User talk:Lear's Fool/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lear's Fool. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Kippax Uniting Church

Okay, so I completely missed the discussion on this, while my computer was having a Micro$oft "heart attack". Let's be consistent, though. Why are there other, smaller, arguably less notable Uniting Churches that have been left alone? (eg St. Margaret's Uniting Church) What about other articles about the Uniting Church? (eg Basis of Union (Uniting Church in Australia)) Is there anything that I can do to justify the recreation of the article? Is there any way to recover the content of the article, for posterity? (eg Can you place the content on my talk page, or whatever, so that I can 'scrape' it off to my hard drive?) Is there a systematic effort to remove articles about the Uniting Church in Australia? Or, is this perhaps a personal matter against me? (I am not accusing you, personally; I have had some indications that there have been efforts to target articles I have commenced.) With thanks, - Peter Ellis - Talk 13:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Firstly, I can assure you that there is no systematic effort to remove articles about the Uniting Church, or articles written by you: I found that AfD while looking through the list of all expired AfDs, and had not seen it prior to closing it. I closed the discussion in favor of deletion because there was a clear consensus within the discussion that the Kippax church did not meet our notability requirements for organisations. Those arguing for deletion made cogent, policy-based arguments, and those arguing to keep it were unable to satisfactorily respond to them. I'm not sure whether I myself would have !voted to delete, but my job was simply to determine and act upon the consensus already formed. The existence of other articles that may also fail the relevant notability criteria is not generally considered a strong argument against deletion, see here. If you would like, I can e-mail you the wiki-markup of the deleted article (both your version and one including the work done by Unscintillating before the deletion).  -- Lear's Fool 01:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I would appreciate the file(s). I am somewhat frustrated that, even though this is my church, and so I have "skin in the game", I worked hard to ensure that the notability markers of my church were significantly greater than what I see in many other church pages: setting, community, people, community impact, art, etc. Have you noticed that there has been someone or a group in the UK that has 'successfully' written articles over the last few months (they have appeared on the "Did you know..." panel of the front page) about obscure churches in out-of-the-way places that have no claim to fame or even national heritage values?- Peter Ellis - Talk 01:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have e-mailed you both versions, please let me know if it hasn't worked. Regarding church notability, I prefer to consider such articles very much on a case by case basis, seeing how each has indicated notability. Many articles on UK churches are notable for architectural reasons, which does not appear to have played a part here. As I say, I was simply reading the consensus of the discussion at hand.  -- Lear's Fool 12:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; received. I completely understand and sympathise with your position on and part in this; however, I feel "done over" when this article is compared to some of the others I see. As I commented to 'Unscintillating', "Surely there is room in Wikipedia for obscure stuff that is well or at least adequately referenced." I maintain that it met/meets WP:GNG, although others obviously differ.- Peter Ellis - Talk 17:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Finnigan

You mind or you don't mind? Not sure if you accidentally omitted a word... Timeshift (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant don't mind. Thanks for the heads up.  -- Lear's Fool 13:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Danny Ohfrurckyoumotherfrurckerrffjghf

The recent page you deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Ohfrurckyoumotherfrurckerrffjghf) actually has credibility. Danny can be reached here http://www.justin.tv/dukegensoka and will testify to being the real Danny and all information on the page as true. DemSpursBro (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

His mother must be very proud of him. (Was this last Sunday also Mother's Day where you and Danny are, like it was here?)203.129.43.82 (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page removal

I'd point you to [1]. Significant changes to your comments is to be frowned on, and out-and-out removal by the person who more or less instigated one half of a debate is pretty deep into the category is "bad form". If strikethroughs with his amended comment are preferable then so be it, but complete removal in this case is just not the way it should be. Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of the guideline, but there is more to it here: this is a situation where editors from SA (like Timeshift and myself) may be in legal trouble for discussing this. That is more than enough reason to ignore the talkpage guidelines in this instance.  -- Lear's Fool 04:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It doesn't go far enough, the entire talkpage should be blanked, it's not uncommon for this to occur when there are potential legal issues. Timeshift (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire page should not be blanked until the legal authorities state that there are potential issues, which they have not. I can stretch the definition of special circumstances if you feel you personally could be held legally liable, but that authority does not extend to the actions of others in this case. Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Islamic student congregation

Hi. Can I just check with you about the article Islamic student congregation? I notice that User:Akkida requested for it to be semiprotected. Are you sure that the copyright infringement wasn't due to vandalism? Unfortunately, it is impossible for me to check for myself because the page history isn't visible to me, now that the page has been deleted. Yaris678 (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure, it had three edits, two by Akkida and one to tag it for speedy deletion. It was a borderline attack article, and was also copied almost verbatim from an editorial in the Times of India.  -- Lear's Fool 11:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Okey doke. Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

Hello Lear's Fool. I was wondering if you could tell me why you object to deleting this article? It is basically an article about a non-notable political campaign that has few credible sources and a simpe Google search reveals this is an unneccessary article. Each time a group of people launch a poltical campaign should a Wikipedia page be created? Timbracks13 (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Timbracks! I removed the proposed deletion template for a technical reason, and not because I think the article should be kept. We have three deletion processes on Wikipedia:

• Speedy deletion for articles that should be deleted quickly (not the case here).
• Proposed deletion (what you used), which is for articles whose deletion should be uncontroversial but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Because this is intended for uncontroversial cases, articles that have previously been nominated for deletion via the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process are ineligible for proposed deletion. This article has been nominated for deletion at AfD 4 times (and has been kept each time), and so is ineligible for proposed deletion.
• Articles for Deletion (AfD) is our primary deletion process, which involves a 7-day discussion on whether an article should be deleted.

If you would like for this article to be deleted, you should nominate it via AfD, as this is the appropriate process. Before you do so, however, I would advise you to review the previous deletion discussions (there are links at the top of the article's talkpage), and the general notability guideline before doing so. If, after doing this, you still feel it should be deleted, let me know. I can help you through the process of completing the nomination, as it can be a little tricky.  -- Lear's Fool 11:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Timbracks13 (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh.

I don't suppose you'd mind setting him straight on where he does and doesn't stand in regard to his current flagrant violations? Timeshift (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm away from my computer at the moment, so I can't do anything for a few hours, but I'd recommend you maybe walk away for a few hours as well. Nobody is helped by letting this escalate.  -- Lear's Fool _mobile 07:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Three days he's been editing. Give him a break. --Surturz (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Even for a newbie, his behaviour is extremely over the top. I don't recall the last time a newbie violated so many policies in such a short space of time. Even when confronted with this he continues unabated. Timeshift (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Surturz: I'm aware Timbracks is a new editor, and I think if you review my discussions with him/her you'll find I've been extremely helpful. @Timeshift: I understand your frustration, but I must repeat my advice to walk away for a little while. Timbracks is behaving inappropriately, but he/she is a brand new editor whose done some promising content work for a newbie. Let's all calm down and see whether we can resolve this without anyone getting blocked or leaving the project.  -- Lear's Fool _mobile 08:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Conroy

Can you please cease from removing verified, referenced inserts on Stephen Conroy's Wiki page. It is getting extremely annoying that you are not adhering to neutral point of view.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual encyclopaedia and your removal of facts because you do not like them is reprehensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.242.85 (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page and blocking the IP. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem!  -- Lear's Fool 11:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Jackthart

Thanks for your help with Jackthart (talk · contribs). Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries, you did well to spot it. I'd been keeping an eye on Jackhart, but the MO seemed a little different: fewer new articles and more bulk, minor edits. His editing around The Bolt Report and the Rainbow Liberals gave it away, I suppose.  -- Lear's Fool 08:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole pattern was pretty similar once the connection was established (minus the abuse of other editors thankfully, though it took a few days for the other socks to move into this so it could have been a matter of time). Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My edits

Thanks, but I don't care. Incidentally, I looked at your recent edits at Stephen Conroy and I'm satisfied that you are not acting as a Greens agent. I still think your deletionist approach is wrong, but I don't class you with Chris Maltby. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll find I've been accused of having associations with every part of the Australian political spectrum in my time here. I'm not pursuing any sort of deletionist agenda, it is a project-wide principle that sourcing for biographies of living people be very strong, particularly when dealing with controversial matters.  -- Lear's Fool 03:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you have a quiet chat with Chris and tell him to rack off? I'm sure an acceptable text could be agreed on if he wasn't trying to whitewash Rhiannon. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9

As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As crazy as it gets

• This edit was to test a theory or hunch of mine after a related Anon IP was blocked. Nothing else. Hope I didn't break any rules because of that. Best. --Dave ^♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. I ask because this particular editor has previously used his user talk page to engage in vexatious, time-wasting behaviour, and your edit could be interpreted as needling an editor to whom we are trying to deny recognition.  -- Lear's Fool 13:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Relax. In a way, it was a calculated move on my part to validate my theory/hunch because his IP had just been blocked with his IP talk access denied, and he had been told to respond on that talk page instead. Anyway and per WP:DENY, I don't need any further prompting to avoid stirring the hornet's nest. Best and out. --Dave ^♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Meetup 12 June 2011

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that Liam Wyatt is in town, so we were thinking of doing a quick meetup at Brunelli's cafe in Rundle Street (at the Rundle Mall end, near the car park) at 6pm on Sunday, with a possibility of drinks afterwards. So if you're interested we hope to see you there. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Enidblyton11

Hi, I've blocked Politicalworkingdog (talk · contribs) as this was obviously Enidblyton11 once again. I don't see any problems with you blocking further socks on sight (unless there's WP:INVOLVED-type issues I'm unaware of. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

deletion

i dont know why you delted my page as it was a projest to be filled in by pupils of the school — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appleg7 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Appleg7. The page was deleted because it attacked or demeaned its subject without providing any substantive content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a hosting service for protests or attacks directed at individuals or institutions.  -- Lear's Fool 11:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined: Masanobu Sato

hi Lear's Fool, you're of course correct, i read the first 2 lines and just assumed straight away it was some sort of hoax/attack. that'll (hopefully) teach me to check the refs in future! thanks for pointing it out. cheers -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for welcoming me! George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Rhiannon

I don't know if you're still overly interested in this, but the genuine discussion about content issues is not helped by two particular editors who cannot resist personal attacks as responses to discussion. Though my patience is large, I'm struggling to see what these users bring to the discussion apart from ad hominems. I don't want to be accused of censoring the discussion (or worse, being accused of working for the Greens!) but I came very close to removing a couple of the more egregious comments. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made a comment on the talkpage, and left a note at User talk:Chrismaltby#Once more. While I agree that the ad hominems need to stop, I can't see any remarks that are sufficiently egregious to warrant removal or any administrative intervention (although I may have missed something). For the moment, I think it's probably best just to gently remind all parties to keep it clean and continue the discussion on the talkpage.  -- Lear's Fool 04:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A comment was all I was looking for - I would have done it myself, but I appear to be tangentially involved so it's probably better coming from someone less so. Much obliged. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Small request

Hiya. I'm going to be offline for three days from tomorrow (i.e., until Sunday) and I have a couple of hooks nominated at T:TDYK (Xavier Mertz and Far Eastern Party). Could you please keep an eye on them until Sunday and deal with any minor problems that may arise? Obviously sourcing might be difficult, but rules and the like shouldn't be too difficult. Thanks heaps, Apterygial ^talk 10:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I can't see there being any issues, but I'll keep an eye on them nonetheless.  -- Lear's Fool 10:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not expecting anything (they've both been OK'ed) but you never know. Thanks. Apterygial ^talk 10:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No problems by the look of it. Apterygial ^talk 10:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou!!!

Thankyou for posting something on my talk page; so far, you are one of the only people who has acknowledged my wikipedia existence. The template you posted made my page look lived-in and less empty. Thanks!!! Willbat (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. If you're interested, the reason nobody welcomed you earlier is that you had actually created your talkpage yourself. Before a talkpage is created, it turns up on watchlists as a red link, which lets users know that your talkpage hasn't yet been created (and thus that you are a new user). Because you created your talkpage yourself, the link to it was blue, so you looked like you'd already been welcomed. I know all this because I did it myself way back when I started this account. Anyway, welcome once again, and don't hesitate to let me know if you need any assistance.  -- Lear's Fool 05:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Friendly greeting

SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Beatle Barkers

Hi, I am concedrned that you have deleted a well linked, authoratative article from the Beatle Barkers page, which reverted back to a page with questionable content and of little interest. I do not like to be pedantic but have undertaken significant research to produce the article. I checked my facts and ensured it complied with good journalistic practice. It is now an interesting contribution rather than essentially a stub. I do not understand why this was removed twice. It makes me wonder at times why a writer would want to contribute to Wikipedia if their efforts and time are so quickly dismissed. This removal was made without contacting me. Its not as if this article is of major encyclopedic value, I was just putting the record straight and telling the story. If you would like to suggest ammendments please do but I request that you do not delete my efforts again. I admit I am something of a novice to Wikipedia but do wish to make a meaningful contribution and I am sure there is much to learn. Removing my article outright and replacing it with an inferior inaccurate one seems mean spirited Keith Newman 22:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC) - Keith Newman. Email: [e-mail] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Newman (talk • contribs)

A cookie for you!

Thankyou for welcoming me!!! Willbat (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at a new article I'm writing? (George E. Crothers)

Hi. If you have a little time, would you be willing to take a look at User:Richwales/Drafts/George E. Crothers and let me know what you think? I think I'm just about ready to move this into the main space, and I'm planning to nominate it for DYK. My main concern is that I want to make sure an uninvolved reader will agree that I've established this man's notability — after recently starting to get involved with AfD, I'd be embarrassed to submit something without realizing it would quickly be deemed non-notable. Thanks for any feedback. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

This discussion has been blanked to prevent its contents being indexed by search engines.

  -- Lear's Fool 11:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rann

Can you re-enlighten me? Nobody is perfect, especially myself. I probably did contradict myself somewhere along the line, most people have. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS :P Timeshift (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Troy Hewitt article

QPR footballer Troy Hewitt's page should be recreated since he has now played a professional football game for QPR (QPR-Rochdale in the League Cup)Lidaker (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy your break

Enjoy your break! Do know that you will be missed. My76Strat (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your good work. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your service, I hope you break is due to entirely benign circumstances, and that you return later (if it suits you). Here's your current service award. Herostratus (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This editor is a Veteran Editor and is entitled to display this Iron Editor Star.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Traction League

While I realize no one brought this up in the subject deletion discussion, I notice that after deleting the subject article, you re-created it as a redirect to the fictional series in which the world is covered. Is there any particular reason you deleted the underlying article first? Per WP:ATD, isn't simply redirecting the content sufficient? I'm concerned that by leaving the content deleted without any specific reason why the content needed to be suppressed (e.g., Copyvio, defamation, promotion), we're just placing barriers to non-admins to reuse the content from the article history, such as sourcing it for a merge, or fixing the problems which led to the deletion in the first place. What do you think? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Redirection is clearly the best outcome here, but I was under the impression that since there was a unanimous consensus for deletion, in closing the discussion I was bound to that outcome. Thereafter, I simply created the redirect in my capacity as a normal editor. You're much more experienced than me, how would you have handled it? Should I simply close as consensus to redirect, noting that it's essentially a deletion, but this way we preserve the content for non-admins?  -- Lear's Fool 00:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This may merit a wider discussion, but I see no reason you can't decide the best outcome based on policy regardless of what the actual arguments were in the deletion discussion. If an admin sees a perfectly fine article, but there are a ton of non-policy-based deletion !votes, is he obligated to close it with consensus and against policy? I bet opinions would differ on that one, but when the content is coming out of mainspace anyways, I don't see nearly as big a deal for turning the AfD outcome into a de facto enforced redirect. Obviously, redirects and avoiding redlinks are better for our readers... Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

IraqiLion

Looks like a blocked anon is the editor (IraqiLion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) going by the contribs of both the IP and User. Bidgee (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I've blocked the account, as I can't see any other solution that would prevent further disruption.  -- Lear's Fool 12:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hi Lear's! You received the newsletter because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism, a Christianity-related project. Sorry for any inconvenience. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi Lear's Fool. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello 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)

Matthew Beovich

When are you likely to complete the article for Archbishop Beovich ? I have made a few additions to his early life and would like him properly added to the pages for the Archdioses of Adelaide and St Josephs College Melbourne.Henry Sowerberry (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Henry. As you may have guessed I no longer edit here, but I've moved the page to Matthew Beovich where you're free to expand on it. Best of luck.   -- Lear's Fool 08:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Lear's Fool/Archive 5! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

List of Prime Ministers of Australia

I suggest you turn on the TV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.163.47 (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oxford coma listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oxford coma. Since you had some involvement with the Oxford coma redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Izno (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

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. Mike V • Talk 20:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Damn (Kendrick Lamar album)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you were involved in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — TheMagnificentist 12:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Bertie Patty Watson

I noticed an oddity here. Do you notice it as well? Should something be said to the user? Flooded with them hundreds 15:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec18a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

ϢereSpielChequers 14:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Lear's Fool. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of William Mackinder

Hello! Your submission of William Mackinder at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for William Mackinder

On 11 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Mackinder, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Mackinder was a deep-sea fisherman and millworker before entering British politics, where he advocated for worker's rights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Mackinder. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Mackinder), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 12:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"Old Roman Catholic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Old Roman Catholic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Old Roman Catholic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lowe Kong Meng

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lowe Kong Meng you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lowe Kong Meng

The article Lowe Kong Meng you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lowe Kong Meng for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Lowe Kong Meng

On 10 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lowe Kong Meng, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lowe Kong Meng (pictured) imported goods for Chinese miners during the Victorian gold rush and became one of the wealthiest men in the colony? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lowe Kong Meng. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lowe Kong Meng), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I got incorrectly credited for this DYK nom, which belongs to you. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)