|
User talk:Gwen Gale/archive21
The Signpost: 23 July 2012
The Signpost: 30 July 2012
The Signpost: 06 August 2012
The Signpost: 13 August 2012
The Signpost: 20 August 2012
NoteHello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 August 2012
thought you might like to see where it's at now....it grew a bit. Can't wait till Gaia images it in the next few years....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 03 September 2012
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.  In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 10 September 2012
Non-free rationale for File:Nikumarorogallagher.jpg Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Nikumarorogallagher.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The Signpost: 17 September 2012
The Signpost: 24 September 2012
The Signpost: 01 October 2012
The Signpost: 08 October 2012
The Signpost: 15 October 2012
The Signpost: 22 October 2012
The Signpost: 29 October 2012
The Signpost: 05 November 2012
Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's dietYour comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Moni AizikYou've edited this article before, and there are problems again, see WP:BLPN#Moni Aizik. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 November 2012
In an effort to resolve ongoing disputes about the article, I removed a large portion of material self-published by the subject for examination and reworking to the talk page, with commentary to which the subject of the article User:Geraldcelente reverted summarily without an edit summary nor engagement on the talk page. I have not yet reverted. How should I proceed? ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 November 2012
The Signpost: 26 November 2012
InformationI noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 December 2012
The Signpost: 10 December 2012
The Signpost: 17 December 2012
Season's tidings! To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Holiday cheer
The Signpost: 24 December 2012
The Signpost: 31 December 2012
Orphaned non-free media (File:Nickadamsrebel.jpg)
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Investigating a possible sockpuppet of a banned userHello -- over four years ago you briefly were dragged into an edit war on Gilles Deleuze, which is why I come to you now. The instigator of that edit war was later banned: [1]. Recently, an editor has reappeared on the Deleuze article making very similar edits and comments, and that account has also made multiple edits to another article that the banned user habitually edited. I smell a sockpuppet. I don't know how WP investigates or resolves these cases, so I'm asking you for help. The account is named "Barnabas2000" [2]. Thank you. 271828182 (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Funguy06Your blocking of this account is mentioned on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Rich Farmbrough, 05:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC). The Signpost: 07 January 2013
The Signpost: 14 January 2013
The Signpost: 21 January 2013
MfD nomination of User:SuzanneOlsson/sandboxUser:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 28 January 2013
The Signpost: 04 February 2013
The Signpost: 11 February 2013
The Signpost: 18 February 2013
The Signpost: 25 February 2013
The Signpost: 04 March 2013
The Signpost: 11 March 2013
The Signpost: 18 March 2013
The Signpost: 25 March 2013
Yash PalHi! I notice you put the Yash Pal article in shape. I've added substantial content. Please take a look. Amuk (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 April 2013
The Signpost: 08 April 2013
The Signpost: 15 April 2013
Hi Gwen. Why did you hide the transclusion? --Ysangkok (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You indefinitely protected User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back in December 2010. It's been a few years, could you unprotect the page, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 April 2013
The Signpost: 29 April 2013
The Signpost: 06 May 2013
The Signpost: 13 May 2013
The Signpost: 20 May 2013
The Signpost: 27 May 2013
The Signpost: 05 June 2013
The Signpost: 12 June 2013
The Signpost: 19 June 2013
The Signpost: 26 June 2013
The Signpost: 03 July 2013
The Signpost: 10 July 2013
The Signpost: 17 July 2013
The Signpost: 24 July 2013
The Signpost: 31 July 2013
The Signpost: 07 August 2013
The Signpost: 14 August 2013
The Signpost: 21 August 2013
The Signpost: 28 August 2013
The Signpost: 04 September 2013
The Signpost: 11 September 2013
The Signpost: 18 September 2013
The Signpost: 25 September 2013
The Signpost: 02 October 2013
The Signpost: 09 October 2013
The Signpost: 16 October 2013
Talk:Abdelkader BenchammaI see that you deleted the Talk:Abdelkader Benchamma page on November 9, 2008 because the article Abdelkader Benchamma didn't exist back then. Now, the article for the deleted Talk page got re-created, thanks to GalleryIVDE on July 1, 2013. I thought I'd let you know before the Talk page got re-created. --Buspirtraz (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 23 October 2013
The Signpost: 30 October 2013
The Signpost: 06 November 2013
The Signpost: 13 November 2013
The Signpost: 20 November 2013
The Signpost: 04 December 2013
The Signpost: 11 December 2013
The Signpost: 18 December 2013
Glad Tidings and all that ...
