| Revision as of 14:11, 12 December 2014 editWifione (talk | contribs)16,760 edits →Interpretation of 3RR policy: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:42, 12 December 2014 edit undoRationalobserver (talk | contribs)11,997 edits →Can you please help?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 227: | Line 227: | ||
| If you want to nominate me for adminship, as you suggested on my talk page, and you think there's a significant chance it will succeed, you have my permission to do so. ] ] 03:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | If you want to nominate me for adminship, as you suggested on my talk page, and you think there's a significant chance it will succeed, you have my permission to do so. ] ] 03:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :{{u|Everymorning}}, good to hear from you. Do send me an email and we'll take it from there. Best regards. ] ] 04:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | :{{u|Everymorning}}, good to hear from you. Do send me an email and we'll take it from there. Best regards. ] ] 04:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Can you please help? == | |||
| Radiopathy keeps pinging me in comments where he uses the word "cunt", he used it three times, including: "So, yes, 'cunt' refers to Rationalobserver". I feel like he is doing this to antagonize me, so , but , saying that I wasn't pinged when, clearly I was. Will you please ask him to stop? ] (]) 17:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:42, 12 December 2014
CLICK HERE TO LEAVE A NEW MESSAGE
(This user operates an alternate account on Misplaced Pages; any other same named accounts outside of Wikimedia/Wikipedia are not this user's)
|
|
|
| This is Wifione's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2015 |
| X's RfA report for the week | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Updated every half an hour only; for latest status, kindly go directly to the RFA page | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Leave your messages below this. Thanks. Wifione
BLPCRIME
Doesn't look like you're around much lately, but you might be interested in this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Bbb, I guess the discussion is controlled. Thanks for the note. Wifione 06:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
GURJAR
Dear Wifione, hi Lots of writer talking about me and my act. If you will carefully see the whole effort made for Gurjar Article, you will find nothing wrong fro me. I never provided any content without citation and authentic proof. These writer reverting the whole Gurjar content without debate. they have removed the contents and images which was displayed here after long debates among the writers like Chhora, Ashok Harsana, AP Singh and myself. I have provided Gurjar population estimation post independence as published in Reputed largest National English News Paper of India.. 100 years old publication. Same type of information was also taken on Misplaced Pages from same news paper. If this is appropriate information there then why not on Gurjar. Secondly Sardar Patel & Samrat Mihir Bhoja were famous Gurjar Icons and their images be displayed on Gurjar wikipedia. Why these writer not debate before to revert. It seems that they do always right by reverting whole contents and images, but if i do undid in good faith it is wrong. This is my request you to look into the matter and solve the issue honestly. Till then i have reverted the article in previous version as displayed since long time. regards, Gurjeshwar (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've blocked you for a week for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, instead of trying to revert war, please use the talk page of the article to gain consensus. Thanks. Wifione 11:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Devyn Rose
Hello - I am writing as I would like to see if I can submit the below for required notability. Devyn Rose is currently on Amazon's Top 10 Best Sellers for her single "Falling 4 U" and #1 Best Seller for Soul and R&B. Here are links for proof:
Underneath the song, it will show this information as of 11/19/14:
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #8 Paid in Songs (See Top 100 Paid in Songs)
#1 in MP3 Downloads > Songs > R&B > Soul #6 in MP3 Downloads > Songs > Pop
Other proof links:
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-MP3-Downloads/zgbs/dmusic/ref=sv_dmusic_2
Number 1 Best Seller in R&B: http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/dmusic/324621011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_dmusic_1_3 Number 1 Best Sellers in Soul: http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/dmusic/324632011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_dmusic_1_4_last Number 10 Best Seller in Pop: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-MP3-Downloads-Pop/zgbs/dmusic/324608011/ref=zg_bs_nav_dmusic_2_digital-music-track. PinkStaircase
