Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2014 November) (bot |
Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) →A kitten for you!: new WikiLove message Tag: wikilove |
||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate]]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence]]. '''Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop]]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration]]. For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Email|E]])</sup> 22:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate]]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence]]. '''Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop]]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration]]. For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Email|E]])</sup> 22:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
== A kitten for you! == |
|||
[[File:Red Kitten 01.jpg|left|150px]] |
|||
Cause I know you won't quit you know where and leave them in the lurch... |
|||
<small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])'''</small> 15:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
<br style="clear: both;"/> |
Revision as of 15:29, 28 November 2014
- Note
- Email may occasionally go astray due to spam filtering.
|
|
|
No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
Nomination of Former Milwaukee Brewers minor league players for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Former Milwaukee Brewers minor league players is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Milwaukee Brewers minor league players 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. Spanneraol (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #134
Proposed deletion of Vincent DeGiorgio
The article Vincent DeGiorgio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Not Notable. See Wikipedia:Notability#Self-promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity. Also: No reliable sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
You are now a template editor
Your account has been granted the template editor
user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.
Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Useful links:
- All template-protected pages
- Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection
Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- As you've already seen at the discussion at WP:RTE, people will probably be watching how you use this right because of your past arbitration case, etc. But after looking through your recent editing history, I'm sure that you will be responsible with it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Echo send one a nice note on being granted a new bit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC).
- Congratulations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- TY! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC).
- TY! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC).
- Congratulations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. Congratulations. You still have less rights than a brand new editor would have had five years ago. I miss Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Arguably I still have less rights than a brand new editor would have today! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC).
- Thanks! Arguably I still have less rights than a brand new editor would have today! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC).
There seem to be a lot of links to dab pages in the contents you've added! PamD 23:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- There were only about 4, though repeated. Of course I had to deal with them manually. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC).
bot policy
I saw your arbcom proposed amendment. Now that it looks to be denied, might I suggest that you propose a change to Wikipedia:Bot policy to explicitly say what you think it means? If the problem is that is what the policy means, and that is bad, then propose changing it. (maybe you wont get everything, but maybe you will get some changes). --Obsidi (talk)
- Well that's a good suggestion. Trouble is the ArbCom are not agreed on what I actually did that was "wrong", individual members even change their view with time, therefore it seems unlikely that I would be able to say "sure it was against policy then but now it is fine".
- Look at this diff from @Roger Davies: in the original case
- ..the issue is whether RF exercises sufficient diligence in editing. In normal editing, this is not a significant problem because the errors can be swiftly correctly. But if the edits are high speed and in great volume...
- but at RD has objected to my request to be able to auto-archive my own talk page, which is clearly low-speed, low volume.
- Similarly @Worm That Turned: has pulled out of a hat the suggestion that "...your automated editing was causing significant issues at the time. I'm sorry to see that you still don't accept that." It's clear that there were significant issues, and they were debated during the course of the case. Unfortunately the proposed decision did not reflect the outcome of those discussions. Notably the "Suspected sockpuppets of..." categories did not have the effect claimed by the plaintiffs, if anything the opposite - moreover no-one else in the case protected these poor potential sockmasters form BLP violations when I was later blocked for a one-character typo, it was left to me here to actually fix a problem someone else caused, instead of complaining and causing disruption over it.
- As it stands I am reasonably happy with WP:BOTPOL, although I objected to WP:MEATBOT it is not an objection to the idea but to the having it under the aegis of WP:BAG rather than the community at large.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC).
Email you a quote?
Hi Rich, I've just been reading an alumni magazine sent out by my university (where "alumni magazine" = "we send this to you for free now so that you leave us your house when you die" etc!) There is a diary piece in there about a woman researcher/lecturer/don who teaches in the computer science labs. It might not add anything to your ideas but it could at least affirm them. Would you like me to email you an eye-catching quote from within it? I'd rather not post it here myself because I'm in the spotlight as it is. I could scan the entire page if you wished but the key bit from your perspective is really contained in one paragraph. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes by all means. Thank you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC).
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Cause I know you won't quit you know where and leave them in the lurch...
Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)