The Signpost: 25 December 2013
Happy New Year Gwen Gale!
The Signpost: 01 January 2014
The Signpost: 08 January 2014
The Signpost: 15 January 2014
The Signpost: 22 January 2014
The Signpost: 29 January 2014
The Signpost: 29 January 2014
The Signpost: 12 February 2014
The Signpost: 19 February 2014
The Signpost: 26 February 2014
(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014
The Signpost: 12 March 2014
The Signpost: 19 March 2014
The Signpost: 26 March 2014
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Proofreader77Your comments could be helpful here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Proofreader77 Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC) The Signpost: 02 April 2014
The Signpost: 09 April 2014
The Signpost: 23 April 2014
The Signpost: 30 April 2014
The Signpost: 07 May 2014
The Signpost: 14 May 2014
The Signpost: 21 May 2014
Request for commentHello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC) The Signpost: 28 May 2014
The Signpost: 04 June 2014
The Signpost: 11 June 2014
The Signpost: 18 June 2014
The Signpost: 25 June 2014
The Signpost: 02 July 2014
The Signpost: 09 July 2014
The Signpost: 16 July 2014
The Signpost: 23 July 2014
The Signpost: 30 July 2014
Disambiguation link notification for August 4Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Kremlin Letter (plot), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick O'Neal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 August 2014
The Signpost: 13 August 2014
The Signpost: 20 August 2014
The Signpost: 27 August 2014
The Signpost: 03 September 2014
The Signpost: 10 September 2014
The Signpost: 17 September 2014
The Signpost: 24 September 2014
The Signpost: 01 October 2014
The Signpost: 08 October 2014
The Signpost: 15 October 2014
The Signpost: 22 October 2014
The Signpost: 29 October 2014
Koolaid Electric Co.
The Signpost: 05 November 2014
The Signpost: 12 November 2014
Nomination of The Kremlin Letter (plot) for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Kremlin Letter (plot) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kremlin Letter (plot) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC) The Signpost: 26 November 2014
The Signpost: 03 December 2014
The Signpost: 10 December 2014
The Signpost: 17 December 2014
Merry MerryTo you and yours  FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC) The Signpost: 24 December 2014
The Signpost: 31 December 2014
The Signpost: 07 January 2015
The Signpost: 14 January 2015
The Signpost: 21 January 2015
Happy New Year! Dear Gwen Gale, This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note"). The Signpost: 28 January 2015
The Signpost: 04 February 2015
The Signpost: 11 February 2015
The Signpost: 18 February 2015
The Signpost: 25 February 2015
The Signpost: 25 February 2015
The Signpost: 04 March 2015
The Signpost: 11 March 2015
The Signpost: 18 March 2015
. The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
The Signpost, 1 April 2015
The Signpost: 01 April 2015
The Signpost: 08 April 2015
The Signpost: 15 April 2015
The Signpost: 22 April 2015
The Signpost: 29 April 2015
The Signpost: 06 May 2015
The Signpost: 13 May 2015
The Signpost: 20 May 2015
The Signpost: 27 May 2015
The Signpost: 03 June 2015
The Signpost: 10 June 2015
The Signpost: 17 June 2015
Orphaned non-free image File:Mullervikt.jpg Thanks for uploading File:Mullervikt.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). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 24 June 2015
The Signpost: 01 July 2015
The Signpost: 08 July 2015
The Signpost: 15 July 2015
The Signpost: 22 July 2015
The Signpost: 29 July 2015
The Signpost: 05 August 2015
Request for a 3rd opinionHi! Since you are (or have been) one of the main contributors/maintainers of the Abba article, I'd like to request your opinion on a dispute about the proper handling of sales figures in the article's lead. The dispute is at Talk:ABBA#Sales and your input would be very much appreciated. --Kmhkmh (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 August 2015
The Signpost: 19 August 2015
The Signpost: 26 August 2015
The Signpost: 02 September 2015
Still problems at the Abba articleCould you take a second look at the whole thing. The other guy is still insisting on that somewhat random 300 million figures for reasons that make no sense to me. I don't think he will stop that unless a larger number of other editors tells him to do so. Do you know any other project pages, where I could request 3rd opinions and are to find editors willing to bother with the issue (short of starting an official dispute resolution process)?--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Gwen Gale. I just want to explain another 1 sentence: I don't think nor write that it's the real figure. I believe real figure is unknown. It's just one of the figures supported by few sources. I don't know which is real. Greetings. :) TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 September 2015
The Signpost: 16 September 2015
The Signpost: 23 September 2015
The Signpost: 30 September 2015
The Signpost: 07 October 2015
The Signpost: 14 October 2015
The Signpost: 21 October 2015
The Signpost: 28 October 2015
A new Ted Wilkes, this time from India, seems to have appeared on the sceneHi Gwen, it seems that a new vandal removes content primarily from Elvis-related articles and the Nick Adams page. See [3] [4] [5] .You may have a look at their contributions. Onefortyone (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for the diffs. Having looked at this further, I think you're mostly dealing with an everyday sourcing and content dispute. My own take on WP:RS and WP:UNDUE is that while "questionable," rumor-mongering sources like celebrity-market "tell-all" books, tabloids and other "he said, she said" sources are easier to cite in topics not having to do with living persons, this still must be done with meaningful care as to wording and weight. Another way of putting this could be that, while it indeed may be helpful to let readers know that rumors about a given celebrity have been widely published, the text shouldn't lead them to believe that such rumors (gossip) were acknowledged or documented in a meaningful, independent or believable way, such as in autobiography, contemporary news reports, court cases, verified personal correspondence and so on. Take this edit. While it can be easily verified that Bill Dakota made a claim, it cannot be verified that his claim had basis, so it may be ok to carry the claim in an article, but not fitting for the text to read that the claim was "confirmation" of anything. If one looks at the sources cited as to the personal lives of non-living celebrities such as Rock Hudson, Liberace, Robert Reed or even Oscar Wilde (along with many others), they are straightforwardly reliable, widely cited elsewhere, believable and seldom, if ever, disputed. While I think it's ok to cite published rumors about Elvis Presley and Nick Adams (actor), the text should echo that these are, so far, only rumors and not give them undue weight in articles about or linked to them, because the overall strength of these sources don't reach the bar of independence, reliability/believability (or wide citation) of those cited in the articles (and many others like them) linked above. Now, I could be the first to say that many articles on en.Wikipedia, through editor consensus, do give undue weight to mistaken, dodgy or misleading sources. However, this is most often because those sources have been given undue weight widely in the secondary literature elsewhere and are hence cited and backed up by editor consensus here, in this tertiary source. That's one reason why any encyclopedia, such as this one or any other, has long been taken as an "unreliable" source (see Wikipedia:General_disclaimer). Please see also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_on_Presley (hundreds of editors still watch this talk page). So, reliable or not, this comes down to editor consensus. I'm truly neutral on this topic and as an editor, would much rather let the consensus of yourself and other editors have its sway (even if that shifts from time to time). As an admin, speaking only for myself, I see nothing to do here (other than talking with you about it on this page). Like I said before, I've seen hints of sockpuppetry by other editors. It may have happened by mistake or unawareness that it's forbidden here. If it gets blatant, after warnings (which you can give yourself) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the way to go. I hope this helps! You're welcome to let me know what's going on with this now and then, if you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Hey, I need help with some user I'm having trouble with.OK, there is this guy that is continuously blocking my effort to change information in order to balance things apart. I only have one friend to back me up, but i don't think it's enough. He is well established and has a bunch of friends backing him up or administrators that simply agree what the user said. Whatever I tried to reason with him, he just ignore it like usual and just input whatever he feel is a general consensus. Since this is rather going to be long information, it might be better if we message each other on email. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
XXzoonamiXX, I got your second email. In my outlook this should all be talked about openly, on-wiki, not by email, for which I still don't see a need. Also, again, the links in your email were not diffs. I will need diffs which lead straight to the edits you're talking about: I don't have time to hunt for the edits, diffs are very easy to link and very widely used here on-wiki. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 04 November 2015
The Signpost: 11 November 2015
Continuing to where we left off.Since last week's talk page has been in the archives, it looks like I have to start a new one where we left off. I have made a recent reply in the article to the guy asking what's going on and a reply to Binksnet. It's at the very bottom of the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Civilian_casualties#Arriving_at_a_consensus_on_.22My_position_is_that_we_use_the_same_death_estimate_range_every_time_the_number_comes_up.22 XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Mis-matching statistics in lower traffic articles, to achieve what you think might be "balance," is not the way to go and has very likely made things harder, not easier, for you, as I hope you can see now. Please don't do that again. If you haven't spoken with the editor in 16 months, that's also no way to settle things, much less gather some kind of consensus with other editors. If you want to keep trying, I think you'll need to start talking with him, without sinking into "arguing" or saying things like "as if he's some [kind] of God." From what I've seen, I don't think you've been clear enough in explaining what you want, or why you want it. As for fending off on your own, I see nothing so far for an admin to do with this, other than try to help you understand the policies here and how to deal with that. Don't attack the editor. Please talk to the editor in a neutral way: Broadly put, talk only about your sources and how they support what you want to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 18 November 2015
Hi, Recent edit wars on Elvis-related topicsI am not so happy with the recent arbcom case, as I have been warned on my talk page, but my opponent, who was by far more disruptive, hasn't. As Checkuser has shown that User:Excelse and User:Related0877 are confirmed sockpuppets (see [11]) and it is likely that Excelse has also used this IP in order to remove the same content, although he has explicitly claimed that they are different users (see [12]), I am of the opinion that the future edits of this user should be checked with care. He has only been blocked for two weeks for sockpuppetry. See also his unblock request here. May I ask you to have a look at the recent removals from a neutral point of view. See [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. The Graceland page may be a good starting point for reaching consensus, as Talk:Graceland is the only page where Excelse has cited some reliable sources in order to support his opinion. Onefortyone (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 November 2015
The Signpost: 02 December 2015
Request for AdviceHi, you are listed as semi-active. First, I inquire if what I am asking is ok to ask. Second, I ask if you would have the time to advise me about an incident in which I was acussed (I think, unfairly) of violating WP rules? The case is not moving forward, apparently. But this is my first time being dragged into this type of dispute while I was trying to deter vandalism (newbie at that), and I am, sincerely, at loss. I simply want to know what are my options now and what can I learn from this? Are there steps I could take in order to give it a satisfying completion? The urgency lies in the need to plan my future relationship to WP. Thanks for your time Historiador (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want to give me a short rundown along with some diffs I'll be happy to have a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You can skip to the end. The following two paragraphs explain the diffs and so repeat information found in the urls; the last two are important:
Ok. Wikipedia:Edit warring says this: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Edit warring here is any kind of back and forth over content. Beginning with that second revert, you did edit war. Now you know! Also, cheers to you, because in the end you put the content back when you saw that feathers had been ruffled. Doing this also ended any thought that you meant to edit war. It is also why the thread at ANI dwindled. This means it has very likely ended, which is good! Be careful when editing with tools like STiki, since along with being helpful, they can fog one's outlook here and there and then make it easy to do too much in haste. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 December 2015
A pie for you!
Content disputeThere is still a content dispute concerning Elvis-related topics to be resolved. May I ask you for commentaries on Talk:Toilet-related_injuries_and_deaths#Elvis.27s_death_on_the_toilet and Talk:Graceland#650.2C000_visitors. Onefortyone (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 December 2015
Season's GreetingsTo You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 December 2015
The Signpost: 06 January 2016
The Signpost: 13 January 2016
The Signpost: 20 January 2016
The Signpost: 27 January 2016
The Signpost: 03 February 2016
The Signpost: 10 February 2016
The Signpost: 17 February 2016
The Signpost: 24 February 2016
The Signpost: 02 March 2016
The Signpost: 09 March 2016
The Signpost: 16 March 2016
The Signpost: 23 March 2016
The Signpost: 1 April 2016
The Signpost: 14 April 2016
The Signpost: 24 April 2016
The Signpost: 2 May 2016
The Signpost: 17 May 2016
The Signpost: 28 May 2016
The Signpost: 05 June 2016
The Signpost: 15 June 2016
The Signpost: 04 July 2016
The Signpost: 21 July 2016
The Signpost: 04 August 2016
The Signpost: 18 August 2016
The Signpost: 06 September 2016
Extended confirmed protection Hello, Gwen Gale. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy. Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas. In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. The Signpost: 29 September 2016
The Signpost: 14 October 2016
The Signpost: 4 November 2016
Two-Factor Authentication now available for adminsHello, Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC) A new user right for New Page PatrollersHi Gwen Gale. A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right. It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best. If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, Gwen Gale. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) The Signpost: 4 November 2016
The Signpost: 22 December 2016
Merry, merry!From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC) The Signpost: 17 January 2017
Why the page The Grim Adventures of the Kids Next Door was be eliminated?This page already in the Portuguese and Spanish versions of Wikipedia and I don't believe that they viole the rules and terms of the site! Saviochristi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter - February 2017News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC) The Signpost: 6 February 2017
Your assistance please...The record shows you deleted an article on Zahid Sheikh, as A7. Is it related to the version that was kept at the following AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2017
Hello, have a problem in several articles and verbets of Wikipedia and Wiktionary in Portuguese, English and Spanish!Was be saying that comic strip, charge and cartoon are synonymous, when, in really, are different things! The Comic Strips, Charges and Cartoons: The Origins, Meanings and Differences!, Enlarged Explanations. Comic strip (tira cômica in Portuguese and tira de prensa or tira cómica in Spanish): short duration comics, with the frames (which usually range from one to five, three being the most common) disposed and organized in the form of a strip, such as own name already implies and being or not humorous. The comic strip criticizes the values of society. There are three types of comic strips: daily strips (tiras diárias in Portuguese and tiras diarias in Spanish), usually printed in small quantities because of the pace of publication, in black and white (though some in color) and containing between one and five frames (three being the most common), Sunday boards (pranchas dominicais in Portuguese and planchas dominicales in Spanish), usually printed in large quantities, in color (although some in black and white) and with a larger number of tables occupying a entire page and the yonkomas (yonkomas same in Portuguese and Spanish), of Japanese origin, with four vertical frames (although some in the horizontal) and who always deal with serious matters, but in a humorous form. Etymology: from the American English, comic strip, comic ribbon. Charge (charge even in Portuguese and Spanish): short duration comics, usually occupying a single frame, containing a satire or message instead of a story and being humorous (although some with more than one frame, with stories and not being humorous). The cartoon criticizes people and things of the contemporaneity and comes as politic manifest in France against the royalty. Etymology: from the Franco-Belgian French, charger, burden, exaggeration or violent attack. Do not confuse with Chargé (commune of France). Cartoon (cartón in Spanish and cartum in Portuguese): short duration comics, usually occupying a single frame, containing a satire or message instead of a story and being humorous (though some with more than one frame, with stories and not being humorous). The cartoon criticizes the situations of the day to day and comes after that was be promoted a drawing concourse in England organized for the royalty where the first cartoons was be produced in large pieces of cardboard. Due to the similarities between the first animated short films and the cartoons printed and published at the time, the animated drawing name in English also refers to cartoon, in full, animated cartoon. The same thing happens in Italian and German, where the cartoon is called, respectively, cartone animato and animierte Cartoon. Etymology: from the British English, cartoon and these of the Italian, cartone, cartone, large piece of cardboard, stub, study, draft or anteproject. Do not confuse with Khartoum (capital of Sudan). (Collaboration: users Liebre Asesino and Jim from Yahoo! Answers in Spanish.) Here they here the articles and verbets for be revised in the respective idioms: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_banda_desenhada, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_strip, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_prensa, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exageraci%C3%B3n_burlesca, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cômica, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartum, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comic_strip, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartoon, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cómica, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge and https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartón! Including and principally, the certain is that the Wikipedia articles (described soon above!) should receive the following names in each idiom: Tira de banda desenhada, Charge and Cartum (desenho humorístico) - in Portuguese, Comic strip, Charge (humoristic drawing) and Cartoon - in English and Tira de historieta, Charge (dibujo humorístico) and Cartón (dibujo humorístico) - in Spanish! Remembering and highlighting that the caricature has nothing to do with the other three because isn't a form of comic: is, simply, a humoristic exaggerated drawing of something or someone, be real or not, does not even have texts! In fact, all my editions in this sense are already being reversed, I do not know why, since I understand a lot of comics, so I am a comic drawer, writer and scripter, so that I am no amateur and layman in the Whole subject, see it! And well, as you can see, the cartoon isn't a type of comic strip, neither the charge is a type of cartoon, if possible, please, warn to your fellow editors to make the changes, very thanks since now for all attention and interest and a hug! Saviochristi (talk) Saviochristi (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC) |
.jpg)
){kind=link}
