User talk:Darkwind/Archive 8

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Question about a block

Hi, Darkwind. When you have blocked Gwsk55970 for 31 hours, I was considering how long a block to place myself. 31 hours is in line with the amount of vandalism there has been, but the recent edits seem so much out of character that it suggests to me a likely compromised account, which makes me wonder whether we should block indefinitely. Any thoughts? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd considered that briefly, but I don't know that I can necessarily tell the difference between a compromised account and someone who's just come temporarily unhinged. I wouldn't object if you think an indef block is more appropriate -- I was mostly concerned with stopping the disruption, since he was still editing at the time. —Darkwind (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I think I was actually verging towards a short block too, but I thought there was enough of a case for a longer one to at least raise the question. Probably best to leave it as it is, and keep an eye on the account for a while. An indef is available if necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If you don't mind sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, I'd like to note that an indef block is not nessecarily a longer block, and to think of it that way is somewhat detrimental to what I conser a valid block. Using the indefinite block more often is a bit of a hobby horse of me, but consider the following. Say the account is compromised. Then the block should remain idefinite. But what if it isn't, and is, indeed, a case of temporary unhinge. Shouldn't an unblock request with a note that it was indeed temporary insanity be enough for an unblock? If we demand they 'serve' the rest of the block, that clearly means the block is punitive, something we (in name/policy) don't do. If we don't, and honor an unblock request, we're no worse off than in the indefinite case. I do think that shorter blocks like this one reinforce the idea that you are allowed to be unhinged from time to time, as long as you swallow the 'punishment' of the block after, and that to me seems the wrong road to go down. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Carreidas 160 Suggestion

Greetings Darkwind. Please help: Your deletion of the redirect Carreidas 160 ‎was given the reason "G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page", however that redirect did indeed redirect to an existing page: To the "Carreidas 160" section of the article Flight 714. Does this clear up any misunderstanding and can the redirect be restored? I'm not sure how the redirect's purpose was not already obvious. Thanks for your help. Prhartcom (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The redirect actually pointed to Flight 714 (TinTin)#Carreidas 160 at the time of deletion, which you can see is a red link. Looking at the history of Flight 714, I see that the page was briefly moved; it seems that a bot changed the destination of the redirect during that move, and failed to restore it afterward. Part of this was caused by the fact that the admin who reverted the move didn't leave a redirect (if he/she had, the bot would have fixed this one again). Not sure why the person tagging the redirect for deletion didn't just fix it, but they may not have been aware of the page move either. Please feel free to create a new redirect to the necessary page/section -- which will actually be easier than me restoring the old one and then editing it anyway. —Darkwind (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure, whatever is easiest. I didn't want to re-create the redirect without checking with you first. I was also wondering what the history of the redirect was; I assumed I had created it. Perhaps someone changed it (there is no such character spelled "TinTin"). I have now re-created the redirect. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I am caught up now. User Petebutt did a dumb thing and moved Flight 714 as you said, and must have also changed my redirect. User Fram, whom I respect very much, reversed that but did not reverse the changed redirect. Someone probably then flagged it and you later deleted it; no one fixed it. Until me, of course (sigh). Prhartcom (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It was actually a bot, in regard to the initial change. Since a new redirect is created from the old title to the new title when a page is moved, any existing redirects pointing to the old title become "double redirects", and a bot quickly comes along to fix that -- by changing the existing redirects to point to the new title. This had already been done by the time Fram reverted the move. When Fram moved the page back, s/he chose not to leave a redirect from the incorrect new title back to the old one (which is an option you have when moving pages as an admin), so the bot was unaware this redirect should have been put back. Instead, it just became a red link. Then, yes, someone noticed and tagged it G8, and I processed it because it was a red link. Neither myself nor the tagger looked any closer until you brought the mixup to my attention. —Darkwind (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation; it all makes sense now. BTW, it's always a pleasure to work with a good admin like yourself. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
(And yes, the person tagging the redirect for deletion should have just fixed it.) Prhartcom (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think keeping a redirect with an incorrectly spelled disambiguation made any sense, but I should have of course checked the incoming links to that page. Thanks for catching and fixing this. Fram (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed Fram, that editor was well-meaning but did not know the subject of Tintin, nor the agreement amongst editors of the comics articles to use the format "Article title (comics)" if such title disambiguation is necessary. Cheers to all. Prhartcom (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Alex Bellini

Hello, hi.

