Misplaced Pages

User talk:Risker: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:35, 12 October 2008 editNandesuka (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,890 editsm →"Smear"← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:55, 22 December 2024 edit undo36.37.211.144 (talk) →Nadolig Llawen: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{| style="background: transparent;"
__NOTOC__
|- valign="top"

| {{WP:TPS/watched}}
<includeonly>{| class="messagebox standard" style=background:#F8EABA
{{clear}}
|-
| ]
| style="text-align: center"|
'''{{BASEPAGENAME}}''' is on a "]", due to the real world intruding on Misplaced Pages time. Please be patient, this too shall pass. |}</includeonly></noinclude>
{| class="messagebox standard" style=background:#F8EABA
|-
| ]
| style="text-align: center"|
'''Risker''' will be editing very sporadically until mid-September and will not be able to respond quickly to messages left here. She apologises to the fine editors who have requested her assistance, and encourages all of her Talk Page Watchers to pitch in where they can. With luck, real world demands will subside to their usual excessive level in the near future. Please be patient, this too shall pass.
|}</noinclude>
<br>
<br>
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together." style="{{divstylegreen}}"><b>If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together. I tend to watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a few weeks after my initial post. If you , I'll respond here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. --] (]) 00:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)</div><br>
<br> <br>




<div style="float: {{#ifeq: | talk | right | left}}; border: 1px solid #000000; margin:1px">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: {{#ifeq: | talk | 235px| 238px}}; background: #000000;"
| style="width: 70px; height: 45px; background: #000000; text-align: center; font-size: 12pt; color;" |]
| style="font-size: 10pt; color: silver; background-color: #000000; line-height: 15px; padding-left:4px" | ''Beware!'' This user's talk page is monitored by ''']'''. Some of them even talk back.
|}</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>


]<br>




]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>


]<br>
{{hide|bg1= #C4C3D0|contentcss=border:1px #C4C3D0solid; |headercss=color:white; |header=Notes to self |content=
]<br>
{{columns
]<br>
|colwidth = 45%
] in case I need it <br>
|col1 = '''Notes to self''' <br>
]<br>
], ]
{{tlx|OversightBlock|sig {{=}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}} signs the template.
|}
{{Centralized discussion}}
{{cot|Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links<br>}}
<table class="multicol" style=";border-spacing:0;background:transparent;" role="presentation">
<br>
<tr style="vertical-align:top;">
<br>
<td style="width:45%;;;">
<br>
'''Notes to self''' <br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br> ]<br>
]<br> ]<br>
<br> <br>
]<br>
Join ] with ] - same subject <br>
]<br>
'''Comments on Giano go ]'''<br>
]<br>
<br/>
<br>
|gap = 5%
]<br>
|colwidth = 45%
]<br>
|col2 = '''Other stuff'''<br/>
<br>
]<br>
]<br>
<br>
<br>

<br/></td>
<td style="width:5%;"></td>
<td style="width:45%;;;">
'''Other stuff'''<br/>
]<br> ]<br>
]<br> ]<br>
]<br> ]<br>
]<br> ]<br>
]<br>
<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>


<br>
Admin stuff:<br> Admin stuff:<br>
]<br> ]<br>
Line 69: Line 75:
]<br> ]<br>
]<br> ]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
] <br>


<br/> <br/></td>
}}


</tr></table>
{{cob}}


==Notes==
{{columns
<br>
|colwidth = 45%
] <br>
|col1 = '''Copy edits to do''' <br>
<nowiki>{{subst:W-screen}}</nowiki> <nowiki>{{subst:User:Alison/c}}</nowiki>
] (])<br>
] and ]<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] before GAC (])<br>




Note to self: Consider writing an article about in the ]. Some day.


]


{{hat|Emergency desysops}}
Other note to self re "emergency" desysops:
*Spencer195, Marskell, Cool3 - Level 1
*Hemanshu - , mischaracterized as "emergency desysop" on , desysop occurred minutes before the motion passed.
*Sade - to check "involuntary per arbcom", Feb 09
*RickK/Zoe - July 08. Long dormant admin accounts, shared compromised password.
*Eye of the Mind - Dec 07. Main page deletion.
*Shreshth91 - done at request of single arbitrator, Aug 07.
*Vancouverguy - Jun 07. Long dorman admin account, apparent compromise.
*Yanksox - Mar 07 - Jimbo desysop, confirmed by Arbcom in full case (DB deletion wheel war)
*Robdurbar - Apr 07 - mass blocking, self unblocking, deletion. Wonderfool.
*Husnock - Dec 06. Admitted shared password, desysop confirmed by Arbcom in full case.
{{hab}}


==Please post below==
<br/>
|gap = 5%
|colwidth = 45%
|col2 = '''Articles to improve'''<br/>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
]<br>
] (]) <br>
] (])<br>


==I'm around a lot more now!==
'''Contributions to review'''<br/>
Well, now that we on the Movement Charter Drafting Committee have published the final text of the proposed ] (ratification vote coming up soon!), I can finally get back to the work I've been missing so much here on this project. I figured I should look at backlogs, and first off I'm going to work on clearing the IPBE requests; that will take a while, as it isn't top priority for most checkusers. Then there's SPI and other CU requests, as well as getting back into OS requests. Feel free to ping me if I can be of assistance. ] (]) 02:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
]<br>


== Notification ==
<br/>
}} }}
{{hide|bg1= #C4C3D0|contentcss=border:1px #C4C3D0solid; |headercss=color:white; |header=Things to follow up on |content=
==My talk page is also my "to-do" list==
No really, I do read all my messages in a timely manner. I also archive fairly regularly once the subject of the message has been resolved. I keep things on my talk page until they've been addressed, so stuff tends to be out of date order. Consider the top half of this page my to-do list. Some things just take time. ] (])
<br>


I reference the questions you asked at ] in this case clarification request. I figured this crosses the threshold of when it's a good idea to give someone a courtesy notification. ] ] 03:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
== Article sanctions ==
Since that page has a lot of noise at it, I wanted to point you at the bottom 2 templates at ] which I made in response to our discussion on article special sanctions, are they what you were thinking I meant? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
:Since I don't ] them, feel free to make whatever changes you think are appropriate, I just wanted to get something "on the ground" when the case closed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


== IP address blocked ==
== Request for copyediting and/or peer review ==
Hi. I am trying to get the article ] to FA quality. Would you be interested in taking a look at it and performing a copyedit on it or offering some advice over at the ]? (] (]) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC))
:Hi Ibaranoff24 - I've started work on a peer review and will finish it up tonight and post it in the appropriate place. In the meantime, I have a suggestion for you. Print out a copy of the article, and read it out loud. Anywhere that you find yourself stumbling or the language sounds a bit unnatural, make note of that point on the printout. Those are the areas most likely to require some copy editing and rewording. I'll admit I'm not overwhelmingly familiar with hiphop (although I had at least heard of the group), so could miss some specialist terminology; if there are some terms that can be linked to other WP articles, that may help readers new to the general subject. More later. ] (]) 13:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
::Hi. The article is a current ]. A lot of material has been added to the article since it was last copyedited, and it needs some more work. Could you help out? (] (]) 02:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC))


@Risker
== ] edit warring again. ==


You have blocked my IP address, so I can't edit. Although I may have made mistakes in the past, I have familiarized myself with all Misplaced Pages policies. Please reconsider and unblock my IP address.
I don't know if you'd be the one to handle this, but ] has been edit warring again, and extensively, and you blocked him for that before. On ], he hit 5RR today, having requested page protection and then getting in two reverts after he made the request, with the result that the article was protected, as a result of his edit warring, into a state he preferred. I'm neutral, I've considered the content issue too complex for me to get involved with it, I just happened to observe the edit warring, first at ], and my comments aren't related to content, only to the obvious use of edit warring to secure results. He apparently went offline after his fourth and fifth reverts on ], I suspect he expected to be blocked, but the admin who protected the ACLU article seems clueless about 3RR, see . Thanks. --] (]) 00:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
== Copyediting ==
Hi! I gather that you're horribly overworked, so I fully understand if you're too pressed for time. :) But I've been working on the ] article for a bit, and I'd like to put it forward for FAC prior to the 20th anniversary of the series late next month. Unfortunately, I'm still to close to the article too copy edit well (I normally need at least a couple of months worth of distance to edit my own work). If you have time, is there a chance you could have a look? I don't know how seriously it is in need of help (I like to think that it is mostly ok, but I fear it isn't), but any and all advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks heaps - ] (]) 06:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC) :You seem to be editing pretty well, at least when you're logged in. I haven't done many IP blocks in the last year, and most of the time I am making them more accessible (e.g., allowing logged-in editors to edit instead of blocking all editors). I really don't want to have to use the CheckUser tool to find out what IP address or range you are using, since you are able to edit logged-in. If you are encountering difficulty logging in or editing while logged in, that's a bit of a different story. If that is the case, the best step would be to email the address listed on ] so that it can be further reviewed by the CheckUser team. ] (]) 17:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


==IPBE for ]==
== Copyedit request ==
I saw that you granted IPBE to this editor. As the first thing they did was cryptospamming (]), I am inclined to revoke that, but wanted to ask your opinion before doing so. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm looking to get a copyedit for ], which, yes, is a video game and I know on the PRV list, you mention you're no good with vg articles, ''however'', based on the comments that lead to the non-promotion of this article to FA (), I think I need someone separated from VGs to make sure that the article is understandable to someone that has no VG experience; most of the other ce's I know have worked on it before or otherwise too close to VGs that they may not be able to help here. What makes this article particularly difficult is that there's a fictional game within the game, so I was trying to keep the details clear and separate, so if there's any confusion, I need to try to clear it up. --] 13:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for letting me know, {{u|Seraphimblade}}. I've revoked the IPBE; while the account met the criteria for the initial grant, this is exactly why it is meant to be easy to revoke. I've been clearing the backlog of IPBE requests (there were over 100, I've lost count....), I'm hoping this will be the only one that messes up so obviously. ] (]) 16:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)


== Could you take a look? == == IPBE question ==
I'm doing a major reworking of ]. Could you take a look at (especially the image placement and such), and compare it with , and offer your thoughts on what else I can do to improve it? I know you're pretty good at refs and stuff, so any help you could offer would be appreciated. I'm thinking of trying to get it to FA status at some point, and I think you could really help me do that. Anyone else you want to bring in to help would be great as well. I'm currently scouring Flickr for appropriate images for use once the article expands as well. ] ] ] 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
*I've also made some rather ] changes at ] that I would appreciate your input about. It's the first real time I've invoked ] to support what I feel is in the best interest of the article and the project. I'd also like to see this one through to FA, if at all possible. ] ] ] 06:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
*:Just thought I'd let you know that ] has been accepted for an attempted FA run by the Featured Articles Collaboration Committee, which is run out of ]'s userspace. If you're interested, we could certainly use your skills. ] ] ] 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*::Still don't know if you're interested, but the project is now in Misplaced Pages space. ] ] ] 18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Hi S.D.J. - Yes I will definitely take a look. It seems the servers are being kinder to me today (the last 2 days, I have gotten so many error messages it was hardly worth trying to edit anything) so will finish up the CE I was doing and then pop over. A quick perusal indicates it's got lots of potential. ] (]) 18:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
::::There's no rush. Even with the acceptance by the FACC, I'm the only one working on it right now. Hopefully the other two sets of eyes that signed on will be more knowledgeable about what it takes for FA than I am, and I ''know'' you know more about it than I do! What I'm more interested in is seeing if you want to sign up to help with that new wikiproject FACC thing that is going to be working on ] and ]? We could certainly use your expertise. ] ] ] 19:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Is it generally acceptable for admins to grant IPBE to new editors who are in a geography (or on an ISP) where they'd need IPBE to edit? Was looking at ] and it isn't exactly clear (the request I was reviewing was at ]). ] (] &#124; ]) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
== Hey stalker ==
:Hi {{u|Elli}}. Reasonable question. This would probably fall into the "use common sense" category, more so than anything. I deliberately didn't include the "geographies" issue for a few reasons: listing "concerning" geographies is a mug's game since they keep changing and expanding, and it's a potential vector for abuse (and yes, we've seen some inappropriate requests involving these "concerning" geographies). Gonna be honest, by the time an admin starts feeling comfortable in granting any additional permissions to people, they've usually developed a feel for situations where they don't really want to go. We've got a lot of really good and smart admins.


:I think there are also a few issues that need further discussion. Should we be range-blocking IPs that have no history of abuse, simply because they're a VPN or similar? With an increasing number of people and devices only operating effectively through VPNs and similar colocation vectors, should we become more liberal in our granting? How can we deal effectively with the IPBE-related issues that stem from deeply rooted systemic biases that exist outside of our small slice of the internet? Should we request that the developers separate Tor access from IPBE, which would reduce the risk of inappropriate behaviour? There are a lot of things we could be doing better to reduce the need for, and the risk of, granting IPBE. It becomes increasingly difficult to say to people "we want to see a reasonable editing history" when the reality is that they can't even gain access. ] (]) 18:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I need some input.


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
I've recently been attempting to correct some problems with inappropriate citations in some fairly contentious articles. (Correction, make that "probably as contentious as any article is likely to be, ever.") There are some editors (and admins) involved who are far to free with the "you're pro-pedophilia" smears of other editors, which is very unfortunate. However, there's also the trend for anyone attempting to be neutral to be accused of a militant anti-homosexual bias. While I'm used to ''"hey poofta why did you delete my article,"'' I'm unused to be accused of being a ''"fag-bashr"'' as per one of the lovely emails I received...


Hello,
Wait, I'm rambling again, aren't I?


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
Back to the point: I believe that accusations of this nature are highly disruptive, and that they drive middle-of-the-road editors away from controversial topics. This is clearly sub-optimal. However, as soon as an administrator becomes "involved" with the article, then even the issuing of warnings for this behaviour is problematic. (I recently withdrew just such a warning.)


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
Thoughts?
<font color="black">]</font> 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
:Funny you should ask. I was thinking about this just the other day. I find it rather amazing that people make assumptions about each other's sexual orientation; if someone isn't a member of the LGBT wikiproject or doesn't have a telltale userbox, that could simply be because they detest wikiprojects or don't like userboxen. (I fall into both categories.) And sometimes people forget we're here to write a general knowledge encyclopedia; that problem isn't confined to one or two particular groups of articles. I do notice, however, that the biggies tend to be articles related to sex, money, nationalism and belief systems...just like the real world.


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
:It would be my inclination to keep working on things based strictly on policy and quality of references, insisting on scholarly references for everything that is potentially controversial, and not to take the anti-whatever labels seriously at all. Bottom line, there is very little in the field of sexual orientation that has not been studied to death and there should be a plethora of choices for reference sources. One might give consideration to suggesting article probation for one or two of the highest-profile articles to start with, with an admin (or small group of admins) who has no particular motivation other than scholarship assuming a sort of mentorship responsibility for the probation and assisting in identifying problem areas. That way, other admins can participate in their role as editors and not have to worry about the adminny stuff. (In other words...if editing, no adminning and vice versa.) The more I think about it, the better it strikes me that a small group of admins be asked to mentor such articles through, with at least one having experience working with the wikiproject but also having demonstrated a high level of scholarship, and the clear objective of improving the quality of the article (i.e., no agenda to delete the article). I see that Keeper76 and Moni3 seem to have struck up an agreement to try to develop inclusion criteria to determine when to add the LGBT wikiproject tag to an article, and that might be a good example to follow.


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
:Finally...this all takes time and an open mind. I would strongly urge ''all'' editors and admins working on these articles to keep the big picture in mind—that being a high quality, well written, carefully referenced article that meets and exceeds our quality standards.
:I would be willing to work on this from an admin angle rather than an editorial angle (I simply am not in a position to do the requisite research), but not until later next week when I have slain some real-world dragons that have largely kept me away from doing anything significant on-wiki for the last month.
:Does this sound like it has any potential? It's kinda hard for me to tell, it being the wee hours of the morning here. Oh. And I suppose I probably rambled once or twice in there. Sorry. ] (]) 05:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::: +_+ Thank you. - <font color="black">]</font> 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
:::: Belated follow-up: Can you please look at my statement and slap me around if I'm being a prat. - <font color="black">]</font> 07:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


]
== Thank you SO much! ==


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
Glad you caught me; I was still lurking about and I was just about to log off. Can you make it a double? Oh, and I'll pass on your compliment to my decorator. :)) --] (]) 23:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->


== Protecting 2024 United States presidential election ==
==Reply to question==
The answer to your questions is 'confirmed' and <s>'no'</s> 'yes' to the query as to previous user identities of any kind. I am reassured that you plan to even-handedly enforce the rules on that talk page, not just against editors with whom you disagree, as that is not happening and I look forward to seeing that happen.--] (]) 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


I just noticed that you goldlocked the article "]". Why? Is it just that much of a contentious topic? Just curious. ] (]) 08:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
== Copyedit please ==
:It is indeed a ], and was also having an ongoing edit war. ] (]) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Ah. ] (]) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


== Talk Page of 2024 United States Presidential Election is also locked (not only the article, which for the article is understandable) ==
I saw your name on the ], and I wanted to know if you could copyedit ]. It would really help me out. Thanks! — ] ] <sup class="plainlinks">( ])</sup> 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
==]==
Hie Risker. How are you. I was away in India for a month, travelling in such exciting places as ], ] and ]. Over the last week or so, the above article of mine (Literature in...) has been going thru a peer review which is winding down to a close. Please find time to do a thorough copy edit of this article before I nominate it for FAC. We can give it one more week in the PR before I archive it.thanks] (]) 22:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Good evening brother. Just wanted to ask why cant one post a topic on the talk page?
== Making first FA run ==


And also I basically just wanted to ask what the hold up is with updating the article?
Would you mind taking a look at ] for me? Your copy-editing expertise and general editing skill would be appreciated as I try to work this to FA. (Out for the night.) ]]] 23:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Trump was declared the projected winner for 4 hours and the article still shows him as 266. Which is outdated information.
== SPAM: Content fork about to be spooned ==


Sources:
<!-- SPAM # 6 -->
I've stated at ] that I'm going to redirect and merge back into the parent article as it is a clear ]. I'll be leaving this notice for all recent editors to the article and its talk page. <br/><font color="black">]</font> 02:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


https://www.foxnews.com/elections
==Thank you==
Thank you for your vigilance and interest in the well being of my user page. I hope you don't spend too much time on that vandal. It was drive-by stuff and not worth feeding. If it becomes a pattern, I may implore you or some other fine administrator to semi-protect my page.--] (]) 01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


https://elections2024.thehill.com/
== Elonka ==


https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2024-us-presidential-election-results-live-map ] (]) 10:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments on the tag team essay. Could you go over this and tell me if it makes sense or add your own more developed commnts if you see fit to do so? ] | ] 03:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


*Not touching the protection on that talk page; if you really want to pursue it, you can post at ]. The full protection of the article has been lifted now that the predetermined 5 mainstream media outlets have unanimously called the election for Trump. You will see much work done there in the coming hours. ] (]) 10:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
==Lost articles of England==
Nice one Risker - is this the same guy as yesterday? He's only got 20 odd edits and then starts moving G's page? --] (]) 00:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
:Different account, at least, Joopercoopers. Both are obviously alternate accounts. I didn't ask for a checkuser yesterday, but given the repeated behavioural pattern (they both used the same move name), it strikes me that things are getting outside of the bounds of acceptable uses for an alternative account here. I will consult with CU to see if this can be straightened out. ] (]) 00:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


== Re: Thanks == == A Barnstar for you! ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
<small>''/me thinks of all the comments I could make involving your username...''</small> No problem. I like reverting people who attack good users and admins more than almost anything else. Being able shut myself rather than reporting to ] is also very nice. Cheers! ]]] 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]

|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Donald Trump Barnstar'''
== Don't worry about the stain... ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your work bringing cohesiveness and order to ] during AP's, CNN's, ABC's, CBS's and NBC's reporting last night; for making sure orderly process and structure were facilitated on ]. Admins like you are the best! <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 13:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I think you know why you get this. ++]: ]/] 19:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
|} |}


Aww, thank you Lar! It is always a pleasure to pop by and mess up your talk page and stuff your email inbox. ] (]) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you, {{u|BarntToust}}. I think. I'm still half asleep. :) ] (]) 15:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


== #2024110610012222 ==
=='Zilla admin problem==
'Zilla restore ] history. ] revisions. See page deletion log. Not work! Revisions still gone, why? ] '']'' 21:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC).
:Hi 'Zilla, I am truly honoured that my humble little talk page has been graced by your august presence. I'm not quite sure where the problem is, but then it is very early in the morning here and it may simply be that my pitifully tiny brain is still asleep. I will look again once my caffeine levels have been suitably replenished to see if I can work things out. Your humble servant, ] (]) 11:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


Hey Risker! Thank you for actioning that request. For future reference, what is the correct way to request RevDel without using the Oversight process? The suggestion of 'Find active admins in ]' can be described as tedious at best. There has to be a better way? Thanks in advance, ] (]) 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:I have now managed to remain alert long enough to review the histories of both the ] and ] pages. They both appear to be in order; ] shows your restoration of the deleted edits, whereas ] was not deleted. Perhaps you want to revert to an older version of the Bishapod user page? I don't remember it well enough from before deletion to notice if anything is missing, but it appears to be more or less in order - lovely userboxen and all. I trust this will be helpful, Your Mightiness. ] (]) 12:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|OXYLYPSE}} - you did the right thing. If you're not in a position to raise an admin's attention quietly, you or any other user can make the request through emailing User:Oversight. This is especially important for apparent BLP issues; it's to everyone's benefit to keep that off noticeboards or other public spaces. The Oversight team does review every request that comes in and takes the most appropriate action; often that is revision deletion instead of suppression. Thanks for asking! ] (]) 23:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Ah, history miraculously re-appeared! 'Zilla complaint was history gone. No, not wish revert other version, ] physical amusing. (Stupidity level normal, haha!) Maybe revert userboxen later. Thank you little Risquée. ('Zilla fine language skills, speak good French.) ] '']'' 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC).


== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
==Puny 'shonen upset! Bad Risker!==
Bad Risker! All Risker fault! ] '']'' 21:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
:No, no, Bishzilla! Not Risker's fault! Misunderstanding! Sheesh, if you're planning to run for arbcom, try to get a little smarter! ] | ] 21:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
::Oh dear, what have we here. Poor Bishzilla, I am sorry you are so distressed. Unfortunately, I am incapable of finding all of the crummy articles amongst the 2.5 million on Misplaced Pages; your help is much appreciated in identifying such dreck. It seems to me that some serious questions need to be raised about this article. First I must feed my pets..er..family, and then I can take a good look and figure out next steps. Will that help? 'Zilla not angry with little Risker anymore? ] (]) 22:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC) <small> Breathes sigh of relief that Bishonen came to help out. </small>
:::Hmmpff. How smart need to be for arbcom? ] '']'' 23:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
]


Hello,
:You can talk about dreck in the 2.5 million, but how could the world survive without "self-hating jew," a thousand one line articles saying that X is a place (and nothing else, but it helps with round one of ]), and the Philippino fantasy miniseries that has its own portal for every character and every super power by every character on it. These, you see, help overcome Misplaced Pages's systemic bias. The blob has mobbed. ] (]) 02:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
== Helpful phrase ==


Take the survey ''''''.
"Þæs ofereode þisses swa mægh." (It's from the superbly written ''Deor,'' not the poorly written ].) ] (]) 02:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
Translation: (This is ], I've been told, as we must ''never translate things ourselves'', no matter how obvious they are): "That passed away (with respect to this), and so might this pass away (with respect to that)" -- or without the ], "That passed away, and so may this." (Suggested because of the line at the very top of this user talk page, and because Deor rocks.) ] (]) 02:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


]
What a lovely image, Geogre, thank you! I have always loved being in the garden, your gift of a brain garden is incredibly thoughtful. As to Deor, well...I am only hoping it is true, I am determined to make it to be bottom of this four-inch pile of paperwork before the end of the evening so that I can regain my wiki-freedom. ] (]) 21:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
== Hello ==
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
Just a hello note, because Jameson is going to forward you an email from me. Again, hello!--]</font><sup> (] • ])</sup> 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:Received and read, thanks! ] (]) 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
==Astrotrain==
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
Are you going to inform the other editors who reverted this IP, or do you want me to do it. But seen as you have some inside knowledge maybe it would be better if you did. <strong>]</strong>] 20:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-text">
:I just caught your revert because his page is on my watchlist, and the timing was just so. Let me look into things, it is probably better coming from me (i.e., someone with whom none of you have much history, and who has not participated in "Troubles" related articles). Thanks for letting me know that this was not a one-off. ] (]) 20:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== i before e ==


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
How about, for example, weird? No c. ] (]) 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:the little ryhme I use goes like this...''i before e except after c and words that are weird like neighbor and weigh.'' --] (]) 21:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Oh I learned it differently, the version I knew went:<br>
:::..."and others for a change<br>
::: like "weird", which is strange..."
::If I remember correctly, there were a few more rhyming couplets, but Grade 3 was a very very very long time ago for me. ] (]) 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::yes, well....having a third grader and an english teacher in the house, one get's exposed regularly to these little gems....--] (]) 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:My version is, "i before e in Anglo-Saxon and Latin derived terms, but those which have Greek etymology will violate it for a diphthong, and certain Germanic terms with the 'ei' diphthong will retain that spelling." You should see the music notation I use for it. It's sort of a ] score. ] (]) 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


</div>
== ] ==
</div>
Hi {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I noticed your name on the ] list. I was wondering whether you could review the ] article, leaving comments on the ]. Kind regards, ] (]) 14:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->


== No Index tags == ==Mail call==
{{ygm}}] &#124; ] 10:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC).


== Sorry about that ==
Adding those tags makes it harder to search the archives along and reduces general levels of transparency. Searching the archives is something that we frequently need to do. There is a discussion on the talk page for AN about this. I suggest you join in there rather than continue to add these piecemeal (and yes, I used rollback on your edits. This wasn't due to their being vandalism or anything of that sort but merely because it would be time consuming to do by hand and because I was of the opinion that it should be removed quickly before any search engine de-indexes these pages without consensus). ] (]) 14:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned it there, but I just wanted to reiterate here that in the light of day one of my comments at ] was rude. Sorry about that.
:Responded on ]. And it was too time-consuming to hand-revert 14 edits? Geez, it only took me about 30 seconds each to make the edits, and I was doing a pile of other things at the same time. ] (]) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:: Not that time-consuming but more efficient and as I explained, I was worried that a sudden search engine search could remove our searching ability for idefinite period of time even if the tags were removed shortly. ] (]) 17:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


I look forward to (more) politely continuing to share our different perspectives! - ] (]) 16:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
== Copyedit request ==


:Oh RevelationDirect, just the other day I was accused of kicking dogs. I do not find anything you said to be particularly rude at all. Bottom line, though, I am really impressed that you hold yourself to such a high standard. It's a challenging discussion, for sure, but I think the focus has been on improvement and re-humanizing the process. ] (]) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey there. I was wondering if you could copyedit ] whenever you had some free time. The article is currently at GAN, where it has been placed on hold by Brianboulton. Thanks, <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Nishkid64, I've taken a look at the article and the GA review, and I think I can be of help here. I have commitments during the day tomorrow, but will focus on this article tomorrow evening, moving into Monday if necessary. ] (]) 05:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
== Copy edit request ==


== No big deal... ==
Hi there. I just scrolled through the copyedit volunteers at ], and thought you were perhaps one of the best to help me. I've got a nomination at FAC for ]. ] has added an "oppose" today on the grounds of criteria 1a and 2a, and wondered if you might look over the article for a possible copy edit? Your help, or guidance in finding another editor, would be much appreciated. ] (]) 21:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Peanut4, I have taken a look at the article and the FAC comments. I can probably help you out starting Monday late in the day; it's possible, however, that things might move more quickly if someone more familiar with the subject matter gives this a once-over. (I don't know a great deal about football. It is, I realise, a character flaw related to my country of residence.) I will work on this article if you aren't successful in finding someone with a bit of specialisation here, but there are likely to be plenty of questions. ] (]) 05:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for your response. Anything you can help on will be much appreciated. I did try find some users with possibly football based knowledge, but there were none which fit the bill. I'll take another gander though. ] (]) 18:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Just a quick update. Another editor with football knowledge has said he will take a look. If you do get chance with anything you feel able to do, it would be appreciated. If I need anything else, I will let you know. Thanks for your help. ] (]) 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::::One final update. The article has now made it to FAC, and the said editor with football knowledge has said he will still give it a look. ] (]) 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I haven't edited for almost 2 years, but I've been lurking (just a bit). I came across RECALL and its REWORKSHOP more by accident than design and I was so pleased to see you being active there. It certainly needs your special touch. It inspired me to throw in just two or three minor comments, and though I'm certainly not staging a comeback, I still have a vested interest in both encouraging potential admin candidates to throw their hat in the ring without fear, and even more important to ensure they get a ''fair deal'' when they get the bit - or lose it. Warm rgds, ] (]) 07:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
== Copy edit request ==


==Invitation to provide feedback==
Hey. I was just wondering if you could please copy-edit the ] article. It's been suggested at ] that it should go under a copy-edit throughout. Thanks for any help. -- </sup>]]''']'''</sub>]] 17:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Inspired by Worm That Turned's ] where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my ]. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my ''''''. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, ] (]) 16:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


==Io Saturnalia!==
== Request for CE help ==


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
Hello, your name is listed at ] and I was wondering if you would be able to help me copyedit ], as I'm getting nowhere looking over my own prose. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]

|rowspan="2" |
==regarding your thoughtful comments==
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
on cla68's talk page. As an inveterate TPS, I really think you hit and DanT hit the nail on the head regarding joshz's statements. I feel that cla goes overboard in his characterization of folks in the 'cabal', but he's also not wrong regarding the calous disregard some users show towards those who facilitate criticism of their own actions. I'm not a wr'er and likely will never be (waaaaaaay to much navel gazing, injoke style commentary for me to even understand a few of the more prolific posters over there). --] (]) 20:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
|-
:Thanks for your comments, Rocksanddirt. Like you, I have no intention or desire to join Misplaced Pages Review. My name shows up there from time to time, and I appreciate that the efforts of some longtime, respected Wikipedians have opened the channels of communication; it's just not my cup of tea. I'm not a big fan of the "cabal" view of things; from my perspective, we're generally talking about people who hold a range of views but agree on some specific points. Sometimes, though, it is important to highlight that the facts of a matter are different than the remembered history. To quote an old standard: "We met at nine / ''We met at eight'' / I was on time / ''No, you were late'' / Ah yes, I remember it well...." Okay...must do some real work today. ] (]) 13:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

== email ==

] ] (]) 12:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:Hmmm. Waiting patiently, but nothing seems to have made it to my mailbox as of yet. I wonder if there are problems with the interface today? ] (]) 13:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::Hmmm, I wonder why the "!ping!" is coloured blue...? ] (]) 13:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:::ROFL!!! The scary part of it is...I clicked on the link and thought "now why would LHvU think I should copy edit this page?" It's clearly too early in the morning over here! Thanks for the laugh, it's a great way to start the day. ] (]) 13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

==Tabbed articles==
I've started setting out some of my thinking ]. If you get a chance, your thoughts or questions would be gratefully received. Regards --] (]) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

== Emil Gilels ==

Hi Risker,
Thanks for unblocking me. I have virtually no experience editing pages on Misplaced Pages, and have a few questions/concerns. Is there an email address to which I may I write you? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Repllied on your talk. ] (]) 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

== Ok ==

Thanks for all your help! --<font face="Bookman Old Style" color="green" size="4">]</font><font face="Bookman Old Style" color="blue" size="2">]</font> 01:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
:Replied on your talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 00:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

== For your perusal ==

Hey honeypot, what do you think of - <font color="black">]</font> 04:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the content is good, and clearly demonstrates your positions. It's darn hard to get to where people can see it, though. The primary link to the Arbitration Committee election page confused me, and I wondered why you were linking me there instead of to your platform, forgetting that I would need to click "show" to see what was under the secret magic bar. Perhaps linking to your own page in the bar might be worthwhile. I think I know some folks who are making "Support candidate X" userboxes and other campaign <s>spam</s> notices, if you are interested. :-) ] (]) 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

== New Messages! ==

{{talkback|EricV89}}

== Ok ==

Ok, I understand your message. Ignore that last part becuase I got my message from Xeno yesterday. Thanks --<font face="Bookman Old Style" color="green" size="4">]</font><font face="Bookman Old Style" color="blue" size="2">]</font> 03:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC) }}


==Attention talk page watchers==
Lots of hardworking editors have dropped by my page asking for assistance in improving the quality of the encyclopedia. It doesn't look like I am going to get very far into the list below for a while, but you (yes, you!) can help, even if it is grammar correction, cleaning up typos, fixing refs, or simply giving some feedback to the editors. Here's the list of requests I've received in the last little bit that I've not yet addressed. There's not much doubt our colleagues will appreciate any support you can provide.

] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (])<br>
] (]) <br>

So...what are you waiting for? Click on a link and go for it! There's a bit of everything here, from history to literature, places, people, television shows, video games, and even a band. Give it a whirl. And thanks. ] (]) 05:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Thank god its friday.. ==

And thanks for the backup :) ] (]) 05:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Tell me about it. You should see the history of this page. On second thought, I think I might just use those shiny tools to clean it up.... ] (]) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Protection ==

I semi'd your talk page due to some vandalism. Hope that's okay. '''] ( ] )''' 03:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks, Seresin. I'd hoped we'd gotten past that, but it seems I may now become a perennial target. Well, we will see. ] (]) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::wholey crap. as a tps, that was a busy time in the old watchlist....--] (]) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

==Deletion review for ]==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] (]) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== PJ Morton ==

Hi there, thanks for the feedback. It's nice to be noticed in a good way :) I like to keep an eye on my speedy deletes to see what happens to them. If a bunch get declined I know I'm doing something wrong! ] (]/]) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Your abuse of rollback ==

Thank you for experimenting with {{#if:|the page ] on}} Misplaced Pages{{#if:|&nbsp;as you did with }}. Your test worked, and it has been ] or removed. Please use ] for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.<!-- Template:Test (first level warning) --> ] (]) 06:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:(Subsequently that post was redeleted by another editor, as it was clearly trolling.) ] (]) 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

==RfD==
Just an FYI, but I've nominated for deletion a number of sockpuppet category redirects you recently created ]. ] (]) 22:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

== user page deletion request ==

Hi Risker,
In the past you were so kind as to delete some of my user pages when I asked. Could I ask you now to delete
]? Here's the catch: can you delete the user page but not the talk page associated with it? Thanks. (I am putting a script out of its misery for the benefit of all wikipedia, if you must know. :-) –]</font>&nbsp;] 00:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:Got it right this time, I think, Outriggr. It should be deleted, and I have left the talk page in place. Poor script, I am sure it is in a better place now. ;-) ] (]) 00:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:: That was fast! You better believe it. Thanks, –]</font>&nbsp;] 01:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Risker, I'm Outriggr's dog's cousin Whiskeydog. Master voted for your RFA largely to obtain a deletion servant ;-), and we are requesting a deletion of my User: and User talk: pages (the latter only if allowed by policy, of course. We aren't that keen on deleting other users' edits, but nevertheless would prefer the talk page deleted). Thanks in advance for your service to wikipedians, including to stubborn doggies. ] (]) 02:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Whiskeydog, I'll work on this in a few hours when I'm on the better computer - but check your email as well. I wish this didn't mean what I suspect it means. ] (]) 02:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Jay's cries of "Ditto Risker" echo across the cavernous abyss--where Whiskeydog once frolicked--now a suddenly poignant metaphor for his empty, shattered heart. --] (]) 03:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, Jay, I plan to pick up a good supply of doggie biscuits to try and entice our friends back at some point. I am pretty sure they will be appreciated by Whiskeydog and Dogriggr, but perhaps I should think of an alternative for Outriggr. Any suggestions? Hmm...these are good... ] (]) 03:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: Well, our poor whiskeypup has a nasty little hangover and he needs more than coffee and a cold shower to cure it. It's not too much whiskey that he's been forced to swallow--he's had to swallow too many frivolous citation requests, too much meaningless metadata, too many editors who interject opinions on subjects they know nothing about, and too many editors who edit for the rules instead of for the readers because they've forgotten the readers exist. So how to get him--and the silent horde like him--to return is to do more to turn back that crimson tide. But how that's done I don't know. --] (]) 03:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
::::: Nor do I, Jay. I am but one editor, and you another. And yet I keep bumping into editors who feel very much as we do. No, they aren't as active as they once were; the demoralisation has continued. I can recall one time when I was discussing image placement on the main page article, pointing out that on my small screen before I logged on, the pictures were completely out of alignment and interfered with the text. Someone plopped a mysterious guideline in front of me that justified this ridiculous situation - "No, you change your preferences to get the image size right!" Well, duh. And how many casual, non-logged-in readers is that supposed to help? You know, the kind who click on the main page article because it looks interesting...
::::: Intellectually, I can rationalise some of the demands for consistency; it strikes me, however, that many of the metrics are off. Not every page needs an image, and a well written page should be able to qualify for at least a "B" level assessment without one. Infoboxes are useful for some types of articles, but not others, and should never be mandatory. Joopercoopers and Wetman have been working on some alternatives that satisfy both the "Quick Facts" set and the "but it messes up the images/takes up too much space" group. Inline citations are the biggest challenge in my mind. I do agree that contentious information needs to be referenced directly; on the other hand, a huge number of the cite requests I see are for noncontroversial information. Maybe it's just me, but from what I see, the better the article is, the less likely it is to need inline cites. And article assessment! Oh geez, what a debacle that has turned into. Again, it made sense to sort out what articles needed most work, but it seems many wikiprojects are dedicated to assessing but completely useless on the improving part. Conflicting demands from project to project don't help. It's going to get worse, too: some of these projects are reclassifying articles now that we have a "C" class, and I've seen a few pages where the article is rated Start, C, and B by different projects, and even one that was rated both B and Stub! At this stage, as our exponential growth has radically slowed, it's time for people to improve the articles we already have. Putting pretty tags on their talk page doesn't do a darn thing for the reader.
::::: In any case, enough ranting for one night. I shall ensure there is a nice fluffy cushion beside the fireplace for our doggie friends, in the hope that they will return refreshed and reinvigorated, perhaps a few weeks or months from now. To heck with all the meta stuff. It would just be nice to see a page edited by any one of them. Maybe that's what I should ask Santa for... ] (]) 04:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

