Homepage Talk DYK Sandbox Email Me! Guestbook Article Traffic WP Policies Vandalism Levels

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Wikipedia editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Wikipedia article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 00:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 5, Issue 7

Weekly Delivery

2009-02-16

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Internet memes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cheers Kyle1278 15:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please not i did not put it up i am just notifying you as the person should of done. Cheers Kyle1278 15:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no life so I went through your user page and found this:{{Statustop|link=User:Flewis/Status|offset=40}} {{User:Flewis/Page}} between all the <!--Flewis-->s Ŵïllî§ï$2? (^Talk!/_Sign) 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reference all of my edits, if I have information without a reference then I post it in discussion and leave it to someone to post. Maybe you should stay away from pages about things that you are very biased about. I assume you are referring to my edit on Varg Vikernes' page where I posted a quote from "Lords of Chaos" about Vikernes' superficial Nazi-based ideology. It was referenced plain and clear. Just because you sympathize with this person does not mean you have the right to not only omit correct information, but also attack me for being "libelous". Your type is the kind that has turned Wikipedia into a useless resource that is literally forbidden from being referenced in academia unless it is to point out just how much misinformation is around on this website. Leave me alone and stop lying about me. Swallow the truth. Fermentor (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.19.89.238 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Slashandwife.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Guy0307 (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been trying to improve the article on Sikh Extremism, unfortunately I have come across some very aggressive editing and even heavy deletions from certain people who wish to not have this article on Wikipedia. I don't know if you remember, me Satanoid, I lost my password, so log in as Morbid Fairy. I have had a campaign to ban me by the sikh-extremist fringe i.e from those who wish to have the article removed. The two users watering down the article are mainly Sineed and to some extent Sikh-History (who has already had one warning recently).

The same old excuses are being used, that all the media is biased against terrorists and after the recent murder and attacks reported in the Austrian Times in Vienna, some seem to want to brush this under the carpet. I hope you can help on this article as you kindly did so before, thank you Morbid Fairy (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid see here , you have been previously reprimanded for this type of behaviour under the Satanoid account and on your WPOuting violation here. People are assuming Good Faith on your new account so I suggest you do the same. Your behaviour towards Sineed is very bad.--Sikh-history (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of this article and have some issues that need addressing, which can be found at Talk:Mary Higgins Clark/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I alerted the six most recent editors by number of contributions. I am sorry if this bothers you. Just ignore it. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you said:

> The recent edit you made to Yoga has been reverted, > as it introduced negative or controversial biographical > material without providing a reliable source for this information. > Wikipedia requires that all such material be sourced to address > the issue of libel. Thank you. Flewis(talk) 08:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Its been year since I logged in. Hmm... so you say, I don't have any reliable source for the information that correct term is Yog rather than Yoga. Oh.. my dear, when you talk about Hindi language, you should ask a man who speaks Hindi no to them man who speaks English or Chinese.

Source is me, I live in Punjab (INDIA) and I speak that language. Most Indians speak Hinglish language, which is neither proper Hindi nor proper English. I speak either Hindi or English or Punjabi(mother-tongue) but not Hinglish. I don't know what kind of reliable source you want but if you are looking for one, there is man named Swami Ramdev, the supreme authority on Yog. He has TV program where he gives free answers to people's health problem, perhaps you can listen to pronunciation used in that program and decide yourself.

scusa pero ho sbagliato su una pagina che hai creato tu ...vollevo capire come si fano le modifiche per farne dopo e ho fatto un erore.....si trata di Rusu Mirela (la sua paggina)....

salve .

Madalin Rusu 18:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madalin Rusu (talk • contribs)

Hi Flewis. Wow, you must get vandalised A LOT. I was trying to access the page edit tool for your user page so I could simply get the code for the 'This user is a swimmer' and 'This user enjoys skiing' Userboxes. Any chance of letting me know what they are, or where I could get them. Thanks. Caspar (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd like to bring to your attention an interesting article you might be willing to contribute to:

Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims

BTW, the deletion of it is now being discussed at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims

Regards, Aregakn (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sampi 2004mark.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lukemcpharlin - 2005 Mark.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peacock term has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ottens - 2006mark.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please refrain from mindlessly reverting edits, as you did various articles. If you could check edits first and assert that they are not vandalism.. instead of abusing your powers. Thank you.--GABBY (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Are you still interested in the idea of at least some non-admins being able to view deleted pages? I understand that the proposal was shot down previously by foundation counsel; however I believe I have at least two possible answers to their concerns.

One possibility is to make this prospective (apparently the antonynm of retrospective although I'm not so sure) - that is to say that only edits deleted after its implementation can be viewed. For revisions such as libelous edits or copyright violations and so on, there can be a hard delete, lying some way between this soft delete and oversight, which will function just like a present deletion. Admins could also have the power to toggle a deletion from hard to soft (or to undelete) - so selected deletions made before this feature is implemented could be made soft.

The second possibility is to introduce a procedure somewhat like RFA where users are given permission to view deleted edits by the community. As admin privileges are currently granted not just based on trust in general, but also on trust that the tools will be used appropriately, there is a much greater pool of users who would be eligible to be given this permission.

And of course, it is perfectly possible to use both of these systems at once.

I have cross posted this to a few users who were active in the discussion in 2008 - I don't feel this is a violation of CANVASS because I have not made the proposal myself - the reality is I need an experienced Wikipedia with some "street cred" to make it. I already attempted to steer a discussion of a similar proposal this way, but sadly that discussion is irretrievable (see here - or even better, don't!). Because I have posted this to a few users, I would be greatful if you would reply at User_talk:Egg Centric/Proposal and perhaps we can get a discussion going!

Thank you!

Egg Centric 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - silly me, I forgot to link to the original discussion in 2008. Here it is: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Persistent_proposals/Straw_poll_for_view-deleted

Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the []. McKinseies (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laughing Baby (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Mark of the Year for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Rlly. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Rlly redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Peacock inline has been nominated for merging with Template:Peacock term. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]