- @PinkStaircase:, I truly don't know if Amazon links are accepted as references for national charts. I deleted the Devyn Rose article, but you might be interested in the following links, which you could use additionally to the Amazon links. These might help you in proving the notability of the article. Here you go: Devyn Rose interview in Voice Online UK, Flavour Mag UK review of Devyn Rose, NG Daily News reference for evidence of Devyn's song being played on the Radio show #Playlist101@19jaRadio, Off The Hook magazine reference that placed Devyn as No.1 amongst unsigned singers (page 22), Lady Indie interview of Devyn, Source mentioning that Devyn's CD was amongst the two music artist CDs given at the fifth annual Emmy bash, Gigmit review of Devyn's album, Skope Mag interview, The Hugger's review. Hope these help. Wifione 04:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Wifione Thank you - should I recreate the article and add those links as reference? Also, because the article was deleted I only have my old wiki write up, is it possible to get the write up that I had before it was deleted? PinkStaircase (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- @PinkStaircase: I see you've already started the article. You perhaps should have made the article as a draft in your namespace before moving it to the article space. I could have guided you better then. Let me anyway see how your article, which has again been nominated for deletion, can be rescued. Thanks. Wifione 18:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Wifione: Apologies, should have created it there, thank you for your help PinkStaircase (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
1RR
This seems to imply I've done something wrong - presumably editing the lead section after reverting once before, (2 or 3 days before which even the user filing the complaint admitted wasn't 1RR). It's absolutely true I have no interest in editing Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I wonder though, if, as an administrator, you really think the editors of said article should get away with rejecting well-explained edits by attacking the editor with sarcasm, unfounded allegations of sock-puppetry, and not being a "good editor" - as opposed to rational arguments. One glaring example: " aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control" (4th para of lead section). This is "supported" by an in-line reference; however, the ref says nothing whatsoever about "legislative control" or "most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world". This is purely an invention of this article. The editors clearly believe that "consensus", defended by personal abuse and refusal to discuss, should decide which of various newspaper versions is correct, and state it as fact in the lead, "supported" by a reference that does not support it - even after the mistake is - politely - pointed out to them: -
As I said, I have absolutely no wish to edit the page (apparently I don't fit in their little would-be social club, which is apparently required in order to correct obvious mis-statements of fact). The deliberate falsification of RS in this article is no more my problem than anyone else's. It's permanently linked to from the Main Page, so it is a problem, as I see it, for the integrity of the project - especially when admin actions interfere with removal of false statements (known to be false) in the lead section of one of the most viewed articles. Since no one else is going to fix this or any of the other problems, now that I've given up, I would be interested to know what you think about it. zzz (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
PS It is quite a concern, or I obviously wouldn't bother you with it, Wifione. zzz (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Signedzzz. This means exactly what it meant as per my statement. You mentioned that you were not going to edit the article. Then in my opinion, there's no immediate urgency to act on someone's report against you. If you hadn't mentioned that statement, I would have analysed the report with more scrutiny. That's about it Signedzzz. If you have an edit warring issue with any editor, file a report at EWN and if I'm around there, I'll take a look at it. My talk page is not the perfect place to ask for reviews of edit wars as the EWN noticeboard has many of my peers manning the board, so I can always ask them for advice; and anyway, when I'm not around, they're the ones closing the reports. Like I said, that's about it. Have a nice day (and write back if I can help you in something else). Wifione 16:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I should have thought of that, myself. I will probably leave it. Thanks. zzz (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Procedural issues
That you blocked user:Mohammed al-Bukhari for breach of 3RR is procedurally correct. But this additional reason is not, because the Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant require that the user be notified of the sanctions with a link to the sanctions and that the notification has been logged. Basically user:Felino123 should not have gone to the edit-warring notification page with a 1RR violation until after user:Mohammed al-Bukhari had been formally informed of the sanctions and breached those sanctions. I have now formally notified user:Mohammed al-Bukhari of the sanctions, and logged the notification on the sanctions page.
As I see it you have five courses of action open to you.
- Change nothing
- Revert the edit to the users page that added the additional reason, and leave it as a block in place for a 3RR violation.
- Leave the comment on the talk page and add the block to the appropriate section on the sanctions page.
- Reduce the block to 24 hours (which seems to be the norm for first blocks for breach of 1RR under the sanctions) -- see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#2014
- Unblock and let it be a shot across the bows, as now that the formal warning is in place the user can then be blocked for a week if they repeat the 1RR.
-- PBS (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi @PBS:, good to see you here. It's the first time we're interacting. Thanks for the above note. Do guide me as I'm confused by what you write. I've not placed any sanctions on the editor. I've blocked him for a week for having broken 1RR after I warned him of 1RR. If you notice my warning on his talk page, not only does the warning talk about 1RR, it also informs the editor about the July 2013 motion and community consensus. As per our General Sanctions guideline for the article, editors who breach 1RR may be blocked even without a warning. I believe I gave him one chance more despite his earlier 1RR violations, which he disregarded. Do tell me if I'm reading this wrong. I would go ahead and log the block in the appropriate page. Thanks again for dropping by. Regards. Wifione 15:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- From the sanctions page under Remedies it states (my bold) "The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." MaB had not been so notified, until I plonked it on MaB's talk page after your block. If you considered your warning as an equivalent, then you should have logged in on the sanctions page as a notification. Hence my suggestion as an option to remove the additional reason for the block. Personally I would not have worded the general sanctions that way (but added some more flexibility for admin warnings). -- PBS (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I repeat @PBS:, I have not placed any sanctions on the editor, so I don't believe there was any need to inform the editor about sanctions. My information to the editor about the sanctions is basically the Page Notice that every editor sees while editing the said article. My block of 1RR does not require any pre-requisite warning to the editor. I quote from the General Sanctions page, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence". Like I said, I'll log the block as you advise, but again, there is no need to advise any editor about the issue of sanctions if the block is on 1RR. Do tell me if I'm reading all of this wrong. Thanks. Wifione 15:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Without warning is not without notification of the sanctions. The 1RR restriction is authorised under the sanctions, without such sanctions there is 3RR and usual edit warring, so blocking under 1RR is done under the auspices of the sanctions. If the block is not a sanction then what is a sanction under these sanctions? -- PBS (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then we need to get the wording clarified on the general sanctions page. Because if I can interpret the statement "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence" as alluding to a block without notification of the sanction, I suspect there may be some other administrator who might perceive it similarly too. This is irrespective of the fact that I procedurally informed the editor about the existence of sanctions before the block. Let me bounce this off ANI. Thanks for stopping by and providing this clarification. Wifione 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that AN is the place to take rather than ANI as general sanctions are initiated there. If you do please let me know. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- @PBS: Done. Best regards. Wifione 16:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that AN is the place to take rather than ANI as general sanctions are initiated there. If you do please let me know. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then we need to get the wording clarified on the general sanctions page. Because if I can interpret the statement "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence" as alluding to a block without notification of the sanction, I suspect there may be some other administrator who might perceive it similarly too. This is irrespective of the fact that I procedurally informed the editor about the existence of sanctions before the block. Let me bounce this off ANI. Thanks for stopping by and providing this clarification. Wifione 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Without warning is not without notification of the sanctions. The 1RR restriction is authorised under the sanctions, without such sanctions there is 3RR and usual edit warring, so blocking under 1RR is done under the auspices of the sanctions. If the block is not a sanction then what is a sanction under these sanctions? -- PBS (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I repeat @PBS:, I have not placed any sanctions on the editor, so I don't believe there was any need to inform the editor about sanctions. My information to the editor about the sanctions is basically the Page Notice that every editor sees while editing the said article. My block of 1RR does not require any pre-requisite warning to the editor. I quote from the General Sanctions page, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence". Like I said, I'll log the block as you advise, but again, there is no need to advise any editor about the issue of sanctions if the block is on 1RR. Do tell me if I'm reading all of this wrong. Thanks. Wifione 15:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- From the sanctions page under Remedies it states (my bold) "The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." MaB had not been so notified, until I plonked it on MaB's talk page after your block. If you considered your warning as an equivalent, then you should have logged in on the sanctions page as a notification. Hence my suggestion as an option to remove the additional reason for the block. Personally I would not have worded the general sanctions that way (but added some more flexibility for admin warnings). -- PBS (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Felino123
Hi, I know that you will have been pinged with regard to the above case but thought to drop a note here in case another channel of dialogue was helpful. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Greg. I would suggest that Mohammed sit out for a week and come back only when he appreciates the value of following our policies and discussing issues with other editors rather than warring. Thanks. Wifione 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Re: closed as successful
That's fine, but the first line of the page was already "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful " Andrevan@ 21:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh how did i miss that? I see that now Xeno has closed it again. Thanks for the note. Wifione 09:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thanks for deciding to lock the 2015 F1 season article to admins only... It's been a complete warfare of vandals for the past two months given the news of Vettel going to Ferrari. With McLaren still yet to decide their lineup locking to admins only is a great idea. Just one suggestion though - could you have it locked until the beginning of the season, when all the silly season stories should be wrapped up by then? Thanks for being a great admin for Misplaced Pages. Cheers, Aerospeed (Talk) 03:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks so much @Aerospeed:. I'll keep a watch. If the edit warring continues, I might do what you suggest. Wifione 09:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Plea to allow an article to develop
Hello Wifione, with the 2014 Formula One season having ended just an hour or so ago, the 2015 Formula One season article needs a few updates to reflect the final status of the 2014 season (current champion's name and the like). Would you mind unlocking it so that this work can take place please. Burgring (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Burgring. I can't unlock the page. The process to include uncontroversial edits onto the article are given in the talk page. Please follow the procedure listed there. Thanks. Wifione 16:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- You locked it, why can't you also unlock it? Burgring (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wrong usage of words. I shan't unprotect the page because it's just gone through heavy edit-warring. As I mentioned, in case you wish to make uncontroversial edits, please follow the procedure listed on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Wifione 17:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- The philosophy of Misplaced Pages, and part of the enjoyment of contributing to it, is that anyone can edit an article in real-time with instant results. To lock a page because of bad behaviour by a couple of editors goes against that philosophy. I can't be bothered to fill a form in to request that an edit be made to the article, so my edit will not happen now. It is those who misbehave, and especially those who repeatedly misbehave, who should have their enjoyment curtailed, not those who innocently wish to improve the encyclopaedia. Please reconsider your decision. Burgring (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I understand. My apologies for this experience of yours. I'll try and remove the protection if I see talk page discussions going reach a consensus. Thanks. Wifione 18:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate your considerate response. Burgring (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I understand. My apologies for this experience of yours. I'll try and remove the protection if I see talk page discussions going reach a consensus. Thanks. Wifione 18:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- The philosophy of Misplaced Pages, and part of the enjoyment of contributing to it, is that anyone can edit an article in real-time with instant results. To lock a page because of bad behaviour by a couple of editors goes against that philosophy. I can't be bothered to fill a form in to request that an edit be made to the article, so my edit will not happen now. It is those who misbehave, and especially those who repeatedly misbehave, who should have their enjoyment curtailed, not those who innocently wish to improve the encyclopaedia. Please reconsider your decision. Burgring (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wrong usage of words. I shan't unprotect the page because it's just gone through heavy edit-warring. As I mentioned, in case you wish to make uncontroversial edits, please follow the procedure listed on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Wifione 17:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- You locked it, why can't you also unlock it? Burgring (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for handling the situation with Radiopathy in a timely fashion. Would you be so kind as to delete my userpage so that garbage is removed from the history? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Rationalobserver:: Hi there. I don't think you should worry about deleting the pages in the history because of the tag the user added to your page. You've reverted the user's change and in my opinion, that's more than enough. If you think otherwise, do write back and I'll ping some admin who may help you delete the pages as I might not delete them myself. Do write back for any other assistance. Thanks. Wifione 18:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Radiopathy's block
Hey. I've extended Radiopathy's block to three months - originally, it was going to be a month for dropping this gem, but I reconsidered after they had the gall to re-instate the attack. If you feel it's too harsh, feel free to reduce as necessary - personally, looking at this editor's block log, I'm surprised they haven't already been indeffed. Best, m.o.p 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Master of Puppets:: Hey m.o.p good to see you here. You should indeff him, in my opinion, unless he recognises his mistake. I had indeffed him. You reduced his block with your action :) Do reconsider. Thanks. Wifione 18:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, dear! Sorry, I seem to have blocked a few seconds after you did. My apologies. Re-indeffed. m.o.p 18:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Best wishes. Wifione 18:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, dear! Sorry, I seem to have blocked a few seconds after you did. My apologies. Re-indeffed. m.o.p 18:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Sanctions re Alhanuty and Paolowalter
Hi, Wifione, we were both examining the same report at the same time, but you beat me to it. :-) I endorse sanctioning both editors. The only thing I would have done differently - and it's something you might consider if this happens again - is to topic-ban Paolowalter because blocks don't seem to work. No big deal. He's just lucky that you're faster than I am. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23, whatever you say is perfect always. If you want to extend the block to a topic ban, please do so whenever you want. Else, if you wish me to do it this time itself, I can do the same. Your call. Wifione 09:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Wifione, I prefer to leave it be. I don't like increasing the sanction on a user if nothing new has happened, even if they deserved it in the first instance. I just wanted to bring it to your attention in case there's a next time. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Best always. Wifione 14:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Wifione, I prefer to leave it be. I don't like increasing the sanction on a user if nothing new has happened, even if they deserved it in the first instance. I just wanted to bring it to your attention in case there's a next time. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
User talk:Lukejordan02
Wifione, I'm not trying to pressure you, but I'd just like to know whether you intend to comment on the latest violation by Luke of his editing restrictions. A "no" answer is fine. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I will comment later in the day once I've woken up properly :) Thanks for the note Bbb23, as always. Wifione 09:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking action, Wifione. I'm glad one of us is decisive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's really unfortunate that it's come to this. I still think Luke has potential and I think he truly can become a "good" editor (if you will) - we just have to work through the hiccups. Hopefully this block is a push in the right direction and does some good. I will certainly be opposed to any appeals he may have (which I think we're all expecting). Dusti 15:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Let's hope he learns. Wifione 05:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's really unfortunate that it's come to this. I still think Luke has potential and I think he truly can become a "good" editor (if you will) - we just have to work through the hiccups. Hopefully this block is a push in the right direction and does some good. I will certainly be opposed to any appeals he may have (which I think we're all expecting). Dusti 15:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking action, Wifione. I'm glad one of us is decisive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 November 2014
- Featured content: Orbital Science: Now you're thinking with explosions
- WikiProject report: Back with the military historians
- Traffic report: Big in Japan
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Admin?
Eh, I've given it some thought, but I don't really think it's something I'd like to do. I can't help but feel that it would take up a lot of my editing time, and I much prefer being a gnome, I think.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, though. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa. 09:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: No issues. If you change your mind, do tell. Thanks. Wifione 09:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa. 09:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 December 2014
- In the media: Embroidery and cheese
- Featured content: ABCD: Any Body Can Dance!
- Traffic report: Turkey and a movie
- WikiProject report: Today on the island
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| Thank you very much for your help with Luke. While things don't seem to have turned out the way that we wanted them to - we've each grown a little closer and will continue to do our best for other editors who we might be able to "save". Dusti 16:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
- :) Surely. Appreciated. Thanks Dusti. Good to see you around. Wifione 16:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada
Hello Wifione,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
GOCE coordinator elections
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
  Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
Interpretation of 3RR policy
Hi Wifione, Thank you for your interest. But I am puzzled by your post. If counting the (good faith) origin of the edit warring - in the present case, changing the leadind picture - is not the normal practise, then Bbb23 is wrong and I am right: I did only two "reverts". If the (good faith) origin of the edit warring counts normally as part of the edit warring, then Bbb23 is right and I am wrong: I did three. The only reason why I went on discussing the subject there is because I consider Bbb23's interpretation (the second one) as unfair, in the light of the letter of WP:3RR and considering what happened. Can you please clarify? Best regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Alvesgaspar, I think you are getting completely confused. Bbb23 wasn't warning you for contravening 3RR. He was warning you for edit warring. Bbb23 used the 3RR policy page to make you understand what is a revert. But his warning to you was for edit warring, not 3RR. Coming to the definition of an edit warring revert, do realise that there are pages on Misplaced Pages where editors work collaboratively and revert each other multiple times; and it is all allowed and done in good faith because of the way the respective editors might be collaborating. But the moment an editor reports reverting to the EW noticeboard, then unless your first edit was a pure addition of new material, every edit that you have attempted in continuation, which removes any other editor's material, will qualify as a revert. In other words, your first edit was a revert purely due to two reasons: one, the report reached the noticeboard, and two, you removed some other editor's material and placed your own. Any administrator assuming your first edit is a revert, would be right. If you require any further clarification, do ask. Wifione 14:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Adminship
If you want to nominate me for adminship, as you suggested on my talk page, and you think there's a significant chance it will succeed, you have my permission to do so. Everymorning talk 03:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Everymorning, good to hear from you. Do send me an email and we'll take it from there. Best regards. Wifione 04:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you please help?
Radiopathy keeps pinging me in comments where he uses the word "cunt", here he used it three times, including: "So, yes, 'cunt' refers to Rationalobserver". I feel like he is doing this to antagonize me, so I asked him to stop, but he reverted me, saying that I wasn't pinged when, clearly I was. Will you please ask him to stop? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Categories: