Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have reverted your last change. I didn't look closely enough at it, I thought you were doing the same edit as before.—Chowbok☠12:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CDJ-100S 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, SNAFU , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How to close an AfD
Hi,
I saw your latest comments on the AfDs for the Apple and iOS outlines. Thank you.
By the way, to withdraw a nomination for deletion (AfD) that you have made, add an entry to the end of the voting section, like this:
I withdraw my nomination - (explanation/further comments optional). Signature
Then contact an admin who closes AfDs (look at the edit history for a recently closed AfD for who closed it), and he or she will probably be happy to close the AfD. It must be someone who has not participated in the discussion being closed. The Transhumanist18:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Origins of outlines and their exposure
Over at AfD, you wrote:
I'd never heard of these "outlines" either, so they need some decent exposure including info on how they came into being on WP.
If you have any ideas on how to improve their exposure, I am very interested.
Outlines have good exposure in their respective subjects, because there are links to the relevant outlines from there. Editors who stick with a specific subject generally don't learn about outlines until one is created for their subject of interest. The current exposure of outlines is:
A link to the outlines page is presented on the contents page which in turn has a link in the sidebar menu displayed on every page of Wikipedia. I tried to get the various content pages directly on the menu, but the community consensus was that one link to all of them was enough. Maybe someday.
A link to the main outline page is included in the navbar menu that appears at the top of the main page for each of the navigation subsystems of Wikipedia (displayed above).
There is a section for outline announcements on the Community Bulletin Board on Wikipedia's Community Portal, our main community page.
Once an outline is created, a link to it is placed in the See also section of the corresponding article, on the corresponding navigation footer, etc.
Outlines are generally categorized at the top of the corresponding category, at the front of the list.
Where did outlines come from? Well we've always had general topics lists on Wikipedia, some were alphabetical and some were structured. But because they competed for the same names, the alphabetical ones were renamed to "Index of", and the structured ones were renamed to "Outline of".
It was the "Lists of basic topics" WikiProject that took the initiative to clean up that mess. They ran into the odd problem that the basic lists they were developing continued to grow – editors simply wouldn't stop editing them! Wikipedia isn't set up to be static, and so the "basic" lists started to become more comprehensive than the corresponding "Lists of topics". It was as embarrassing as it was awkward. So, first they renamed them to topical outlines, but that reminded too many people of fruit toppings and skin cream, so they finally renamed them to "Outline of". While they were at it, they renamed most of the other topics lists as well (either to outlines or indexes).
The first general topics lists were created in 2001. We didn't have the category system back then and lists were the main type of navigation page. The basic topics lists (there were about 50 of them) were initially created back then too, by Larry Sanger (a co-founder of Wikipedia), as wish lists of red links from which to build new articles in major subject areas. The links quickly turned blue and the lists were forgotten. In 2005 they were rediscovered and moved to article space as Lists of basic topics. A WikiProject was formed and a standard format was developed for them. In 2008 they were renamed to "Topical outline of" and in 2009 to "Outline of", with slight modification to their standard format. Around the same time, the alphabetical topics lists were renamed to "Index of".
There are currently about 520 "Index of" pages and over 540 "Outline of" articles.
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Retina Display, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PPI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Would you like to become a member of WikiProject Apple Inc. – iOS task force? Seeing your recent edits to iOS-related articles, I thought you might be interested.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Leveson Inquiry".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Sorry, quick question: I'm confused as to why both the Channel 4 links should be there; they both point to the same file, they're not separate sites. Why is it necessary to link to a static redirect? drewmunntalk20:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control Center 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. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Template:Apple".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.245.78.133 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and formatted your move request for IPad Mini (second generation) so that it appears properly on WP:RM/TR. For future reference, some instructions on how to post these types of moves are located on the WP:RM/TR page, as well as usually as hidden text when editing the page/inputting a request. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to userspace
I've moved the article to your userspace at User:Jimthing/Restless Soul (artist/label) so you can work on it at your leisure. The big thing to remember is that you'll have to show notability per WP:ORG by way of reliable sources, but at least with it in the userspace you'll have plenty of time and won't have to worry about it being deleted before you're finished. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the HTML comment
Hi. I could swear I copied and pasted your entire proposal ad-hoc. Sorry if the comment was somehow left out. By the way, if we are to go absolutely by the book, we also have to wait for FleetCommand's consent but judging by her modus operandi, I doubt it is necessary. I think WP:SILENCE applies here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT at best as my searches at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam mostly found business listings, trivial coverage and press releases, hardly much to suggest better notability and improvement. It's also worth noting the Chinese Wikipedia article (创建“智邦科技) was also deleted in 2007 as G11 and the current German Wiki article looks almost the same as this one, only primary links and no other signs of better improvement.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:tvOS".The discussion is about the topic TvOS.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom29739 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jimthing. 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.
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted.Diff: [4]
I flagged the article because you failed to properly establish notability. With 7700 edits under your belt and numerous articles created, I'm totally baffled at how our notability guidelines for corporations or our general notability guideline have not been met here. I mean seriously, we've got Quora being used as a reference twice in the article. Quora. Was there nothing available at Yahoo! Answers? Your assertion that the company is notable is not the same thing as properly establishing notability per Wikipedia standards, i.e. with significant coverage from reliable published sources that are independent from the subject. A Quora write-up and an Alexa rank doesn't cut it.Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no conflict of interest whatsoever, and I'm certainly not being paid (I wish!) to edit sodding WP pages either. But thanks for checking, lol! Jimthing (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
Hi, Please take your issues to the talkpage, I'm not fussed who's right or wrong point is you've both gone over WP:3rr so you both need to discuss otherwise your both going to end up blocked, Thank you. –Davey2010Talk05:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it okay tho - if the user was carrying on reverting then you should've gone to the edit warring noticeboard and you should've made it clear consensus was to not include - Had you done it this way they probably would've been blocked, Anyway is everything now correct as I'm a little confused on what should stay and go,
@Davey2010: thanks for your response. According to the talk page topic, it looks like said user wants to ignore whatever I actually said, instead arguing ad hominem rather than factual. His language only goes to prove that he can't follow argument. Hey ho, lol. Jimthing (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discogs contributors stat page
Tip: Chat on your talk page, then use the 'talkback' template on my talk page. ;-)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On-again, off-again relationship until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Nate•(chatter)00:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Jimthing. 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.
Some were missing entirely, others were at the bottom of the list or formatted without the template. Template version of {{Official website}} used was #7 – {{URL|example.com|optional display text}}. Jimthing (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
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.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Movie Database (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
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.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