== Re: FYI ==
Thank you, although I don't know what good it will do? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 01:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

== Unprotection ==

Hello. As per the (now archived) ] discussion ], I have been unprotecting the talk pages of anonymous editors that former admin {{admin|Can't sleep, clown will eat me}} indefinitely protected back in 2006. I see that in early August you decreased the edit permissions on many of them, but I am now going through and removing all protection from these pages. Regardless, I wanted to let you know what was going on now (just in case the talk pages are on your watchlist) and thank you for your unprotection work of five weeks ago. Kudos to you! --] (]) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

== My RfA ==

{|style="background-color: #E6E6FA; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #888;"
|]
|style="background-color: #def; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #888;"|Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an ''']''' I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. ''']''' (]) 01:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
|} |}


== Nadolig Llawen ==
==WP:CIV==
Hi Risker, I think your ] is the most sensible one of all given at the civility restriction RfC. I started a discussion at ]. Please take a look at the ]. I would most appreciate your thoughts on how we can improve the situation. Regards, --] 02:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

== Janeyryan ==

Hi Risker - I saw your post on Lar's talk page, and I hope you don't mind my butting in. I agree that the account looks suspicious, but ]. The conclusions don't make any more sense to me than they likely do to you, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of it. ] (]) 02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks, Sarcasticidealist. Those results actually do make a fair amount of sense, but I'll invoke ] on why that is. One also has to bear in mind that what was seen seven weeks ago and what would be seen today could well be different things; it's best not to enter into such explorations with anticipation of a specific result. As a matter of course, I am quite hesitant to publicly name the account I suspect, because it could cause harm to the reputation of an innocent editor, while the CU result could potentially identify someone else as being linked to this account. ] (]) 04:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

== Ulster Defence Regiment ==

I am so sorry. I have never used that template before and made an error in nor providing the correct information to assist you. If you'd be kind enough to look in again at ] I have made the request again in the hope that I've got it right this time. ] (]) 21:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

:I really am sorry. Although I'm a reasonably experienced editor I've not had to do this before and I'm not sure where I'm going wrong. I gave the link http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ulster_Defence_Regiment&diff=239848422&oldid=239848419 to show the information which had been removed. It is the text on the left hand side which is highlighted in yellow. ] requested (as can be seen) that I provide citations for this text. Unfortunately I was too busy through the week because of work and I have spent the entire day going through the article trying to satisfy dozens of similar requests as there has been a lot of activity on it this week. Another admin ] had already reviewed this material during the week as part of a request for 3rd party intervention. He didn't feel it warranted removal and that's why I would respectfully asked that it be returned until it can be properly dealt with when the editprotect is lifted. What should I do now? ] (]) 21:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
::The text you indicated ''is currently in the article'', reference request tags and all. There's nothing for me to add there, since it is already there. I can't add your references because you haven't said what they are. I'm not trying to be confusing here, but the text you want me to insert is already there.
::I suggest that you copy that section onto a subpage for the article, add your references in the subpage copy, and discuss that section with your fellow editors. When there is consensus that the section, complete with references, is ready for the article, then an admin can paste it over to the main article. Given that this seems to be the very text over which the edit war has occurred, I'm not going to be mucking about with it. ] (]) 21:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Do you know something - you are absolutely and totally correct. That shows how confused I had become. I have looked at that article three times now to find that information and I couldn't. Who was it who said, "sometimes you can't see the wood for the trees"? Because never a truer word was spoken and now I feel like the biggest eejit on Misplaced Pages. Thank you very much for your patience and your help and I'm sorry to have been a nuisance. I'm sure you've got better things to be getting on with. ] (]) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
::::No worries, The Thunderer. Sometimes another pair of eyes is what is needed. I will be AFK for the next hour or so, but if you are uncertain of how to set up the subpage, I'll be happy to do it when I get back online. In the interim, this might be the right time for a late night snack? :-) ] (]) 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

== Monty's love for youths ==

I have, and I hope that the new reference is up to snuff. ] (]) 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks, Haiduc. Responded on your page. ] (]) 17:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::Are you comfortable with the doings at ] re the Monty piece? ] (]) 11:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Did I miss your reply? ] (]) 20:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
::::No, you didn't, Haiduc. In my mind, the disputes on this page relate to two points: the definition of "pederastic couple", and the quality and use of sources. I am not in a position to personally research the non-web sources, so am not commenting on them. As to the definition, my perspective is that first the two individuals must be viewed by themselves (and preferably by others as well) as being in a romantic/sexual relationship to be a couple, and that further there must be a sexual element for there to be consideration of the use of the term "pederasty". Some guy having a crush on a younger male with whom he comes in contact does not equal pederasty to me, even if that crush is returned, unless there is actual sexual contact. To quote a favourite songstress of mine, "wish and love are not the same thing". Since you have defined the term differently in the article, I am hard pressed to contribute. ] (]) 16:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== Your question ==

I think may reflect a misunderstanding. Most bots run through independent frameworks (e.g. ]), and not through browsers. Even though a bot may be active, in many cases there is no "logged-in browser" at all. In which case there is no risk that someone could walk up to an unattended browser and simply co-opt an admin account. ] (]) 17:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:Not entirely. The block involved in this case was to the admin account for the purpose of stopping the bot being operated under it, and it had exactly that effect. (Expanding) To be clear, in order for the bot to carry out administrative functions, it requires an admin flag. Since one is not issued legitimately (i.e., through BRFA), the only available flag for the unauthorised accounts belongs to the admin him/herself. ] (]) 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

::Risker, your response makes little sense to me. So I can only assume that I am misunderstanding what you are intending to communicate. You asked a question about unattended bots. Most bots run unattended (including adminbots) that is simply the nature of the business. At the same time when most bots run, no one is "logged-in" in the traditional sense, i.e. there is generally no web browser or active Wikipedian, except via coincidence that the admin happens to be working at the same time the bot is scheduled to run. A flagged account must exist, but there is no greater risk of that account being comprised than if I had access to your computer after all windows were closed. I'm not at all sure what "effect" you are refering to or what you were trying to get at with your question. ] (]) 18:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

:::As it has been explained to me, Dragons flight, the unauthorised adminbots specifically (not bots generally) must be linked to a logged-in administrative account and derive their abilities to carry out admin-restricted tasks from that logged-in administrative account. It is my understanding that if the admin account is logged out, its flag is not available for the bot to use. Perhaps I have completely misunderstood the explanation given to me by two separate bot operators. As to the "effect" point - the effect sought by Prodego was to stop the unauthorised bot. He achieved that effect by blocking Misza13; I assume that is because the needed tools were no longer available to the bot. It strikes me that blocking the admin account is effectively the stop button for these bots. Just one more reason for the admins to get them properly flagged, so that they don't get blocked if their bots go awry for some reason. ] (]) 18:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Adminbots running under an admin's account are utilizing the admin's +sysop flag to perform their actions, and will be affected if that admin is blocked. So, yes, blocking the admin account is effectively the "stop button" for adminbots operating on that account. (With the technical caveat, that the ability to block or unblock is unaffected regardless of whether an admin has been blocked, so a blocking bot could only be stopped via desysoping.) But no, the admin does not need to be "logged-in" in the sense that a lay person would understand it. In most cases the bot communicates directly with Misplaced Pages without using a browser. The admin can log out and close all browsers, but the bot will continue to operate. From a technical point of view, Misplaced Pages sees the admin as "logged-in" while the bot is communicating, but if you were sitting at the computer there would be no browser or active interface. ] (]) 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Risker: I am leaving this message because I know you have stopped by the above-named article. The other day, I dropped on the talk page the other day intending to be a request for urgent action, but no one seems to have noticed. Feel free to leave any thoughts you might have - if you feel like it. Thanks. ] (]) 07:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Risker

I looked up Misplaced Pages policies and I don't see any source there for the "proposal" and "put downs" and vague references to quality being included on a talk page. There was only one instance I can think of in which my summarizing a source was less than perfect (not clarifying the difference between all pro se litigants and those participating in a court program).

I do not believe that Non Curat Lex has added even a single reference to the article. I have no problems with anyone rewriting my text to be more clear or suggesting improvements in my style such as putting quotations in footnotes instead of in the body of the article. I do have a problem with deletion of references and unsupported statements.

