You sent me a message just a minute ago saying i vandalised a page and you changed it, i've just created this account after that. Tell me what i apparently vandalised then.
I appreciate your input. I'm definitely researching this, and I'll admit that I have a long way to go. I'll definitely review everyone's evidence to see if it changes my perspective.
Lisa actually came onto my talk page and interacted with me while Alastair and I were discussing the Gender of God page. He and I at the time thought it ironic that I was defending Christianity's self definition while he was trying to source Judaism's. In other words, we were doing the wrong religions. But I was still scared to add to Jewish sections because of previous experience, and when I foolishly did so -- BOOM.
In any case, I've looked at Lisa's evidence against Alastair, and it simply looks like him protesting his innocence. I haven't been able to go through yours yet, but I promise to do so.
I guess we all have our perspectives here. I suspect that everyone here is being more honest than the alternate POVs suspect (that is, we all really MAY see things the way we are presenting them -- even Lisa). I guess that's why the committee is there.
But I do promise to go through your evidence, and hope you go through mine by the time I connect the dots from 2007 to today.Tim (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the confirmation. I'm actually heading home now and Shabbat is coming shortly after I get home (it's a long trip). I may not be able to rephrase my terms before Sunday, and I apologize if any mistake on my part causes a problem. But I'll give a good review of my words as soon as I'm back on Wikipedia. Again, thanks.Tim (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please talk to me...
Hey-
I hate to bring this onwiki but you won't answer me elsewhere... Why are you mad at me? I really, honestly don't understand. Please, talk to me... L'Aquatique[talk]22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck
If you have retired due to the Haines episodes, please reconsider; the fact that he suffers from a god-complex will be his undoing oneday. Just hang in there and eventually he will get his "comeuppance". Whatever you decide, good luck. Abtract (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Owned
Just read your reply to those arrogant underage kids in the "backyard airsoft" section in the discussion. I know it's a while ago, but it's good to know there are players like you who are doing all they can to counteract these idiots who are doing all they can to get the sport banned and ruin it for the rest of us86.46.208.159 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I am obviously very disappointed by this decision. The assertion that I did not read the article is highly misleading, not to mention offensive. I have been a Wikipedia editor for many, many years, and have followed the rules and regulations throughout these years. To suggest that I did not follow the regulations is complete bunkum. Using the evidence present in the article, I made a choice based on what I thought was a fairly obvious case - it STILL breaks our rules on blogs, recentism, notability, and bias. The "keep" votes are from people who have an immense level of conflict of interest, and therefore skew the vote something rotten. I am very disappointed that this entire episode has been carried out at my expense, rather than at the article itself. This response will be copied to as many concerned editors in this matter. doktorbwordsdeeds18:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns. I cannot see where I have made an assertion that you did not read the article in my response to the AfD regarding Rhys Morgan, though I understand other parties might have felt that way. Obviously all AfDs have a certain measure of disagreement. This is true of all consensus and if in doubt I would hope you WP:Assume good faith of all other editors involved, whatever their account's age.
I should like to point out, in addition, that Wikipedia has no rules and regulations and that if we assume you are referring to the WP:Policies and guidelines, it is quite impossible not to fall afoul of them. That it why it is important to be WP:Bold on Wikipedia and rely upon consensus, to the extent we also WP:Ignore all rules. I should also hasten to add that an AfD is not a vote. Parties who simply add nothing to the debate are ultimately disregarded in the decision making process, hence why it is not worth getting worked up about them. Indeed, we could distill this down to the simple assertion that people are irrelevant when coming to such a consensus, only the arguments posed are relevant. Ad hominems are similarly valueless, hence it's better to just WP:Assume good faith.
An AfD, and the comments therein, do not reflect on the editors except insofar as their own behaviour besmirchs their name. Experienced editors regularly assert things that others do not agree with or make arguments others find ludicrous. This is perfectly normal and does not represent a failing or mistake on the part of the editor and should not be treated as such. This is particularly amplified when you consider that many of the accounts were relatively young and thus their opinions of other's actions hold zero weight amongst others not already inclined to those opinions.