I would like to recreate the page Alex Bellini, making sure to do it right this time. How can I move past the fact that it was erased? Gb7070 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a deletion discussion for that article, which outlines the concerns the Wikipedia community had with the article. Any new version of the article must address those concerns or it is subject to immediate deletion again.
My first suggestion is to carefully read that deletion discussion, and consider whether Mr. Bellini is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. We have guidelines for inclusion that a person must meet before we consider them a subject "worthy" of inclusion in the encyclopedia, and in your article you must provide citations to reliable, independent sources to prove that Mr. Bellini meets those guidelines.
If you do think that Mr. Bellini qualifies for a Wikipedia article under our guidelines, then my second suggestion is to use the "articles for creation" process, where an experienced editor will review your draft article before it is made "live", to avoid unnecessary deletion. —Darkwind (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Huggle 3 beta is out - and we need more feedback!

Hey Darkwind, how are you? I am Petrb, one of huggle developers, and you are currently subscribed as a beta tester of huggle on meta (meta:Huggle/Members. You may not have noticed, but this week I released first beta precompiled installers for ubuntu and microsoft windows! Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta has all the links you need. So if you can, please download it, test it and report all bugs that is really what we need now. Don't forgot that as it's just a beta it's unstable and there are some known issues. Be carefull! Thank you for helping us with huggle Petrb (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkwind. You have new messages at K6ka's talk page.
Message added 21:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

K6ka (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

BIELBY EDIT

DARKWIND 


   i did add refereneces and will add more.

What is published now is hpothetical thoery and is no logical or accurate as far as the orinigns and the the surname history

 my theory is more plausable and hsitorically accurate.

I will add more references. 

Plesae dont delete it.  It is the most accurate theory, i have more references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.145.39 (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

Hi Darkwind, I would be grateful if you would reblock the anonymous user permanently for this as they are clearly not going to stop. Richerman (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks are almost never appropriate for an IP address, and are definitely not considered until the address has exhibited a long-term repeated pattern of abuse. 8 edits are nowhere near enough to justify a long-term block. —Darkwind (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, rules is rules I suppose - I must have been thinking of persistent vandalism accounts rather than IP's. Thanks anyway. Richerman (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

LOUISPHILIPPECHARLES

right I cannot reply to your email so thought I would reply on your talk page :) all I wanted to say was the following :

Begrudgingly I will admit I was hard work I am as a person and on wikipedia I was the same but I do NOT appreciate being exiled because a few editors disliked me. namely fact straight and favonian I made a lot of articles ranging from Italian, French and German nobility and royals swell as buildings and ocean liners uploaded many pictures about 90% of which I made myself [coats of arms of the said royalty and nobility] but no one has bothered to acknowledge that have they? no just criticised how I edit simply because they do not like it. many of the disputes revolved around Bourbon's and the incorrect addition of Conti and other titles so I uploaded signatures proving my point but it just being ignored then I was wrongly accused of stealing work DESPITE them being classed as public property due to their age. and I made sure I put that. so this is all wrong, unfair and just outright stupid. the fact that I have had to practically beg to even be allowed to discuss returning is ridiculous as I said I did a lot of work. ALOT. and am proud of my contributions. also -now comes the sob story [haha] about 18 months ago I had a head injury swell as 5 strokes, lost the ability to walk and talk - [I can do both now though.] - and thus do not work due to now being registered disabled and blind so therefore I have a lot of free time on my hands and thought how else better than to invest my time in wikipedia relating to my love and fascination with nobility etc. I am also dyslexic and used to use wikipedia to train myself to read and re read things and it did help. but want to further improve. besides I enjoyed editing creating and correcting articles and I do miss it greatly - always have hence having the odd sock puppet - namely HammyDoo, NitWittyWoo and Goshthisisstupid<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goshthisisstupid>, and LittleFrog <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LittleFrog> but I have seen the category named LPC sock puppets and about 90% of THEM ARE NOT ME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.37.43 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

hello? :(. I assume you still have my email? tom.june13@googlemail.com :)

