Hello, Etamni, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Hi. In the UK, towns are "granted" city status - an area of just a few hundred people can be granted city status if it's important enough yet an area of a few hundred thousand can still be merely a town if it hasn't been granted city status. Despite it's large population, Wolverhampton only officially became a city in 2000.
Geach, thank you for your quick reply. I'm thinking the usage in the article should be changed to "community" as others are likely to see the change, look up the population numbers, and also think that it was too big to be called a town and attempt to change it back to "city" again. Additionally, something probably belongs in the article's talk page to explain this change. Etamni | ✉ 23:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit to HAWK beacon does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Kendall-K1, thank you for your concern. I hope you are paying attention to page notices, such as the one that appeared when you added this section to my talk page. In the case of the edit you are referring to, it was inadvertent that I hit the save button before adding the edit summary. If you had looked at a larger collection of my edits, you would have realized that I rarely make an edit without summarizing it somehow, and except for vandalism reverts, I rarely fail to add even more info to the talk page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓04:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: For clarification, I also rarely add edit summaries when editing pages in my userspace or adding to talk pages, since the changes to both are self-explanatory. Etamni | ✉ | ✓
Moral Panic
I am not sure I am sending you a message correctly, but after reading the talk page on the moral panic section, it seems that there is community consensus that not only the sources are bad, but the topic in itself is questionable. I believe asserting this as fact in wikipedia is incorrect, however I want to go about this in the right way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.246.206.233 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to discuss this, but the more appropriate place is on the article's talk page since, undoubtedly, there are others who are interested as well. Etamni | ✉ | ✓18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bering Strait Crossing
Well, I'm glad somebody likes what I do. About "via", I just find that word a bit "lazy". It seems to be a word that some writers use when they don't know which preposition is appropriate. You'll notice that I have left it in in a couple of places where the meaning "by way of" (geographically) is intended. Otherwise, either "through" or "by" is almost always preferable. Kelisi (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...consisted entirely of settlers from...
Thanks for your response to this issue. It's a thorny one, and I suspect there's a lot more edits than I've discovered. I have a dynamic IP, so it's hard to contact me. Can you tell me which admin you alerted to this so I can follow the response? Thanks for your help. 32.218.43.89 (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gilliam was notified via talk page. As a side note, I hope you know that creating an account is pretty easy. Come up with a username and a password; no personal info required. Etamni | ✉ | ✓19:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on the registration thing. Without knowing your history (and all I had to go on was the contributions from your IP address or addresses), I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the minimal requirements for registration, since some people expect they have to provide identifying info, and may be reluctant to do so for various reasons. I'm all for IP users making positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Etamni | ✉ | ✓07:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you figured it out. Good job on getting that started, btw! There are additional comments on the article's talk page that you may be interested in seeing. Etamni | ✉ | ✓19:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Logo image for WCBN-FM
Logo image for WCBN-FM
I’m curious why you think the old logo image on the WCBN-FM article is “the better logo image,” compared to the new image I put up. If you compare the old image and the logo image on the official WCBN-FM website, the letters and shapes on the old image look to be distorted and misshapen. I’ve seen this kind of error before, and it’s typically the result of a poor, automated vectorization job of a bitmap image. I know that Wikipedia favors vector images, but I strongly argue that this is not a good rendering of the official logo. Until a better vectorization is made, I really feel like we should change to the new logo image.
Go ahead and change it. The blue logo was about to be deleted as being a "fair use" logo that wasn't being used. I Googled the station and ended up on their facebook page instead of their official page. In the "photos" section, I saw what looked like the blue logo, and not seeing the black version, I went with that and put it into the article. Because of your query, I've now looked at the station's home page and see that the black version of the logo is in use. I'm not invested in this change (that is, I don't have strong feelings about the logo either way) so use whichever version most accurately represents the station's actual logo. Etamni | ✉ | ✓10:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See next section for more by the same IP user! Etamni | ✉ | ✓
False accusations of vandalism
Are you too stupid to understand what vandalism is? Try reading WP:VAN. Do you know what it is and were simply making a personal attack? See WP:NPA. Either way, false accusations of vandalism are not acceptable. 201.220.242.199 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I do know what vandalism is. I also know the meaning of disruptive editing and also edit warring, which are two other activities you have been engaging in today. WP:Civility is also a subject that I suspect isn't your strong suit. Here are some diffs of your changes today: BBC Canada (you removed info due to unanswered clarification tag -- the info was correct, it appears the prior tagger didn't understand why it was "Category B Services" in one part of the article and "Category 2 Services" in another part -- had they clicked the Category B Services link, it would have been apparent that the designation changed in 2011); Clark Gregg (you changed "best known for his role as" to "He has played" -- a change that is not really meaningful, but is designed to irritate other editors); Ken Kesey (Again removed "best known for" and other language -- reverted by another user, and then just reverted again by you); John Bell (Scottish Actor) (And here again, you removed the "best known for" language of the article, calling it "absurd"); And then finally, you resumed your edit war on Chicken, Alaska, removing material that was previously restored by FreeRangeFrog and stating "no reason given for restoring this nonsensical text" despite the fact that you have been in an extended edit war over this article for quite awhile now, using a variety of IP addresses, and I'm sure you know exactly why administrators are restoring the text you keep blanking. Etamni | ✉ | ✓16:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, thanks for the information about our IP editor; it made an interesting read! As for the template, you can find it at Template:Don't template me. I can't take credit for it, but it just makes sense to me. I like your essay on the subject as well, btw! Personally, I use welcome templates and vandalism templates (since any resolution to a persistent vandal requires demonstrating they were final-warned, and the templates ensure a consistent way of documenting such warnings). Etamni | ✉ | ✓17:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good old Ritchie333, can always rely on him to give a spam link to his idiotic attack page. As for vandalism, if you really know what vandalism is then you were just making a personal attack. What a twat. See, we can all do that. I suggest you grow up a bit.
As for BBC Canada, certainly the information was correct. That was not disputed by anyone. Correct, though, is not the criterion we use to determine whether something gets included in the encyclopaedia or not. The person who added the clarification tags didn't actually give a damn about whether the category was called B or 2, but rather wanted to know what the significance of this categorisation was. This is not a hard thing to understand at all. Specified jargon needs explaining. If you genuinely think that "Category B" is understandable without any explanation to the majority of readers, and if you genuinely think that something can be both important enough to mention in the first sentence of the lead and irrelevant enough to not need mentioning at all in the body of the article, you really don't know much about how encyclopaedia articles are supposed to be written.
you changed "best known for his role as" to "He has played" -- a change that is not really meaningful, but is designed to irritate other editors - one is a verbose and unverifiable assumption about what an unspecified demographic thinks of something, which violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. The other is concise and objective and complies with the core policies. This edit was designed to irritate those who don't understand what an encyclopaedia is and see Wikipedia as simply a game where people with user names antagonise and tone police and attack people without user names. Sadly Wikipedia really lacks a good way of dealing with editors who make false accusations of vandalism and otherwise play this idiotic game. 201.220.242.199 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your history on this issue appears to go back a long time -- obviously you don't understand that "best known for" is not a POV but refers to what the most people know the person for. I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing with you about this issue -- it's obvious that you make the changes because you like provoking others, not because you really don't believe that the things people are best known for are really what they are best known for (even when the statement is properly sourced). Likewise, you have an extensive history of edit warring with people over the importance of details that may or may not be trivial, and then breaking WP:CIVILITY when people try to discuss them with you. I no longer wish to be part of your sport. Have a nice day. Etamni | ✉ | ✓19:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You knowingly made a false accusation of vandalism. What possible reason was there for that, except to provoke? And it's really not hard to understand the difference between objective facts and subjective claims about what people think of the facts. Do tell, though, exactly how you know what the population of the world as a whole thinks of 17 year old actor John Bell. Do people in Ghana think the same as people in India? What about Australia? What proportion of the world's population, would you estimate, has never actually heard of him? 201.220.242.199 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just following your regular pattern, eh? Even after I sent one of your socks a plate of welcome-cookies the other day? Shame shame. Would it interest you to know that even Encyclopedia Britannica uses the term Best known for from time to time? It doesn't mean that the subject is only known for the listed accomplishments or activities or events (etc.), only that it appears to be what the subject is most widely known for. The really sad part is that sooner or later, all of your available socks will be blocked, and then you won't be able to edit any longer. You obviously have good command of language, and many of your edits make perfect sense, but you just don't seem willing to work for consensus on pages you choose to edit, and you jump right into potty-mouth remarks with editors who've not done the same with you. Etamni | ✉ | ✓11:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Real life is intruding upon my time here, or perhaps I have it backwards. In any case, if you really, really need to reach me, you can ping me or use the e-mail functions and I should see your message. I'll pop in periodically, but not as often as I have been for the past few months. Etamni | ✉ | ✓03:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My ISP Clear is shutting down service for all customers effective 12:01 AM local time on November 6, 2015. I will be without an ISP until sometime the following week, when my local cable provider will finally show up to install their service. My IP address will change. I expect to remain active in some capacity during this transition by using my alternative account and accessing it from my cell phone. During this time, I will be unable to see pings, but e-mail notes will still go through. Thanks, Etamni | ✉ | ✓18:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Etamni.
Thanks for taking a look on my edit on the M&M's wikipedia page. I wrote a reply on my talk page, but don't know how to @ you, so you can see it also, so thought I send a message here.
User_talk:Kozan_Huseyin#November_2015
I found an article on the LA Times site and also confirms the fact, so used that as an additional citation. There are few others, check my reply on talk page for links. Your advice is appreciated. Thank you.
--Kozan Huseyin (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)01:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have taken it upon yourself to comment on this user's unblock request, and have included a comment which could be taken as being critical of the blocking admin (who was not me). While it is true that you created your account over five years ago, you have in reality only one year's experience; indeed, only 2000+ edits are not a large body of experience in any time frame. May I respectfully suggest that you would be better employed editing mainspace articles, rather than partaking of discussions in which you can have no meaningful influence?--Anthony Bradbury"talk"16:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Bradbury: Hello Anthony. I really don't think that any person needs to have 1,000,000 edits and fifteen years' experience here in order to recognize when a blocking mistake has been made, or when blocking might be perceived as being bitey by a newcomer. I'm sure you are aware of the decrease in active editors across all of Wikipedia; I suspect that one of the reasons for this is a drop in conversions of new "IP" editors into registered editors. In this case, a prior block expired and a new block was placed on the account without any warning whatsoever, for edits that, at worst, were good faith edits by an inexperienced editor. I do not believe that any of the IP's edits that I reviewed were intended to harm the encyclopedia. Blocking is explicitly for the purpose of protecting the encyclopedia from harm, not for punishment. Etamni | ✉ | ✓16:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very few editors here have made over a million edits, and fifteen years experience would be tricky given the present age of the website. But this is not relevant; you are at present inexperienced, and your comment made on this blocked user's page serves no useful purpose. Intention to harm the encyclopedia is not an absolute prerequisite for block; a block may be placed to prevent accidental harm as well. Given that you are entitled to edit where you will, arguing the point with two (or three counting me) experienced admins is not likely to be productive. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Bradbury and Cyphoidbomb: Since you seem so concerned about how I ended up discussing this IP user's block, I'll explain here: This user posted a request on a different Wikipedia project where I am active, asking to be unblocked. He/she was directed to make the request on EnWiki instead, since the user was not blocked on that other project. This piqued my curiosity, and I found that the editor was blocked here without a warning, for edits that, at worst, were good faith edits that lacked proper citations and edit summaries. I reviewed a number of those edits and, despite the lack of citations, was able to find sources confirming each of the changes except one (and that one was to remove a category that wasn't supported by the article or WP:RS -- thus also a good edit). Is that what we want here? To block all the IPs for not understanding our very complex rules? This IP was blocked for 60 days; a lot of actual vandalism results in shorter blocks. Ultimately, I hope the editor registers an account so that everyone can be clear on who made what edit, but who are we -- any of us -- if we insist on IP editors following the rules to the letter, but we don't follow them ourselves when enforcing them? (As for comments about the quantity and distribution of my edits, please note that I was previously involved in anti-vandalism which often results in a 1:1 ratio of edits to article space and user talk space -- one to fix the vandalism and one to warn the vandal. I was also involved in XfD for a time, which results in numerous edits outside of article space. Finally, please note that I am currently much more involved in another Wikipedia project and not as active here as I was six months ago. Ultimately, these things are irrelevant and a distraction -- the important question was whether or not the IP should have been blocked. I don't think it should have been.) Regards, Etamni | ✉ | ✓17:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your explanation, though your opinion on whether or not the user should have been blocked is ultimately of no consequence. Your assertion that they were blocked without a warning is inaccurate. I count seven warnings prior to the first block on 20 February, with three warnings for adding unsourced content. "Add a reference" is not a complicated rule. The project is very concerned that biographies of living people be impeccably sourced. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Query on deletion of page of Pradeep Gupta
Hi,
The page for Pradeep Gupta, CMD, CyberMedia India Ltd was deleted by you in Jan this year. Would like to understand in more detail your reason given for the same, (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject).
The article rightly indicates the importance and significance of the subject. There's no mis-interpretation of any kind in the article.
Request for your re-review and restoration.
Anilchopra1973 (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anilchopra1973: The page titled Pradeep Gupta was not deleted by me. Only an administrator can delete a page, and I am not an administrator. A review of the records shows that the page was deleted by User:Malcolmxl5 on 4 Feb 2016 after this discussion, which I was not part of. If you believe that the article should be restored, you can ask the deleting administrator to restore the article to your userspace where you may work on it to improve it to the point that it will meet Wikipedia's standards. Etamni | ✉ | ✓11:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Etamni. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Apologies (pretty much all you need to know. delete whenever)
Hi, sorry to waste your time. I'm not sure how I manged to change that article. I was scared off by the learning curve when I took a cursory look at the formatting it takes to edit Wikipedia successfully sometime back when flip phones were still a thing. Sorry again.
- Unable to even edit a simple message, some random user who can't can't stand how easy it is to open the wrong link on the mobile site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.89.158 (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which article you mean -- I've been somewhat inactive of late, so that reply is probably to something from last year. The most important thing is to learn from mistakes, not repeat them, and move on. Etamni | ✉ | ✓03:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Hello, Etamni. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Etamni. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Tim -- I'm not editing Wikipedia as much as I used to. Other than that, doing OK. I wish you well also. --Kind regards, Etamni | ✉ | ✓23:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Orphaned non-free image File:Plants vs. Zombies Idaho lottery ticket.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Plants vs. Zombies Idaho lottery ticket.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I see you don't like templates. I mentioned you in a post at the Administrator's Noticeboard regarding the Rock balancing article, here [1]. You probably saw the ping, but the rules require a talk page notice. Geogene (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
_(cropped).jpg)