Since this is obviously a controversial subject and some of the editors have expressed worry as to how it might affect their income, I think that we should all scrupulously follow all the Misplaced Pages rules and policies. If you observe that I have violated a particular policy, please provide a link to that policy, so that I can take care to avoid repetition. ] (]) 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

:: This is incorrect. In fact, I have added sources, although in your unabated effort to remake the article into an opinion essage, you have deleted several. You have also ignored many other references which might be informative to you. I am not going to add anymore until you agree to stop experimenting on the article, or are prevented from doing same. ] (]) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

:: Addendum re: Block of Kay/Kay's IP: I believe your actions were completely justified. You have my full support. ] (]) 18:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you, I think; mostly, thank you (and the other editors) for having patience while Lar and I tried to find less drastic solutions. I do believe that, somewhere in that huge morass of information that Kay has tried to add to the article, there is some information that would be worth including into the article. I hope you and the other editors will try to do so, although I recognise that it may be a rather tedious task. (While I might be able to make it readable, I don't have the background knowledge to accord it proper weight.) It is unfortunate that the situation has come to this; I wish that Kay had been able to step away from her personal goals enough to understand that they were outside of the scope of the encyclopedia. A line was crossed yesterday, when she added personal insults about editors into the article proper. I will continue to monitor the situation. ] (]) 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

:::: I agree -- we'll do our best. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 05:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Thanks ==

For taking the trouble. ] (]) 14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:FYI: --] (]) 20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
::what does it mean? --] (]) 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Pay it no heed, Rocksanddirt. You know the drill. ;-) ] (]) 00:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I know, but sometimes I do want to know what they are thinking. --] (]) 00:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ah well, I believe it has something to do with enabling and footwear and the strange desire to develop very odd templates. Hmm...templates.... ] (]) 00:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::''sigh'' - to deep for me I think. --] (]) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Now it all makes sense, and like i suspected is to stupid to comment on directly. --] (]) 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== Giano II ==

If Giano gets in more trouble because of me?, I'll do my best to defend him. In fact, I'll take the heat for'em. I had forgotten that he was under sanctions; I'll follow your advice. ] (]) 23:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:PS- When is Giano's probation due to expire? ] (]) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks, GoodDay. I know you meant no harm. Giano, it appears, has called it a night; probably wise under the circumstances. The Buck House article, I think, sticks in his craw to the point that he actually removed it from his watchlist at one point. What people forget is, when this article comes up for review, someone will stick a templated message (probably unsigned) on Giano's talk page, fully expecting him to defend the article. Many people do not understand that there is far more to a featured article than inline citations and grammatically correct prose. The best FAs are well-designed pages, with the various elements present in balance in such a way as to have the reader's eye flow from one element to another. But I digress. I'm not entirely certain, but I believe the civility sanction is to expire in early February. ] (]) 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:::]. That day's posts should make interesting reading.<small>&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font></font>&nbsp;23:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
:::::No it wont make interesting reading, because the sanction is not existent, only in the minds of those who passed it and their sycophantic friends. It was uncalled for illegal unenforceable and a pure act of malice and spite by those who voted for it. It has made them look ridiculous and damaged the project. 9 Feb 2009 will be no different to any other day in my Misplaced Pages life, as was 10 Feb 2008. ] (]) 16:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Oh, my comment wasn't aimed at you – I don't think you ever change (everyone will have their own opinions on whether that's a good or a bad thing) – but at the Angry Mob who'll gather (on both sides).<small>&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font></font>&nbsp;19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
::::::Hijack away, Iridescent, I do it on your page often enough. It is an interesting question, though. Would it be harder or easier to block Giano after the civility patrol expires? For that matter, how has it worked out in the past? I'm not sure what the precedents are. The community seems to be very undecided about what it means when it comes to civility anymore; the policy is in the middle of rewriting and is every bit as muddy now as it was to start with, it just reflects ever so slightly different views. What with this new proposal for being able to block people from specific pages or areas,. I have a feeling we will be seeing wild blocking sprees of anyone who argues points anywhere. Anything that makes it easier to block people is a bad thing, in my books. ] (]) 19:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I am quite sure by the time the "parole" expires the Arbcom, IRC and the Peanut Gallery (one body) will have found to some further way of making themselves appear ridiculous and malicious and extended it. ] (]) 07:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Something Giano once said in a very different context works just as well as a civility policy IMO; assume that everyone reading whatever you're writing is a bright 14 year old unless you have evidence to the contrary. Would whatever you're posting be something you'd say to a 14 year old child if you were having a similar conversation face to face? It works surprisingly well. (Says someone with a talkpage full of complaints about my "abusive actions", a lengthy history of adding semi-pornographic images to talkpages and a reputation for foul-tempered sulking and the subject of two recent civility RFCs rivalling Giano's in fatuousness if not length, but you get my drift).<small>&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font></font>&nbsp;19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
:Would it be harder or easier to block Giano? It's not really anyone's '''goal,''' to block Giano, I hope. Therefore, instrumentalities are kind of... well, too overtly evil for my taste in discussion. I would say that Giano is as blockable as I am or you are, and for the same reasons. I don't think "civility" is grounds for blocking anyone, as any blocking rationale needs to be comprehensible, precise, and clear, and no one who has invoked 'civility' has ever been ''any'' of those things about the block. "Disruption" is clearer, in that it requires ''actions'' and ''responses'' on the part of the affected few, but "civility" is a reason to talk to someone or not talk to someone, not to block or allow someone. Therefore, blocking me or you can be done, if you or I violate policy. If either of us behaves in a manner that causes displeasure to some third party, well, that makes us unpleasant. Sic transit gloria mundi. ] (]) 10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== Per User talk:Giano II ==
*The article I was asking about is: ]
*The peer review is archived here: ]
*It was promoted to GA without comment
*It failed FAC for want of a good copyedit, near as I can tell: ]. CJLippert and I are the only people with any substantial contributions, though Karanacs and a few others did some copyediting during the FAC, it was deem'd insufficient, I guess.
Anyways, I'm kind of stuck on it for the time being, and would appreciate whatever can be done. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== RE: Revert to Iredescent's page ==

Lol, well thanks, I guess. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ])<font size="4">☺</font> 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== Are you taking sides? ==

What kind of game are you playing, when you overlook Nandesuka's accusations against me and let those accusations stand, even though they are clear and systematic personal attacks?

And how do you have the nerve to interfere and take sides, after refusing to hold up your end of the agreement regarding sourcing on the Monty piece, and chickening out on discussing it. ] (]) 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:I have just now realised that my message to Nandesuka, asking him/her to tone down the personalisation, didn't actually get through. There have been many server problems in the last few days, and I've lost a couple of edits; unfortunately that appears to have been one of them. I shall repeat my message to Nandesuka. I do not believe Nandesuka's comments are symmetrical to yours, however; to me, calling another editor a liar in those exact words crosses a very definite line in the sand.
:As to "interfering", I had suggested that you bring your discovery of this source to the talk page of the article, and you did not do that. I do not have access to the book in question; it is not available in the libraries I have access to, and I do not intend to pay a healthy sum out of pocket to obtain a copy of a book about someone in whom I have no real interest. Therefore, I do not have the information available from which to take part in the discussion of the source text. That's not "chickening out", that is being responsible enough not to spout off on a contentious topic without having the facts. ] (]) 22:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

::Having that explanation earlier would have defused my disappointment at your lack of response. I am sorry, for some reason your request for the verbatim text had not registered in my mind. Let me see what I can do the next time I have a free moment.
::As for the Nandesuka saga, it goes back along way, and I can only hope that he will mend his behavior. I have tolerated it long enough, and have only myself to blame for not bringing him to the attention of the authorities. It just happens to be a distasteful task. ] (]) 01:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==
Ah, I am somewhat new at main page patrol, and was not looking at times of creation. I simply saw that the page was basically a dictdef with no real content, hence the speedy. I'll try to be a bit more judicious in future. ] (]) 22:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== Your message on my talk page ==

Thank you for the warning. I will take it to heart. Personalizing the debate never accomplishes anything good. ] (]) 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:At the same time, if you've got '''one''' editor pushing for changes that are opposed by ''multiple'' editors, isn't it an example of defying consensus for private views? Further, if we want to investigate ], wouldn't we need to ask the editor if he is a member of ] or other organization like that? In fact, doesn't the person and personality come to the fore the moment the individual accuses the community of "gangbanging" him? That is a personal and nasty choice of words. It is better to be ''dispassionate,'' of course, but dispassion becomes irresponsibility when the subject is one of core law and morality.
:By the way, just checked out the longish article on homosexuality in the Spaworth ed. ''Oxford Classical Dictionary,'' and it largely backs up what Foucault said. These "relationships" can hardly be called loving. Any young man who enjoyed, in any way, or desired, in any way, the sexual activity of the lover was a social reject... an '''extreme''' reject -- not a man, not a woman. ] (]) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== AE sanctions concerning Ireland related articles ==

Wowsers, the boom was lowered on ''five'' editors, simultaneously. ] (]) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Thanks, that is honestly the first edit I've made that I knew should be deleted. But I saved it for the right guy! ] (]) 00:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Joshbod's edit ==

Hi Cojoco, just to let you know, even Joshbod agreed that his comment should be removed, per his message on my talk page. He was voicing his negative personal opinion about a living person, which is generally frowned on in our ]. It's especially important to do that on the talk pages of articles that have already seen very heated editing, to keep the temperature down and keep the focus on the article itself. Hope this explanation helps. ] (]) 01:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

: Hi, Risker, thanks for your explanation; I only saw your note on Joshbod's talk page after I added my comment to his page. By the way, is this the correct way to carry on a conversation across two user's talk pages? I'm not sure if I should be adding this note here or to my own talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 01:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::It can be done many ways, Cojoco. I usually answer on my talk page, unless I have a message that I want to absolutely ensure will be seen and I am not familiar with the editor. I watch all talk pages I post on for a minimum of a week after I post there. The way you have done it works too, although you will see I am answering here and not going back to your talk page. (I figure you have mine on your watchlist now, since you just posted here.) It's good to keep conversations together. Many users will outline their talk page practices at the top of their talk page, you might find that helpful. ] (]) 01:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Info boxes ==

If the parameters set the list of iboes required category can then be used to go and systimaticaly add them to articles. People can ignore it, the statement that the primary editor would have added if they wanted it sounds very ]. My current 'project' is assessing articles tagged with WP Derbyshire, (having previously had a taging period) then going back systematicly fix / expand things, as its more productive thank you. - ] (]) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Bulldozer, no article "needs" an infobox. If you were to actually look at the article you are assessing, and consider what the effect of a userbox would be, you would know that article should not have an infobox. Architectural images are normally larger than that which infoboxes can support, but the larger image is essential for detail, which is described in the article. Further, the infobox would visually unbalance the article. If it is considered essential that all articles within the WP Derbyshire have an infobox, then I suggest you leave the article out of the wikiproject, which also does not ] the article. ] (]) 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::Agree projects dont own articles, it was the implication that the primary editor has the right to decide wether an article has somthing or not, that implies ownership. So we scrap all the stub articles then as they look unbalanced etc. The project box has been set with the parameter which ime using. Articles grow if people edit them espicaly if they can see a gap in the coverage. If its your pet project you can have it, theres plenty more and i'v got a list of plenty of new ones to creat, was just doing a bit of house keeping with the tag list and resulting articles with no importance assigned. Its too small to worry about for me. Bye - ] (]) 21:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Um, yes. There are very few stub articles that benefit from an infobox; I have seen several that have more information in the infobox than the article, which is absolutely the wrong way to do things. The one exception may be something like the near-earth asteroid project, which is bot-created, but even still the article with its refs is pretty well as long as the infobox; in any case, those are more very short but essentially complete articles than stubs. ] (]) 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki> from ] ==

By an IP address no less (not prohibited by the guidelines, mind you). I would certainly add my '''d''' to your AfD. ] (]) 08:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== restoral of same BLP stuff ==

] has part of the BLP content that was deleted per a OTRS ticket, insisting on inserting the Walmart lawsuit and using low quality sources. He made no prior discussion on the talk page. --] (]) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

==Thanks!==
Thanks for the reply's on my talk page. I saw that blp discussion somewhere (lar's?, AN/I?) and just went to delete the blp stuff. The whole article really blows, but I was tired and didn't have the energy to really fix it. --] (]) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC) and the vandalism revert...I didn't even see that....--] (]) 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== I'm a PC ==

Risker, can you change your protection to full or remove it and block the IP? We don't use semi protection to block out IP users from edit wars. If there's a legitimate 3RR report then the user can be blocked, we shouldn't stop every single IP or autoconfirmed user from editing the page just because one is edit warring with the page creator. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:Fair enough, Ryan; thanks for the advice. Will review quickly and change to one or the other. ] (]) 18:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Cheers Risker. I'm planning on bringing all the parties together so we can try and settle the dispute but there's just so much going on that I don't know where to start. There's a 3RR report ] that you might find useful. I've had a chat with Arcayne because he's hit three reverts and I think he's fairly frustrated that the IP won't discuss its edits. Arcayne is making a good effort to get some discussion going on the talk page. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 18:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::On looking at it, the anonymous editor is so far over 3RR, with multiple editors reverting him/her, that I have elected to block rather than fully protect. As well, I note some other beneficial editing happening that does not appear to be related to the dispute, and don't want to pour cold water on that. If you can persuade the IP editor to participate in talk page discussion rather than returning to edit warring, I would have absolutely no problem with you unblocking. ] (]) 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Nor would I, but I am thinking that, judging from the responses in the 3RR complaint, the anon might need to distance himself from the article for a bit, so as to gain some perspective. Granted, I'm no princess here, but not being able to take the hit for your bad behavior is a pretty clear sign that perspective is needed. - ] ] 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As an aside, were you going to conclude the , as you've blocked the IP? - ] ] 18:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, I posted the result, but I have to log off in a minute; if there are fancy templates to be added please feel free. Ryan, by the way, check your email. ] (]) 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== User:MediaLawyer ==

I have been reviewing his case due to his recent unblock request. As far as I can tell, the information added to the Richie Ramone article was referenced to reliable sources, and fairly neutrally presented. Could you perhaps elaborate more fully how his October 1st edit: , led you to block him 3 days later: . I am quite confused, and if you have additional information that led to the block, to which is not obvious, please post it on his talk page so that I or another admin can act on his unblock request. Thank you! --].].] 02:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:Stand by please, Jayron32, I am conferring with the OTRS person who took the ticket to clarify the situation and make sure my memory is correct. I see the other editor who was previously involved seems to be back as well, and that will have to be addressed as well. In the interim, you might want to read the archived talk page. ] (]) 02:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks. I have been reading up on it. It looks like he only made a single edit since the OTRS deletion; could we not just warn him not to return the information to the article? This may be a deeper issue, and I await your info on the OTRS situation. Thanks! --].].] 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Misquoting sources ==

Please take a look at ] and advise. It appears to me that someone has directly misquoted a source, substituting one word for another, yet still attributing it to the source. I haven't looked through the article history to figure out who did this, and perhaps there's some other innocent explanation. But if this is the sort of thing that passes for research on this topic, I despair of ever getting this topic area cleaned up. ] (]) 03:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:Nandesuka, taking information out of context for the purpose of referencing, or misquoting a reference, bothers me on any article regardless of subject, as does deliberate use of poor reference sources when better ones exist. It seems the Arbitration Committee agrees on this point, based on their decisions in the ] and ] cases. I've looked at that particular discussion and checked some online sources (Wikisource should get a copy of that book, it is public domain and could be used for a lot of articles), and a few refer to later emendations by other scholars, so it may be a quote from a later version as revised; unfortunately, the pages that referred to this did not include the quote being discussed, as they were of other sections of the book. We shall have to give other editors the opportunity to try to locate this and then properly notate the reference. If that cannot be done, it does raise some serious questions about sourcing on this and other articles. ] (]) 04:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== ] article ==

Hi Risker: Can I take the issue of the ] article to a higher court? Are there other options other than re-listing the article at DRV?] (]) 13:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Manhattan Samurai. DRV is the last port of call for reviewing deletion decisions. As the most recent discussion has just been closed within the last few hours, it would not serve you well to relist at DRV at this time; you'd need an awful lot more "additional references" on Finkelstein before you have enough to successfully challenge the current status at DRV. I was becoming a bit concerned about your responses on the now-closed one, as you were growing more and more accusatory in your tone, and suggesting allegiances that simply do not exist. (I had to do some research to find out who this Tony Fox was that you thought I sounded like, for instance. I thought you were referring to some late-night positive-attitude lifestyle coach, not another Misplaced Pages editor.) Before initiating a further DRV, I'd suggest you do some serious introspection about what motivated you to pursue this so vigorously, to the point where you maligned almost everyone who disagreed with you. Seth Finkelstein is a pretty good writer, and he's made some interesting points, but I could say the same thing of hundreds of other marginally notable columnists and commentators, many of whom have a much larger readership than Finkelstein and are quoted more frequently. In the interim, there is the article you have been working on, and which you've been encouraged to continue to develop. There is plenty of room for improvement there, even if there is no link to Seth Finkelstein's name. The redlink to the book is infinitely more important to resolve, and I wish you luck with that. ] (]) 14:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, I have been distracted from my other work by this DRV debacle. I will have to get back to that.] (]) 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== FACR ==

Risker, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a ] that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. ] ] 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Your comment ==

Thanks for your explanation, and let us both hope that this thread, and its conclusion, helps remove any unjustified stigma that people were, deliberately or otherwise, attaching to the account. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

== The "I Kill You" barnstar ==
Risker, remember the barnstar? That editor just pulled a good one at FAC, adding a Support to his FAC over someone's else's signature. Should I take this to AN/I for further community followup, or is it best left with you? I'd rather not drag FAC business through AN/I, but I'm unaware of policy in this area. ] (]) 09:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:The vote (and my follow up comment) have since been removed; I'd like to let it drop but understand if others wish to do otherwise. ] (]) 09:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:: I'm perfectly OK with letting it drop if others agree, but we let it drop last time, so we may be breeding a problem. ] (]) 09:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that Jbmurray has blocked Hadrianos1990 for a week, which seems entirely appropriate to me. You may wish to delist the Real Madrid article from FAC, since obviously he (as nominator) will not be in a position to respond to the comments, but I will leave that to you, Sandy. Definitely another editor to watch closely, though; thanks for the heads-up. ] (]) 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC) <small> P.S. - Sandy, do you ever sleep? ;-) </small>

== More abuse. ==

In , Haiduc calls an editor with whom he is in a content dispute (and who has been scrupulously civil) a "fag basher" and compares him to an anti-semite. He has been warned about this countless times. When is enough enough? ] (]) 12:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

== Email ==

You have an email. ] (]) 15:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, I have received it. I encourage you to do your best to keep the discussion on-wiki, as I don't see anything in the content of the email that has not or could not be said here. While I strongly believe that Haiduc has overstepped the mark with his allegations about you (and other editors, in similar situations), it is very clear that he feels isolated and beleaguered. There is no benefit in playing into that perception by being unnecessarily secretive. As per our existing standards, I will not publish your email, but I ask you to consider confirming that it is largely an extension of your commentary in the thread from the ] talk page. This isn't in any way to question your thoughts on the matter, but rather to dispel any notion that there is scheming going on in the background. Thanks. ] (]) 15:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

== "Smear" ==

Risker, for the past half year or so I have been the target of a small coterie of saboteurs who have been systematically gutting my work while directing ad hominem attacks at me in a campaign that has tried to depict me as someone who misuses sources to insert false information in Misplaced Pages, a campaign that usually blows up in their faces as it just did at the ] article, but which they keep up anyway, like Ottava Rima has now done at the ] article.

Every now and then the masks of these characters slip a little bit, so we can see the true face behind the mask, as was the case with this fellow's comment that documenting the homosexuality of a personage is a "smear." That, my dear, IS homophobia, and don't you mistake it for anything else. And do not expect me to close my eyes and my mouth to sexist abuse of this nature. This is not something that should be appeased and tolerated, but denounced and stamped out as soon as it rears its ugly head, or else Misplaced Pages culture itself will be corrupted. Now I am all for putting polemics aside and getting on with the work of editing. But how do you think I will take it if I see these individuals run unchecked, supporting each other and misusing their administratorial privileges when they have them, while my own responses are subjected to the closest scrutiny?

Go back through Nandeska's edits since mid-summer, and of the other pilers-on in this gang, and put them in their place, as they richly deserve, and then I will consider that this space is properly and fairly policed, and I will respect your contribution. But as of now your involvement is of the too little and too late variety, and does not show anything near a full understanding of the nature and scope of the abuse that has been going on, and which I have tolerated long enough. ] (]) 16:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not to argue on another person's talk page, but there is a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. Since the standard definition of pederasty (notice the common linguistic origins of the words) deals with anal sex between an older man and a male child, it would seem that this is pedophilia and not homosexuality. There are few mainstream "queer theorists" who conflate the two, and, when they do, they follow Foucault's path to say that pederasty was strictly non-sexual and represented a love for a younger male that was based on education and encouragement. Thus, it would seem that by clinging to claims of homophobia, you have distorted traditional sexuality studies in order to posit mainstream homosexuality with relationships that are unwelcome within the gay community. I'm sure NAMBLA would be in support of such terminology, but I could not say the same for any others. ] (]) 16:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

::I find your insinuations of pedophilia and your focus on NAMBLA in the context of homosexual behavior revolting, intellectually bankrupt, and beneath contempt or discussion. Your ideations about child sex are frightening, and totally out of place here. Please keep these matters to yourself in the future, and try to focus on editing, if you are able. ] (]) 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: "A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy." ": "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children. "". It is hard to deny the relationship between these two words, even though Haiduc tries to hide from this. The mainstream homosexual community does not tolerate either. ] (]) 17:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Risker, without getting down in the muck here, I think there's an observation to be made about Haiduc's rhetoric here. Specifically, his claim that Ottava believes that "documenting the homosexuality of a personage is a 'smear.'" This isn't true, as near as I can tell. It is, however, indicative of one of the two central problems I have with many of Haiduc's edits. The first is his use of sources, which I've catalogued elsewhere and won't get in to now. The second, however, is his pervasive and habitual conflating of homosexuality and pederasty. Based on his edits, as near as I can tell, Haiduc believes the two terms are interchangeable. This is an astonishingly non-mainstream definition of the term "pederasty", and lies at the root of much of the back-and-forth.
I think that if one asked the editors of Wikproject:LGBT to comment on the statement "Pederasty is the normative form of homosexuality," a view that Haiduc seems to promote, you would be find broad-based, widespread disagreement. I understand that you are not involved in the content dispute, and I do not expect (or want) you to take sides in this. But I wanted to observe that along with the sourcing problems, this is the central content dispute, and the various squabbles over specific content are rather expressions of that fringe view.
Just my $0.02. ] (]) 20:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

==please observe these Wiki guidelines on the Pro se page==

In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Misplaced Pages. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion."

"But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable."


<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:yellow; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]]]<br/>
" while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see #Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of whichpolicy the content fails and and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also #Pointing at policy.)"
<big>'''Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.'''<br/>Happy Christmas and Best wishes for a peaceful 2025:</big> performed by the ].<br />(], ] folk carol)
----
</div> ] (]) 09:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:@ ] (]) 19:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
"Misplaced Pages editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article." "It is insufficient to simply assert that an article (or the subject of an article) is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages." "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it is an argument based on the right reasons." http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions ] (]) 20:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:55, 22 December 2024

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.



On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog


Stats for pending changes trial
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases
Category:Misplaced Pages semi-protected pages
User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js in case I need it
User:Risker/Mauricie
{{OversightBlock|sig = ~~~~}} signs the template.

Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links

Notes to self
The Siege of Rhodes
Palladian Villas of the Veneto
Gabriel Williams
Almeric Paget, 1st Baron Queenborough
Gomez wordcloud
Useful stuff
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Risker/Questions for the candidate
recent changes
Image:ACE2008.jpg
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Results
Interesting pages
Useful stuff
Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags/Public domain
Future reference re BLP on ANI
To AFD

Other stuff
Talk page archive #1 - January/06 to December/07
Talk page archive #2 - January 08/ to May 11/08
Talk page archive #3 - May 11/08 to July 31/08
Talk page archive #4 - August 1/08 to October 31/08
Talk page archive #5 - November 1/08 to December 31/08
Talk page archive #6 - January 1/09 to June 30/09
Talk page archive #7 - July 1/09 to December 31/09
Talk page archive #8 - January 1/10 to July 31/10
Talk page archive #9 - August 1/10 to May 10/11
Talk page archive #10 - May 10/11 to December 31/11
Talk page archive #11 - January 1/12 to May 25/12
Talk page archive #12 - May 26/12 to December 31/12
Talk page archive #13 - January 1/13 to June 30/13
Talk page archive #14 - July 1/13 to December 31/13
Talk page archive #15 - January 1/14 to December 31/14
Talk page archive #16 - January 1/15 to December 31/15
Talk page archive #17 - January 1/16 to December 31/17
Talk page archive #18 - January 1/18 to December 31/18
Talk page archive #19 - January 1/19 to January 2020
Talk page archive #20 - January 2020 to May 2024



Admin stuff:
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' how-to guide
Misplaced Pages:New admin school
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list
Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace
Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace/Blocks
Misplaced Pages:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table
Template:Unsigned
Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Indicators
Template:SPI case status


Notes


WP:ARBAP2
{{subst:W-screen}} {{subst:User:Alison/c}} Misplaced Pages:SPI/CLERK and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Indicators


Note to self: Consider writing an article about the Forster Family Dollhouse in the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Some day.

Listeria Bot Misplaced Pages:New_page_patrol_source_guide#Africa

Emergency desysops
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Other note to self re "emergency" desysops:

  • Spencer195, Marskell, Cool3 - Level 1
  • Hemanshu - committee motion, mischaracterized as "emergency desysop" on noticeboard, desysop occurred minutes before the motion passed.
  • Sade - to check "involuntary per arbcom", Feb 09
  • RickK/Zoe - July 08. Long dormant admin accounts, shared compromised password.
  • Eye of the Mind - Dec 07. Main page deletion.
  • Shreshth91 - done at request of single arbitrator, Aug 07.
  • Vancouverguy - Jun 07. Long dorman admin account, apparent compromise.
  • Yanksox - Mar 07 - Jimbo desysop, confirmed by Arbcom in full case (DB deletion wheel war)
  • Robdurbar - Apr 07 - mass blocking, self unblocking, deletion. Wonderfool.
  • Husnock - Dec 06. Admitted shared password, desysop confirmed by Arbcom in full case.

Please post below

I'm around a lot more now!

Well, now that we on the Movement Charter Drafting Committee have published the final text of the proposed movement charter (ratification vote coming up soon!), I can finally get back to the work I've been missing so much here on this project. I figured I should look at backlogs, and first off I'm going to work on clearing the IPBE requests; that will take a while, as it isn't top priority for most checkusers. Then there's SPI and other CU requests, as well as getting back into OS requests. Feel free to ping me if I can be of assistance. Risker (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Notification

I reference the questions you asked at WT:RFA in this case clarification request. I figured this crosses the threshold of when it's a good idea to give someone a courtesy notification. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

IP address blocked

@Risker

You have blocked my IP address, so I can't edit. Although I may have made mistakes in the past, I have familiarized myself with all Misplaced Pages policies. Please reconsider and unblock my IP address.

ᱤᱧ ᱢᱟᱛᱟᱞ (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be editing pretty well, at least when you're logged in. I haven't done many IP blocks in the last year, and most of the time I am making them more accessible (e.g., allowing logged-in editors to edit instead of blocking all editors). I really don't want to have to use the CheckUser tool to find out what IP address or range you are using, since you are able to edit logged-in. If you are encountering difficulty logging in or editing while logged in, that's a bit of a different story. If that is the case, the best step would be to email the address listed on WP:IPBE so that it can be further reviewed by the CheckUser team. Risker (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

IPBE for User:Lynnzh0913

I saw that you granted IPBE to this editor. As the first thing they did was cryptospamming (Draft:Aibit exchange), I am inclined to revoke that, but wanted to ask your opinion before doing so. Seraphimblade 07:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Seraphimblade. I've revoked the IPBE; while the account met the criteria for the initial grant, this is exactly why it is meant to be easy to revoke. I've been clearing the backlog of IPBE requests (there were over 100, I've lost count....), I'm hoping this will be the only one that messes up so obviously. Risker (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

IPBE question

Is it generally acceptable for admins to grant IPBE to new editors who are in a geography (or on an ISP) where they'd need IPBE to edit? Was looking at User:Risker/IPBE and it isn't exactly clear (the request I was reviewing was at User talk:Caralice). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Elli. Reasonable question. This would probably fall into the "use common sense" category, more so than anything. I deliberately didn't include the "geographies" issue for a few reasons: listing "concerning" geographies is a mug's game since they keep changing and expanding, and it's a potential vector for abuse (and yes, we've seen some inappropriate requests involving these "concerning" geographies). Gonna be honest, by the time an admin starts feeling comfortable in granting any additional permissions to people, they've usually developed a feel for situations where they don't really want to go. We've got a lot of really good and smart admins.
I think there are also a few issues that need further discussion. Should we be range-blocking IPs that have no history of abuse, simply because they're a VPN or similar? With an increasing number of people and devices only operating effectively through VPNs and similar colocation vectors, should we become more liberal in our granting? How can we deal effectively with the IPBE-related issues that stem from deeply rooted systemic biases that exist outside of our small slice of the internet? Should we request that the developers separate Tor access from IPBE, which would reduce the risk of inappropriate behaviour? There are a lot of things we could be doing better to reduce the need for, and the risk of, granting IPBE. It becomes increasingly difficult to say to people "we want to see a reasonable editing history" when the reality is that they can't even gain access. Risker (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Protecting 2024 United States presidential election

I just noticed that you goldlocked the article "2024 United States presidential election". Why? