Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present.

What, me worry?

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Um, surely it's an improvised replica firearm, (ie not actually a firearm), given it appears to have a solid wooden dowel for a barrel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snori (talk • contribs) 05:55, 29 January 2016‎

@Snori: If I'm not mistaken, that's an example of an "ignition" style (improvised) firearm (basically a muzzle loader with an ignition touchhole at the back - sorta like old cannon), and in this case the projectile is a dowel (inserted into the metal barrel). Alternatively, the dowel is the ramrod. Sill, the picture would be better with at least some explanation, replacing it would be reasonable. Rwessel (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwessel, I don't know how Wikipedia works . Saw you edited some information about me on page "Mehwish Hayat" . Need your help regarding an issue/error . I don't even know if this message of mine will get through to you or not.. But if it does please Do get back to me as it's very important . Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissHayat (talk • contribs) 23:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MissHayat: Hi. What's the issue? If this is about content of an article, it's best to post on the article's talk page, Talk:Mehwish Hayat in this case (but continue here for the moment, if necessary I'll move this discussion there). In general, to post a new request on any talk page, go to that talk page and start a new section by using the "New section" button at the top (this will create a new section at the bottom of the talk page). To reply in an existing section, click on the "edit" button at the top of that section. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. Since the article is about a person, our policies Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons are strictly applied, and since this article is about you, please be aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. Rwessel (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your prompt response. Good to hear from you . The issue is that the date of birth and age mentioned on Wikipedia is misquoted and has been misleading my fans who trust wiki with their lives . I believe it's important to get the correct information across and Keeping that in mind I I even mentioned this in one of my recent interviews With "The News" which is an authentic and a reliable source . Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://tns.thenews.com.pk/inteview-with-mehwish-hayat-what-the-cat-says/#.Vq5VTUXXenN Where I clearly mentioned that Wikipedia has been misquoting my age . But I don't know how Wikipedia works .. I thought you could help me with this so I wrote to you . Please go through the article and let me know what can be done . I would really appreciate . ThanksMissHayat (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also please let me know is there any other way to contact you such as email ? Wikipedia is really complicated . I've been trying to write back so many times but not sure if it's getting through . ThanksMissHayat (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MissHayat: as this is a content discussion, it belongs on the talk page for the article in question, so I've copied the above to Talk:Mehwish Hayat#Birth date, and I've replied to you there. The discussion should continue there. Rwessel (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why are Wiki editors showing double standards and removed any content related to this controversy? It has been documented by mainstream media. Saiteja67 (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Banjara-Hills-brawl-Police-report-nails-Ram-Charans-lies/articleshow/20753299.cms[reply]

@Saiteja67: I'm not familiar with the incident, what article was this in? In general, if something is to be added to an article, it needs a reliable source, as defined in WP:RS, and that source must be cited in the article. That standard is particularly strictly applied in the case of article about living people (WP:BLP). If something is being removed, there should be an explanation of why in the edit summary, or a discussion on that article's talk page. Again, without knowing which article you're referring too, I can't be more specific. Rwessel (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwessel: Thanks for the response. It is this article Ram Charan. timesofindia is a reliable source Saiteja67 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saiteja67: I've done a quick scan through the last couple of months of edits on Ram Charan, and can find only one candidate for the event described in the Times of India article, namely an addition on 23 January 2016‎ by Dukkipati Vijay Sai (talk · contribs), which was then immediately removed by the same user. Had Dukkipati Vijay Sai *not* removed it, it would have been removed since it was unsourced. You could add the incident, *with* the reference you've provided, which would at least give it a chance to stay, although I'm not sure it's notable enough for inclusion (but given my unfamiliarity with the topic, I won't personally weigh in on that aspect). If you're talking about some other removal of that content, please provided a link to the edit in question (or at least tell me the date and time it was made). Also, was this perhaps on a non-English Wikipedia? The different language Wikis are largely independent, and what happens on (for example) the Hindi Wikipedia is an issue *there*, but we at the English Wiki have pretty much zero influence. Rwessel (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saiteja67 Were you referring to this edit back on 16 Sept 2015? Again, that was unsourced. Rwessel (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saiteja67: please give your email id. Saiteja67 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saiteja67:, first there's no need to ping yourself, and you don't need to ping me on my user talk page, I'm notified of changes there anyway, even if I weren't watching it. You *can* send me a Wikipedia email from this page, which you can also get to by clicking "Email this user" from the navigation bar on the left side of this page. *However*, if it's about Wikipedia content, please don't. While there are some situations where an off-site discussion is appropriate, discussion about Wikipedia, especially content, should normally stay *on* Wikipedia. And if this is content about a specific article, which is where I think this might be going, then it properly belongs on the talk page for that article, and not on a user talk page either. Rwessel (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a claim in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War quote: "The incident followed over month-long tensions over alleged repeated violations of Turkish airspace by Russian military jets — over nine times in October,[170]" However, the primary source - #170 mentions only 2 violations. My attempt to note that the claim about 'over 9' violations is not properly backed by any primary source was rejected. I would like to know why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.228.253.143 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@5.228.253.143:As I mentioned in my edit summary, the kind of comment you added does *not* belong in the article proper. Either change the text, with proper references, add a tag (perhaps template:citation needed or template:failed verification), or start a discussion on the talk page for the article (Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War). After a quick review of the sources, I went ahead and added the {{failed verification}} tag. Rwessel (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Checkingfax. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from List of stand-up comedians. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Amccann421. Your recent edit to the page April 20 appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Prince officially died on April 21, not April 20. Thanks. Amccann421 (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://euro200.net/Bulgarije-top-40.htm

Hi :)

Please can you add this to the Charts section in Cheap Thrills article?

The song peaked at #1 there. And here's the source.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.155.54.4 (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@5.155.54.4: This has been reverted repeatedly at Cheap Thrills (song), and as I don't fully understand the history, I'm not going to re-add it without a discussion. It also appears that some of the re-additions were done by a user evading a block. In any event, that discussion belongs on the article's talk page, if you wish to pursue this despite the prior removals, please post your request on that talk page. Rwessel (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is another sock of SalemHanna. The user is indefinitely blocked from the project for edit warring, personal attacks and sock puppetry. They are asking you to add the material (about which, see WP:BADCHARTS) because the article and talk page are semi-protected to keep them from editing.

The ONLY place this user is allowed to edit is their original talk page, User_talk:SalemHanna, to request an unblock. Otherwise, any editor may revert any/all of their edits without further explanation, per WP:EVADE. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is obviously not a reason to get blocked, things got personally and that's it. Anyway, it's a Wikipedia rule that the edits from blocked users and/or anonymous IPs can DEFINITELY be accepted,nevertheless. As long as the source is there. I can link you to that rule if you want.5.0.201.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And hey here is the OFFICIAL Estonian singles chart http://uuno.postimees.ee/top-chart/20/top-chart-20332 And that is the Portuguese OFFICIAL singles chart http://portuguesecharts.com/archive.asp?todo=show&woche=18&jahr=2016&sparte=s

Both charts obviously show where the song peaked. Please consider things from an objective perspective nevertheless, and btw I don't know how to "unblock" and what legitimate reason I was blocked for in the first place, if that explains how complicated this situation unnecessarily has become. Thank you a lot for your time. Appreciated.

Just by now noticed the edit conflict, sorry for being such a headache to you. Thanks a lot for your time, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.0.201.215 (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2016

Please avoid changing or deleting other people's contributions on talk pages. I'll assume this was an accident, and just re-add my comment here:

I have no opinion on the justification for the blocking of SalemHanna. That user is, nonetheless, blocked, and should not edit except as prescribed, on their talk page. If you are SalemHanna, evading a block will make getting the block lifted considerably more difficult. As to the addition itself, it's been pointed out that the Euro 200 chart is on WP:BADCHARTS, and is thus not a valid reference for this, without first getting that removed from BADCHARTS or explaining why it should be a valid use despite being on the list. So without a source, there's nothing to add. Rwessel (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will. It really was by incident. And I read what you typed, nevertheless, thinking that was the purpose and that's it. Please take these sources I provided under consideration, as I just added two more links. Since we are all here to contribute, and seemingly, so far, to learn :) 5.0.201.215 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) On User talk:SalemHanna, in the April 2016 section, where the investigation and the resulting block were announced, there are links to the discussion that resulted in the block (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SalemHanna), as well as the procedure for requesting an unblock (Wikipedia:Appealing a block and Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks). Rwessel (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the two additional sources you've cited, I don't see how these are "official", and I really have little expertise in the area. In any event, I'm not going to help a user evade a block. You (assuming you are, in fact, SalemHanna) should not be editing my talk page either, but I'm assuming good faith on your part. If you'd like to contribute, stop breaking the rules and get yourself unblocked. Rwessel (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly how I knew the last two sources are reliable. WP:GOODCHARTS + the abscence of them from the WP:BADCHARTS Well, just to remind you that by this prejudice User:SummerPhDv2 put on the table, so now on, any one with no account here, logging in from my country or a neighbour one, is gonna be the blocked User:SalemHanna?

Wikipedia in no court, never was, never will be. And as soon as I re-find that article, which clearly says that blocked users can still contribute if only their sources are legitimate -if a ting-, i'll put the link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.0.201.215 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! The link User:SummerPhDv2 just made him look like a hypocrite, proving the block he is responsible for is for personal reasons NOT practical ones, seemingly. And I quote from WP:Evade: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) [[unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.

New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.[1] ]]

I mean, it's all clear now. Objectivity is key. 5.0.201.215 (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SalemHanna: You are not permitted to edit Wikipedia anywhere other than on your original talk page to request a lift of your block. This includes discussion here or anywhere else to request changes to articles. Repeated sockpuppetry will make that less and less likely.

Until such time as you have requested a lift of your block and followed any remedies imposed so as to have the block lifted, I will be reverting your edits on sight. If you feel I requested the original block and subsequent blocks for inappropriate reasons (and the blocks and page protections were granted by various administrators for inappropriate reasons) you are not doing yourself any favors here.

I would strongly discourage any further discussion with the de facto banned editor SalemHanna until such time as they have followed the procedures outlined on their original talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah sorry buddy, the rule is right here above and what it says is clear, and by the way I have already did contributions to other articles as well despite that "I am the blocked user" so what am I exactly losing here? The rule is clear, and my contributions with accompanyed sources are submitted, so you really aren't the one doing yourself a favor here. If it's a thing it's YOU summer who needs to justify her prejudice, even against famous singers lmao. Kind regards everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.155.127.104 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change were to was as suggested in your edit summary. I merely restored the genre 'heavy metal' the removal of which also broke the infobox &/or page display. Eagleash (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: - Yes, I saw that after I did the PC reject. Since your edit was also pending, both the your edit (the revert) and the original edit (that you reverted) got undone (and hence back to the original form). The only ill side-effect is that you got listed in the set of rejected edits. Pending changes does some odd things occasionally when several different edits are pending. There have been times when it ends up listing me reverting myself... Rwessel (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With hindsight I should have restored the earlier version of the page myself. That is/are etc. thing is irritating especially in cricket... *Australia is 100 for 2*. :P Eagleash (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you revert my edit here? I was simply removing an opinionated part. driftmaster130 (talk · edits) 11:58, 12 June 2016 (EDT)

@Driftmaster130: Hello. You had not fully reverted the inappropriate addition, so I ended up reverting the whole group as the simplest way to get back to how things were, which included both the additional inappropriate addition and your partial removal. IOW, the inappropriate addition is still gone. Hence the edit comment "complete revert". This happens quite a bit when partial reversions of changes happen that are later covered by "bigger" reversions. It's no comment on anything you did, it's more overzealous reporting by the pending-changes reviewing mechanism. Rwessel (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good to know. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. driftmaster130 (talk · edits) 12:49, 12 June 2016 (EDT)

Hello, Rwessel. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rwessel. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rwessel. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]