It is thoroughly inappropriate for you to be editing anonymously when your account is blocked; this is considered another form of sockpuppetry and is almost certain to reduce your chances of ever being unblocked. —Darkwind (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

well that is ridiculous ....so if i was to set up an account just to reply to you then that is not sockpuppet rubbish? this is absurd i have given you my email and you haven't really helped much as of recently :/ anyway I am not hiding who I am when I've write on your page I have said it is me so that is just stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.136.63 (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is DON'T EDIT MY TALK PAGE AT ALL, or any other Wikipedia page while you are blocked -- not with an IP, not with an account, not with a fox, not in a box, not in a house, not with a mouse, not in the rain, and not on the train. ANY form of editing Wikipedia while your account is blocked is considered abusive sockpuppetry, because the point of the block is to prevent you from editing. Getting around that, by any means, is by definition abuse. —Darkwind (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Darkwind:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1900 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For stopping a spammer on colon cleansing. LOL. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

1RR by Sopher99

Sopher99 has filed an unblock request. On review his logic is sound - consecutive reverts have never counted towards 3RR, nor do they count to 1RR. It's just as easy to have combined all of the reverts into one edit. As noted on the policy page, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I have zero doubts there's problematic editing at that page, and I applaud your efforts to clean house, but you may want to review/revise your block reason or unblock. No comment on the discretionary sanction. Kuru (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the unblock req. I'll go have a look in a minute. —Darkwind (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GOCE drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the December blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Article Deletion

Hi Darkwind, On 16 November 2013 (UTC) an article "Maxim Slipchenko" was speedily deleted (G4) and salted. We are apologizing for numerous recreation of an article, We weren't fully aware of Wikipedia rules. I was wondering if there is anything We can do to bring this article back for future improvement? Also I wanted to point out that more reference pages has been found since the deletion. Looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Artur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archibanus (talk • contribs) 09:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Artur. The primary concern in both deletion discussions about the article is that Mr. Slipchenko does not meet our "notability" criteria -- that is, we are having trouble determining why he should be included in the encyclopedia and not the hundreds of thousands of other amateur kickboxers in the world. The specific criteria for kickboxing notability are:
A kickboxing athlete is presumed notable if they've:
  1. fought for a world title of a major organization (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO, etc.),
  2. been ranked in the world top 10 by an independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source,
  3. been a Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion, or
  4. met the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE, which are:
  1. Subject of an independent article/documentary: Sole or majority subject in the media, either a news article or a TV program. Be careful with 'niche' publications; check they are not related to the school teaching it.
  2. Founder of notable style (see section intro)
  3. Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization; - more than a few dozen competitors,
  4. Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)
  5. Author of significant book(s) on their style; - e.g. a book that is recommended study for the art (e.g. by an organisation they do not lead) or by someone who is an artist from a different style and/or school, but beware vanity press.
Kickboxers that have an amateur background exclusively are not considered notable unless the person has been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications.
If Mr. Slipchenko meets one or more of these criteria, and you can prove this with verifiable, third-party sources (that is, sources that are not his website or otherwise affiliated with him), I would be happy to provide a copy of the last version of the article for drafting a new version, which you can then have reviewed by other editors before publishing -- so it doesn't get deleted immediately again. —Darkwind (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice re: Alexian Lien beating

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent BLP violation: accusation of attempted murder. Thank you.

Speedy deletion declined: Charles Hulme

Hello Darkwind. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Charles Hulme, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being a professor indicates importance/significance, use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I was unaware there was a consensus to give all people claiming the title of professor an automatic pass through A7. The for-profit school I attended had literally two dozen or more professors just at that one branch, and I doubt any of them would pass WP:PROF. Given that various sources say there are between 7,500 and 10,000 universities and colleges in the world, and each one (conservatively) has 100 professors, plus all of the retired and former ones in the world, you'd be looking at 1-2 million people. I really don't see how a professor is automatically significant. —Darkwind (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been told by other administrators that professors don't qualify for A7. I'm sorry. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Feathercoin

Hi, Darkwind. To my edit war report, you responded "You are both edit warring and (in my opinion) POV-pushing. Neither version of the article is neutral". I admit that I was edit warring until I stopped and turned to the admin board. But I was trying to avoid POV speech. Could you please enlighten me about the specific phrase where I committed POV pushing, so that I can avoid it in the future? Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kokot.kokotisko: Thanks for taking the time to ask. The problem is not so much specific wording as it is behavior -- you appear committed to keeping out any and all criticism of Feathercoin out of the article. Admittedly, what you were reverting had no sources, but you could have tagged with {{cn}} and posted on the talk page. Not having done so looks at least superficially like POV-pushing to the uninvolved outsider. Neutrality involves admitting there are other views if they exist (and can be verified), even if they are not the majority viewpoint, but you went straight to complete reversion. —Darkwind (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the {{cn}} suggestion. I admit I'm a Feathercoin fan, and the outdated criticisms pissed me off. As for the minority/majority question, litecoiners are the majority, and they are acting out against Feathercoin also in the real world. Anyway, I'll try to be slower with my edits, even when the page protection expires. 140.109.226.67 (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Block notices

In Which Communication Fails to Happen, and Conspiracy Theories are Mentioned

I just finished putting a block notice on your behalf on User:Niteshift36's talk page. But then I saw that you didn't put a block notice on User:HCPUNXKID's talk page, either. I figured I should come to you at this point to find out what your thinking was or if it was just a couple of mistakes.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Just an error on my part, certainly there is no good reason not to inform them of the reason for the block, and HCPUNXKID needs a sanction notice anyway. I'll go edit his page now. Thanks for letting me know. —Darkwind (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: I agree that I made a mistake, but the only thing the block notice would have done is to tell you that you were blocked before you tried to edit. You already know how to appeal a block, you've done so before (according to your block log). Besides, the block error shown when you edit gives you links to WP:APPEAL and WP:GAB, so if you didn't already know how, you would have found out how to appeal the moment you tried to edit.
You didn't appeal the block anyway, so I'm not sure why you're complaining, unless it's just to give me a hard time. The only thing you may have lost is the amount of time that passed before you realized you were blocked -- and I have no idea how long that may have been, but since you didn't appeal anyway, it doesn't matter a whit. —Darkwind (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Way to assume bad faith right off the bat. I went to edit another article and it said I was blocked at the top of the page. There was no template on my page that gave me a way to appeal. If you think I memorized what commands I needed to use to make the appeal show up, you're mistaken. So I did it before a couple of years ago, now I never need the instructions again? At that point, why would I keep coming back to the page over and over, hoping that you'd finally done what you were supposed to do (and never did do for that matter)? It said blocked for 48 hours, your failure to do what you were supposed to do left me no way to appeal, so I simply stayed off the site for 48 hours. It does matter because I would have appealed and directly addressed the incorrect assumptions you made. No, it doesn't matter any longer since you can't give me the time back. Now, when I make a simple statement, you give me some bad faith about giving you a hard time. Thanks so much for that. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Now I'm even more confused. As I already mentioned, the error message you're referring to, where it says you're blocked at the top of the page, has big ol' links to WP:APPEAL and WP:GAB, both of which give you the syntax (or at least the name of the template) to use to post an unblock request, plus a HUGE link to Help:I have been blocked. (You can see the blank error message here: Mediawiki:Blockedtext.) Beyond that, there's {{help me}} and {{admin help}} that you might have been familiar with, not to mention the help menu, search box, and the IRC channels.

The community tries to make block appeals as idiot-proof as possible (especially because of things like school blocks and rangeblocks where people may not even know what a talk page is), and you are not an idiot, so I'm at a loss as to how you couldn't have figured it out. Even IP users affected by a rangeblock (who don't have notices on their talk page) find their way to WP:UTRS. Furthermore, Bbb23 (t c) rectified the error approx. 10 hours later (out of a 48 hour block) leaving you 38 hours to appeal, which you did not take advantage of. That doesn't leave me much to work with when trying to ascertain your motives.

If you really think that you were wronged by either the block itself or my failure to post a block notice, please feel free to open a thread at the administrators' noticeboard. —Darkwind (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • That big template isn't what I saw. All I saw was a small pink box across part of the top. Sorry if you think you know what I saw, but your assumption is wrong. I didn't go hunting for a way to appeal because it was supposed to be on my talk page. I looked where it was supposed to be. Did I miss it on some other page? Maybe. Should I have needed to look? No, because it should have been on my page. Again, you miss the point that there is no reason for me to have to keep checking back. Once there was a block and no template there telling me how to appeal, I had no reason to check back for 48 hours. Do you really think I should keep checking back over and over? That's absurd. ANI will be a waste of time. They can't give me the time back and you certainly won't be disciplined. Instead of simply saying "oops, my bad. Sorry dude", you say you made a mistake, then you keep trying to tell me how it's "really" my fault for not figuring out what you failed to provide and then justify your assumption of bad faith. Clearly you have no intention of owning your fault without trying to "share the blame". Niteshift36 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Niteshift36, I imagine you're more angry over the block than the lack of a block notice because there's no reason why you couldn't have figured out your appeal options on your own. You have been on Wikipedia since 2007 and have over 25,000 edits. Even if the notice you saw wasn't the one at MediaWiki:Blockedtext (I have no idea as I've not been blocked, but you could always report that problem if you think the notice has changed), you're not some newbie and could have poked around a bit rather than just giving up. And your accusations against Darkwind are misplaced. He made a mistake. He admitted he made a mistake (more than once), and yet you say he didn't just because he went on to make reasonable comments about how you could have appealed even without a block notice. We all make mistakes (I know I do). Let it go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't have to "figure it out". It was supposed to be there. Period. We all know this. And now you, like Darkwind are hearing what you want instead of what is being said. I didn't say he didn't admit the blatantly obvious fact that he made a mistake. What I did point out is that he spent a lot of time telling me how I could have figured it out, linking me to notices that never showed up for me, a lot of "coulda, shoulda" and generally trying to shift it from what could have been a simple one liner apology to all this "you should have figured out how to work around my mistake". Then, to top it off, it goes straight to a bad faith assumption on his part. Now you're doing the same for him. Like I said, a simple "oops, my bad. Sorry dude" would have ended this discussion long ago. Instead, what happened was a bunch of justification, blame shifting, snarkiness and posturing. Kind of sad that neither of you are capable of understanding that. "Owning the fault" isn't just saying "I agree, I was in error" like some legalistic robot. In any case, take the last word because I've wasted more time than this deserves. My only hope is that the next time, one of you will realize just saying "sorry man, my bad" will probably accomplish much more than 'I was in error, but you are really to blame.....'Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The last time Niteshift was blocked, the blocking administrator screwed it up also[1]. He couldn't read a block log aka 5 equals 8 or 9. Once an editor gets on the administrator shit list around here, these 'innocent errors' seem to happen alot....William 17:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I draw the line at conspiracy theories. This discussion can be over now. —Darkwind (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

An AfD which you closed "Keep" has been relisted by same editor 2 months 16 days later

Hello, You closed an AfD for List of mobile phones with WVGA display and List of mobile phones with HD display as "Keep" at 11:18 pm, 26 September 2013. These lists have been re-nominated today by the same editor who originally nominated them. The nomination is a bit different in that it also includes List of mobile phones with FWVGA display which is similar to, and serves a similar purpose as, the WVGA article. I know that articles can be re-nominated for the AfD process. On the other hand, editors that disagree with a "Keep" are supposed to "wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections". The Undeletion section of WP:DELETE states that there is a "suggested waiting period between requests" for deletion, but I have not been able to find what that suggested waiting time is.

Frankly, 2.5 months feels quite a bit too short to me. How often are we going to keep going through this? Does he/she get to keep nominating these lists over and over until he happens to get a "delete" one time? Or waits for that one time (like near the holidays) when editors who are familiar with the lists are not around to respond?

Part of my problem is that while he/she is supposed to "wait to see if the article is improved to overcome his/her objections". His/Her objections were "list with too broad of an inclusion criteria, and its outdated". The reality is that what he/she is objecting to are inherent properties of the lists. The lists are about items that fulfill specific, discriminate criteria. Some of the items on the lists are older (from a technology point of view, i.e. a couple/few years). On the other hand, some of the items on each list were released within the last year (many on the HD list). As a result, both of his primary objections are inherent qualities of the lists which will not change if he waits to see if they do change. Thus, it is not possible for the lists to overcome his/her personal objections. Therefore, there is nothing other than deletion that would satisfy him/her which means we can expect this AfD to resurface again and again. What is the amount of time we get as a reprieve between each nomination?

If he had waited a year, I would not feel quite as much frustration. In part, my questions are born out of frustration, but in part not. It talks a considerable amount of time for me to compose reasonable arguments for, well, almost anything. I am just not a person that dashes off a quick 5 or 10 word response (e.g. the non-brevity of this note). The time, hours, I spend responding to him/her is time I would prefer to spend doing things that are more productive, both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

If you are not an appropriate person to ask these questions of, I would appreciate knowing whom I should ask. If there is no one, then I guess that I will just again respond to this re-nomination. Thanks. Makyen (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to address your questions, but to be up-front, there's nothing I can do about the nomination itself - there is no policy preventing a user from making this kind of renomination, other than possibly the disruptive editing guideline, which would only apply if this becomes a recurring pattern. You're probably going to have to respond to the AfD anyway. I've got a bit more advice to dispense, but you've caught me right at the end of my day -- I'll expand on this tomorrow. —Darkwind (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your rapid response. I look forward to you expanding on your response and any advice you can provide. I will plan on talking the time to respond to the AfD. I hope that you have a good evening/night.Makyen (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

sources and references

Please unlock Boom Pictures page - so sources and references can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.210.230 (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gun control

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gun control. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Hi again, We gathered more information from third-party sources and we do have more links. Where and how can I post them?Archibanus (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Archibanus: I've placed a copy of the most recent version of the article in your "user space" for you to draft an improved version. When you think the article is ready to be re-published, I suggest you request a review by our Articles for Creation volunteer team -- you can do so by adding the code "{{subst:submit}}" to the very top of the page (when you are done) and save the page. —Darkwind (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99!!!

Sopher99 violated the ban on the editing of all pages related to the Syrian ciwil war.

here's the proof: her and her37.52.27.220 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic ban violation. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Polar Night Edit.

I should of think before adding it into the article and find a source but of course this documentary isn't that famous so it should be removed, and yes I should take more grammar lessons. SuperHypercane (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

GOCE December 2013 Blitz wrap-up and January Drive invitation

December Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors

The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page!

The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there!

Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Brooks Family Surname Project

There used to be a very useful - for thousands of researchers in one of the world largest family surname projects - on Wikipedia. Apparently you deleted this in April 2013. Why? For what reason/what constructive purpose? With the authority of whom?DGHawkes (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Main

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Main. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Deleting Radionomy's Wikipedia page

Dear Darkwind,

I work for Radionomy (www.radionomy.com) and we noticed you did delete our company Facebook page.

We don't quite understand what was wrong with it and will be happy to make any change or edit that needs to be made in order to be able to publish the page back.

Kind regards

Sylvie de Lannois for Radionomy

sylvie@radionomy.com

January 6th, 2014 Sylvieradionomy (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

King World Productions

Hello, may you please protect the page at King World Productions? There seems to be a repeat vandal who keeps making unnecessary changes on the page. 99.46.224.17 (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Funkadactyls listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Funkadactyls. Since you had some involvement with the The Funkadactyls redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —rybec 07:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

List of DHX Media programs

It recently has one revert; extend protection time? --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Urge to Unblocked me

The User:Rangbaaz(2013 film) is not my article. There were some wrong in-formations which were being provided on this article repeatedly so i requested to the higher members of the Wikipedia to remove those in-formations and temporarily lock the article for vandalism.
But why i am blocked? Unblock me please. Thanks :) MrDon100crore (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Its OK now my blocked period is over. Thanks for that.
But i should not be blocked like this again without any correct reason. The article/account User:Rangbaaz(2013 film) is not mine and i don't operate it too.
THANKS:)
MrDon100crore (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:24.153.175.233

Hi there. Just noticed this edit from December. It has produced a redlink. Green Giant (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Darkwind. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— JamesR (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be working how I have it setup :) — JamesR (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

GOCE February blitz wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up

Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Please comment on Template talk:Citation needed

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Citation needed. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

March GOCE copyedit drive

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors

The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there!