In closing, I would suggest that making a large number of accusatory statements about Incivility is not a good idea unless you are prepared to take the flak of those you may have incorrectly labelled as such, since failure to WP:Assume good faith is not a trait Wikipedians value. -RushyoTalk19:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I've added a reply. Cheers for the linkfix. I would suspect SC reminds you of TA because it was made by many of the same people, I only played TA a few times, well over a decade ago now! -RushyoTalk21:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too! I can highly recommend it, one of the best games I ever played. That doesn't surpise me, both are great games. Yeah, I know, I play oldskool games. :P Playing Theme Hospital by Bullfrog in 2012 on a quadcore is fun! I am addicted to Tropico 4 ATM; great game (gameplay is unfortunately a bit short without DLC's). Once you are used to the way the economy and traffic works it is really fun. Arcandam (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rushyo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dalkhola High School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Might propose re-factoring A7's description. I scan read the list for organisations, then glossed over the rest of the list and contined reading. I think the exception needs to be made more obvious -RushyoTalk14:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't watch your commons talk page, I wanted to let you know that I tagged the screenshot you just added to Frozen Synapse for deletion. If you read WP:Screenshot, you'll see that screenshots of proprietary software cannot be public domain; it doesn't matter that you made the video, because the underlying game itself is not free. It's the same reason why you can't take a video in a movie theatre and then claim that because you shot it with your own camera, you now own the rights to that new work. However, you can probably re-upload the screenshot to Wikipedia's file system under our fair use exception (which does not exist on Commons). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect assumptions, however will discuss at the deletion page. To re-iterate: The image is not public domain, the software grants me copyright of this derivative work. -RushyoTalk23:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mozilla Editathon Saturday 18 August
You are invited to attend the Mozilla Editathon, where, among the like minded people, we will look at improving the Mozilla related articles on Wikipedia. For more information visit http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Editathon
WikiProject Mozilla has finally been created! We hope you will help out in the development of all the necessary WikiProject pages. Thank you so much for your support, and we look forward to seeing you at the WikiProject! WP:WikiProject Mozillaҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ01:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
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:New admin school/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! v/r - TP20:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stay off my talk page. We have an editor who is disrupting the discussion by re-entering the same lenghty content. He was educated on how to edit his prior comments. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi you reverted back my talk posting thank you. But IP 76 has deleted it again. Also FYI it is not repetitive posting. He is emotionally involved in the argument. Our admins have already agreed to leave names out of a particular article and he keeps distracting with harassing me, accusing me of things, and intimidating me rather then stay on the topic at hand. Sorry for the trouble.
You have been educated about how to strike comments from your original post. And you do not re-post the same comments, especially lengthy ones. If you continue, you will be reported. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am reporting you for your behaviour, which is completely unacceptable. Your attitude towards other users in completely contrary to the manner in which Wikipedians should conduct themselves. You will be noticed when an incident has been raised. In the meantime please immediately desist from interacting with Opthamologist. -RushyoTalk21:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My new posting was rewritten, it is not the same content at all. It is completely different.
This is rubbish! Just look at any Wikipedia article on movies and games. Go on, look! None of their plot synopses have citations. The reference material IS THE GAME ITSELF. Do you want me to add a citation to "Ubisoft (2012). Far Cry 3." for every paragraph in there? This is not "research".Kurzon (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you revert my edit again I will report you to the admins for violating the 3-revert-rule. Why not try considering my argument instead of harping on about the citation rule?Kurzon (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am acutely aware of WP:3RR, thank you. The fact is, as long as you continue to remove sourced material in favour of unsourced material you are patently breaching WP:RS. There's no argument to answer. My inclination is to open a request for comment but that seems like a waste of time, policy is already quite clear on this: The game itself is not a valid reliable source. First-party information (i.e. the game itself) then synthesized in to a plot summary is original research.
This is neatly encapsulated in the following paragraph from WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material."
The existing plot summary is appropriately sourced, hence the general hostility to you removing that content. It appears that you are trying to push your preferred interpretation of the plot over the existing, appropriate, content. Whilst you may gain XP in the Wikipedia MMORPG for doing this, it doesn't actually help with the whole encyclopedia thing. -RushyoTalk18:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, were it ever appropriate for a user to erase another's interpretation of a plot (from a primary source) with their own interpretation of a plot (from a primary source), we would be in never-ending revert wars as everyone tried to get their version of the plot in to an article. That's just not how Wikipedia works. If we took this bizarre concept to its conclusion, I would be perfectly legitimately able to remove your plot summary with my plot summary, then John Smith would replace my plot summary with their plot summary and then the madness would descend upon the world and all would be swallowed in its wake. -RushyoTalk18:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The controversial comments were made in a public forum on Facebook and viewed by numerous individuals, including myself. I had previously linked the comments but they have since been deleted. All the comments are verifiable and not defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the comments to be verifiable they must have appropriate sources. Hearsay and anecdotes are not reliable sources. We absolutely do not permit this sort of content on Wikipedia without evidence according to our policies and if you insist on re-adding it without citations you may end up blocked. -RushyoTalk19:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comments are neither defamatory nor hearsay. For it to be defamatory is must be untrue (which it is not). For it to be hearsay, it must be a comment that was relayed to me by another observer. Here, I personally observed the comments. Without the benefit of those controversial statements we are perpetrating a false picture about the subject and thereby manipulating an accurate portrayal of her character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not permit content that could be potentially defamatory. This means it must be appropriately cited with a reliable and verifiable source. See WP:GRAPEVINE. It is hearsay to me or anyone else on Wikipedia, not you. Whether it is hearsay to you is irrelevant, we are building an encyclopedia which is viewable to the entire world. Therefore we must meet a standard of evidence beyond 'somebody told me that they read it on a Facebook page but it isn't there anymore so you'll just have to trust me'. -RushyoTalk10:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sorenaaryamanesh. Obviously the content of that article is the source of some debate. Both 'sides' however are behaving outside policy. Could you present a rationale for why the content should be included, in the talk page, if you're familiar with the content, in order to broach a debate? -RushyoTalk08:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are coming here with an agenda. They are not here to edit and improve the projects, they are here to defame and attack specific articles. If you check the contribution of Kabirat, 62.177.153.18 and 83.117.158.247, they are just interested in editing articles on Sanaz Alasti, Lily Mazahery and Amir-Abbas Fakhravar. Their attempt is obviously political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorenaaryamanesh (talk • contribs) 09:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For all intents and purposes, you appear to be a single purpose account as well. Should we assume you are here to accomplish a political goal as well? Instead we assume good faith. I assure you the status of the accounts and focuses of the editors involved has not escaped my attention. That's why I got involved. I don't care either way about the article's subject FWIW. Ultimately changes will end up being fixed based on consensus amongst the editors involved. That means going on to the talk page and discussing things. -RushyoTalk12:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lily Mazahery
Please identify the defamatory material you accuse me of posting. Lily Mazahery was found by a DC Court of Appeals of misrepresenting human rights victims by taking money that was donated to the victims to assist them in their living expenses for her own personal benefit. She was also found responsible for threatening them with deportation if they failed to assist in promoting her. She was also found responsible for failing to adequately file their asylum claims. All of those findings are sourced and can be found here: http://www.dcbar.org/download.cfml?filename=for_lawyers/ethics/discipline/pdf/hearing_committee/HCLilyMazahery21709etal.
What I did is modify her profile since the bits and pieces you left here conflict with one another. For instance, it states " Mazahery's practice primarily focuses on limmigration law and international human rights." Thats untrue, she was suspended from practicing, so that can't remain in the active form. It also states "Mazahery is a strong advocate of women's rights and equal legal treatment of men and women in all cultures and societies." The woman was found guilty by a COURT OF LAW for abusing her clients and stealing money intended for a woman in Iran on death row!
If you add unsourced, potentially defamatory text about a user it will be removed. If you have evidence then cite these as references per Wikipedia:Citing sources. I suggest you get on the appropriate article's talk page and discuss your content with other members. You are clearly in dispute with other editors, so it behoves you to attempt to reach a WP:consensus rather than wedging stuff in. You seem to be unfamiliar with both Wikipedia policy and copyright law, ergo you'd do well to read up on both.
Re-read the article I linked to, because that same article was linked and footnoted to the entire paragraph you suggest was defamatory. Once you agree with me that it is not defamatory, I will proceed on updating the page - again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can provide my opinion but generally something like this should be discussed publicly on the article talk page to broach WP:consensus. I think it's a good source and should be included. Just avoid edits that make scathing accusations or add a non WP:NPOV to the article. Having a source that says someone is, completely for example, 'pure evil' does not give an editor the right to refer to the person as 'pure evil' in an article. It allows you only to state that a certain WP:reliable source says they are 'pure evil'. A good source is not a ticket to disparage the subject of an article. -RushyoTalk08:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will edit again to make more balanced. But would you agree with me that a person who has been found guilty for misrepresenting human rights victims should not be listed as being "known for" assisting human rights victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 09:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
December 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Leveson Inquiry. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
If you agree, then why bother to issue me with the warning, when it's the other side that keeps reverting the info in a disruptive manor? Jimthing (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Siavash's comments constitute an improper attempt at "outing" WP:OUTING
Hi Siavash, I'm afraid I'm not sure what the issue is. Whilst Kabirat certainly has a history of disruptive editing he seems to be making a good effort to add sources and maintain a reasonably neutral point of view. Some of his edits are, in fact, a solid improvement to the article's quality. I'm afraid if you have a problem with these changes you need to discuss them on the article's talk page and express your concerns in open discussion. I do not see any clear violations of WP:BLP. If there are any could you please be more specific? -RushyoTalk20:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Sorenaaryamanesh is involved in an editing war by removing unbiased primary source material intended to remove POV of article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Most of the material is currently sourced to blog postings or conservative sides associated with the author. Very little is sourced to a proper item. I've only sourced to credible newspapers and magazines. And yet everything is being removed, with the remaining material again being sourced almost purely to blogs or nothing at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following account has has a history of disruptive editing. He is adding controversial issues to articles. controversial issues should be discussed under talk. His sources are not reliable:
Sorenaaryamanesh, I am well aware of your own disruptive editing as well. Indeed that's what got me involved in this dispute in the first place. You are not merely removing the sources, you are exchanging them with your own view point making it very hard for me to resolve. If you want to discuss the content, do so. I do not see you debating the sources on the talk page. -RushyoTalk21:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rushyo, I've been trying, as you have, to get the editors of this article to talk to each other rather than continually revert, but with little success. I can see that one "side" is making more of an effort to make the article neutral than the other, but both are edit warring. I would really prefer not to get too involved in a behavioural dispute, and would like to step back from this, but only if I know that someone else has picked up the baton. Will continue to monitor this, and do whatever is needed to involve admins with blocking or protection or whatever else is needed, so that I can get on with more pleasant activities such as banging my head against a brick wall? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did. I've provided a basis for all of my changes in the talk page to engage in a discussion on the matter. Instead of engaging me on the topic to resolve the matter, the individual Siavash777 has reverted all changes without any basis. What more should I do in that situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 09:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain! Kabirat that we know who he is, has a personal and Idealogical problem with Amir Abbas Fakhravar and wants to use wikipedia to discredit him. He used the same tactic to discredit Lily Mazahery and Deleted Dr. Sanaz Alasti's page. To give you an example of his miss behavior please look at Amir Fakhravar's page you will see Kabirat is using one article on an Unreliable news blog called '"Mother Jones"' against Fakhravar to discredit him. In this particular Article you can find several rummers and (He said, she said) without any single fact. Kabirat is using this article twice as a reference to destroy Fakhravar's reputation with rummers on a blog. Please check reference number [20] and number [59] on this page and you will see it is just the same article on Mother Jones blog. Kabirat using this article on biography and also Controversy part to criticize Amir Abbas Fakhravar. You will find many other miss behavior from Kabirat on his editing on this particular page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siavash777 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of all of this but, frankly, neither 'side' in this is doing themselves any favours. User:Kabirat is at least editing in good faith. I care about ensuring Wikipedia articles are appropriate and, even more than that, editors are not being harassed or threatened. Harassment is not acceptable. Stop tracking down other editors. The page will eventually be brought in to line with Wikipedia policies regardless of how many edits that may take in the short term. That means it will eventually comply with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Your issue will be resolved in time but we have our own methods for dealing with dispute resolution that do not involve political strong-arming. We believe in civility and respect for other editors and we deal with content in articles rather than editors themselves whenever feasible. We take WP:BLP editing very seriously, which is in fact why I became involved in this dispute (because I want to ensure Amir's article is up to standard, neutral and respects the subject), but we have no tolerance for the harassment of other editors either. You are not helping. If you step away from this discussion and away from the other editors, you will find we have millions of pages just like this one where we have complex and intelligent policies that can deal with it. Your intervention is disrupting that process and actually preventing us from resolving it in good time because we have to go through this elaborate maze of WP:Personal attacks, WP:Harassment and WP:Edit warring. If you back off you will find things get resolved far more smoothly. -RushyoTalk13:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can request un-protection when you think there's a reasonable argument for doing so (ie. there is a reasonable consensus on the text). You may want to create a draft in your user-space that people can comment on (perhaps a carbon copy of the page with your proposed changes included). If there's agreement regarding that then that could become the de facto baseline moving forward. -RushyoTalk12:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
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 "Talk:Leveson Inquiry#Brett_Straub".
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.
This is because that template was copied by mistake into your page. As I am not an admin I cannot remove it by myself because .css pages can be edited only by the owner of the page and admins. Considering that the page is not protected, and the addition of the template will not do so, could you please remove the template from your page? Thank you so much. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.04:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear! I was Land of Koolaide, I believe. 14:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I remember! I've got a big games project on the go. Written about five or six large prototypes for it and nearly ready to begin working on the first alpha build. Unfortunately it's been delayed by me taking up Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, but it shouldn't be more than a couple of years now 'til I have something to show. -RushyoTalk14:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.
Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here
Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!
Hi Rushyo! Thanks for your detailed, thoughtful, and even humerous reply to a Teahouse guests's question about promotional edits. You covered the topic quite well and helped them to see what was properly going on. Thanks for doing that!
A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year!
To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge.
Hello Rushyo! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just Check in and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly! I'm not as active as I (feel I) should be, but I'm definitely not going anywhere anytime soon. I'm just sort of wading in where I think I can something useful at the moment. -RushyoTalk23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hello, Rushyo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I made an account not too long ago and I’m going through whatever Wikipedia lore I can find. I have been trying my hand at a couple small edits, but I haven’t found a whole lot more to do. I’ll be sifting through the suggestions for some crumbs of mistake. TorsoLeafDude (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
