Akhilleus/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Akhilleus/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| Line 25: | Line 26: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{-}} | |||
| == Removal of unsourced information == | |||
| == Precious == | |||
| {{user precious|header=antiquity|thanks=for quality articles around ancient myths and culture such as ], for creating talk pages and archives, for discussing complex topics such as ], for watching over ] and ], - repeating from ten years ago:}} | |||
| I mentioned over at ] that<blockquote>There's a general feeling at V — I can't say that there's consensus on it, unlike what I've said above — that editors who make a practice of going from article to article deleting unsourced information as a routine or habitual matter may be subject to sanctions (at least those editors who don't do much else), but that's more for not routinely following best practices and thus not being here for the benefit of the encyclopedia than it is for removing unsourced material in any individual case.</blockquote>Just for the sake of being <s>pedantic</s> ''thorough'' let me also mention that there's also some feeling, far less discussed there, that mass removals of large amounts of unsourced information from a ''single'' article on the mere grounds that it is unsourced may also be sanctionable, at least if done disruptively. What I've seen in practice on that point is that when a well-thought-of, generally neutral, experienced editor does it, even reducing an article from a fairly lengthy one to a stub (generally referred to as "reworking an article"), he or she is likely to have it stick, even over some objection. When that's done by a newcomer or a SPA or an otherwise-disreputable editor (generally referred to as "slash and burn" or — ''ahem'' — a "hatchet job"), it's not. The difference, of course, is that in the first case the community is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that his or her motive is doing what's best for the encyclopedia; but not so much in the latter case. If I was going to go all theoretical on that, I'd further say that it's because the community is willing to AGF on the reputable editor and presume that he's actually given serious consideration to whether the material is sourceable before removing it, but that they're not willing to do that — and are in violation of AGF and/or BITE for not being willing to do so — in the case of the less-reputable editor. | |||
| {{User QAIbox | |||
| | title = Awesome | |||
| I make no bones about this: At the discussions over at V on this subject I'm one of the advocates for the can-delete-just-because-it's-unsourced position. Here's the reason why: Since we have no editorial board or other oversight to insure reliability of the information we present, that information is only as reliable as the sources we present for it. Except for information which is blindingly obvious or which is unquestionably verifi''able'' with every piece of unsourced information we have here we're putting the reliability of the encyclopedia a little more into question. Now does that mean that I routinely go around removing unsourced information? No, but I do so on occasion when I find stuff that I think is highly unlikely and occasionally I do so without looking for sources if I think that it's unlikely to be reliably sourceable. But we need to retain the ''ability'' to do just that to preserve the the reputation for reliability of the encyclopedia, even if best practices suggest that most of the time there are better ways to handle it. Best regards, ] (]) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | image = Cscr-featured.svg | |||
| | image_upright = 0.35 | |||
| == Welcome back == | |||
| | bold = ] | |||
| }} | |||
| It's good to see you active again. As you can probably see, there aren't many sane people left, so I'm glad you're still around. I hope you're well. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 22:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Me as well. ] (]) 23:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was afraid you were ], like your notoriously petulant namesake. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| The article was just horrendous to read and I listed some reasons on the article's talk page. Thought I'd let you know, you seemed interested in the article. ] ] {{Font color|darkgoldenrod|darkred|123}} 07:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| A year ago, you were recipient no. ] of Precious, a prize of QAI! --] (]) 09:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity == | |||
| ] | |||
| Established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed. | |||
| Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at ]. | |||
| == Advice on English language== | |||
| Excerpt from ] Talk page: | |||
| :Thanks. That is all clear to me. But what you seemed to say (twice) is to dispute the English phrase "prompted by Chresto". Now, you have still not quoted me the pertinent discussion section as requested (reminiscent of Cynwolfe's behaviour, by the way - work on it please). I continue doubting that such a discussion line exists. My working hypothesis is that you have simply misphrased your complaint. No problem. Anyway, I am shifting your section and my reponses into the section where it belongs. This is to unclutter the section dedicated to Smeat75, which is about a different topic. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->— ] <sup>]</sup> 00:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, here's a few things you can "work on": 1) ] by typing four tildes at the end of your comment. It's hard for people to follow discussion when comments are unsigned. I have been adding your signature, but if you are interested in constructive discussion, surely you can learn this small component of Misplaced Pages etiquette. 2) Pay better attention to what other people are saying. I am not disputing anything about the English phrase "prompted by Chresto", I am talking about the meaning of the Latin phrase ''impulsore Chresto'' in Suetonius 25.4. It cannot mean what Slingerland wants it to mean, as both Cynwolfe and I have already stated. 3) Stop demanding that other editors look up or quote posts that you are perfectly capable of finding on your own, especially because you have already made reference to them in your previous posts. The post where Cynwolfe quotes Gruen is on this very page, I have trouble imagining that you are unable to find it. ] (]) 00:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Precious anniversary == | |||
| :::Then let me help you out of your trouble. What you did say was: "The reason why ''impulsore Chresto'' cannot mean "prompted by Chrestus" has been explained in detail above." What you evidently meant to say was: "The reason why ''impulsore Chresto'' cannot refer to ''expulit'' has been explained in detail above." Hence you inadvertantly started off a wild goose chase for a discussion that does not exist. (Now pause for thought - if you and I can make such a complete communicative mess in English, what hope do we have of ever being sure about a Latin author's intentions?). No reply needed, we have both wasted enough time on a mare's nest. Such is the human condition.] (]) 09:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Hermann ze German | |||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Two}} --] (]) 10:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Missing == | |||
| == Extended confirmed protection == | |||
| Hello, this message is to let you know that you have been listed on ], as we seek to recognize and remember users who have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. If you wish to not be listed, feel free to remove yourself from the list. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. —] <small>(] · ])</small> 12:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| {{ivmbox|1=Hello, Akhilleus. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy. | |||
| == Some stroopwafels for you! == | |||
| ] (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned ] was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following ] with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas. | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| In July and August 2016, ] established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions: | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| * '''Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective'''. It should not be used as a first resort. | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | stroopwafel ] (]) 14:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''A bot will post a notification at ] of each use'''. MusikBot currently does this by updating ], which is transcluded onto the noticeboard. | |||
| |} | |||
| Please review ] carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. <br><small>This message was sent to the administrators' ]. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)</small> |2=Padlock-blue.svg}} | |||
| <!--Message sent following discussion at WT:PP--> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Message_list&oldid=737471142 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 03:02, 21 October 2023
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Akhilleus has not edited Misplaced Pages since 30 October 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Precious
antiquity
Thank you for quality articles around ancient myths and culture such as Barton Cylinder, for creating talk pages and archives, for discussing complex topics such as Christ myth theory, for watching over Homer and Trojan War, - repeating from ten years ago: you are an awesome Wikipedian!
 | |
| Ten years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
A year ago, you were recipient no. 2122 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.
Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux 00:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Missing
Hello, this message is to let you know that you have been listed on WP:Missing Wikipedians, as we seek to recognize and remember users who have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. If you wish to not be listed, feel free to remove yourself from the list. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 12:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Some stroopwafels for you!
|
stroopwafel defaultkid99 (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC) |