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I'm contacting you because you are the last admin that got involved in Talk:Anjem Choudary. Particularly I don't know what to do. I came to this page thru RFC. There's no edit war going on but it's becoming a bit rediculous at this point. Bit of forum shopping. I don't actually know where I should report this or if someone should get involved yet. If not it's close. If you can point in the right direction it would be apreciated.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello Darkwind! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Darkwind. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Atsme (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve Banking

Hello Darkwind. Last November you page protected this article and blocked an editor who was edit-warring there. We are in the midst of another bout of the same behavior there. I wonder whether you could have a look at the article and talk histories and see whether you feel protection is again warranted? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In my defence, see here. I guess it is a rare event that the evidence for one theory over another mounts so high that a wiki page needs to be re-written... I think this issue needs a particularly senior editor to act as a referee. Reissgo (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

GOCE March drive wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the April blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here.

Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles.

Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now!

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We need your help testing latest huggle

Hello,

I am sending you this message because you listed yourself on meta:Huggle/Members as a beta tester. We desperately need attention of testers, because since we resolved all release blockers, we are ready to release first official version of huggle 3! Before that happens, it would be nice if you could test it so that we can make sure there are no issues with it. You can download it packaged for your operating system (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta) or you can of course build it yourself, see https://github.com/huggle/huggle3-qt-lx for that. Don't forget to use always latest version, there is no auto-update message for beta versions!

Should you find any issue, please report it to wikimedia bugzilla, that is a central place for huggle bugs, where we look at them. That is i mportant, if you find a bug and won't report it, we can't fix it. Thank you for your work on this, if you have any questions, please send me a message on my talk page, I won't be looking for responses here. Thanks, Petrb (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

April blitz wrap-up and May copyediting drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors April 2014 Blitz wrap-up

Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 28 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the May drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Help

Hi Darkwind -- I am interested in revising and resubmitting the Arnott Inc. draft you reviewed and rejected back in October 2013 ...

Do you do such work as a freelancer or is all your Wiki work as a volunteer? Arnott has recently opened a European Union sales and distribution facility, and has significant PR external to its site as a result ... hoping this might help the Wiki effort?

My best contact would be email at gf7446@comcast.net

Verogreg Verogreg (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Name Change

Hi Darkwind,

I just changed a name on Sara Taylor's Wiki page. Since the creation of this page, she has married and changed her name to Sara Fagen. I am happy to provide you with examples of her new name but I would like to change her name to Sara Taylor Fagen.

Bunny74 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunny74 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't provide the "examples" to me, you cite a source in the article where you're making the change. See Referencing for beginners to learn how. —Darkwind (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Whittier Street Health Center

Hey, just wanted to let you know that although you deleted This one, This one still exists. ®amos 21:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Tq

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Tq. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick question

Shouldn't this technically be a block for vandalism? If edit warring were the problem you'd need to block me as well. Evan (talk|contribs) 02:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is not considered edit warring. Honestly, the specific block reason doesn't matter all that much. The anonymous user was inserting material that could be considered vandalism, but also broke 3RR in doing so. —Darkwind (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I thought. I just wondered if it also made a difference to block duration. It's been a while since I was active here, but I always remember 36 hours being the standard for vandals. Anyway, it's taken care of, so thank you! Evan (talk|contribs) 02:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Request for input

Hi Darkwind, I was wondering if you could step in and look at a matter on the Admin's Board regarding an edit warring issue. A problematic user has been reported there for persistent edit warring, and he has already been blocked more than half a dozen times for this in the past (including once by yourself only 6 months ago [2]) but it also seems he has been reported many other times in the past but the report has been allowed to go stale because an admin hasn't dealt with it in time. The more this happens obviously means the problem editor will continue edit warring. The link to the current report is at: [3] Thanks. 88.104.26.81 (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Laratadelaciudad

Andrewbf's another account Special:Contributions/Laratadelaciudad is doing genre warring and attacking. 183.171.178.92 (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandal

Thanks for your lightening-fast help with user "Dreck123". They seemed to be making the same edits with "Paddythedaddy0". Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Template:Political corruption sidebar

I wonder if you should lower it to semi-protection (while leave it as move-protected). Do I must register as template editor? --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

My original interpretation of the protection policy led me to conclude that the only appropriate protection level was TP. After re-reading the policy, I do see where semi-protection is used instead for some less critical/less complex templates. I'll change it to semi-protection. —Darkwind (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi i am Akshay Kumar fan

plz removie page protection On Singh Is Bling's Protection before editing the page of Akshay Kumar i will ask do u know akshay kumar first — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstar Pijush (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian Turanism article

User Magashito try to spread pseudo-history and fringe theories (which is not supported by academic scholars)in the article which closely related to fascist ideology. That's why I said that he must edit the metapedia instead of wikipedia. He deleted sources references and sentences. He ignored all wiki rules and started an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diverser (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. When someone disagrees with a change you made, and they undo it, you need to discuss the situation on the talk page of the article and come to a consensus, or seek dispute resolution assistance if necessary. Don't just re-do your changes, that's the very definition of edit warring. It doesn't matter who is "right", edit warring is still strictly forbidden. —Darkwind (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

kitty play

all of the information about Kitty Play Records is in fact truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.173.242 (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Then cite a source. —Darkwind (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

IP hopper

Hey Darkwind, thanks for blocking IP address 187.109.224.33, however they have now hopped over to 187.109.224.34 where they have continued the vandalism and disruption on the same articles such as DJ Khaled discography. STATic message me! 18:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

187.109.224.32/30 blocked for 72 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it. STATic message me! 00:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring advice

Darkwind, thank you so much for helping with the Teen Mania Ministries protection. We would like to go in and make corrections to some things that are factually incorrect about the company and ad some additional positive articles which we can provide legitimate citation for, but fear that when we do, the user that has been posting the negative information will simply go in and undo them, again, as has been the case over the past few weeks. What is your advice for helping to limit this edit warring? Thanks for any insight Reachingtheworldforhim (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

First, if you represent or work for the Teen Mania organization, please carefully read our conflict of interest advice. As a community, we discourage people from editing articles about organizations they are affiliated with, because it is nearly impossible for them to do so in a truly neutral way.
Second, regardless of whether you're in a conflict of interest, there is indeed a dispute as to the appropriate content for the article, evidenced by the edit warring that took place. The best way to resolve this kind of disagreement is to start a discussion on the talk page of the article -- the article protection is at least partially intended to force interested editors into discussing the issue rather than making controversial changes to the article directly. Further suggestions can be found at this page/section. —Darkwind (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A few updates to Fully Protected Teen Mania Ministries Page

If possible we would like to request the following edits be made to the teen mania ministries page- Under staff, there are only 8 board members this page currently lists 9 and we need to remove the chairman, he is no longer active.We would also like to request that the following paragraph be removed from the front page- this is not cited and appears to be an opinion. "The ministry has faced criticism for its use of overtly militaristic symbolism, as well as techniques that have been compared as similar to military training. It has also been criticized by some former interns and employees for what they characterize as spiritual abuse and financial mismanagement." Thank you - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reachingtheworldforhim (talk • contribs) 21:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please request edits on the article's talk page using the {{edit protected}} template. Click for instructions. —Darkwind (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

For future reference

...if you ever see abuse from an IPv6 range again where the first four digit groups are in common, just rangeblock the /64 directly, even if the abuse is limited to a subset of the /64, since IPv6 autoconfiguration means that clients can take any address in the range.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Nice to meet you!

Thanks for your message!
I would express my appreciation for the useful information about measurements you gave me some time ago. Now I've got to know how to convert metres into foot! Kr012 (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi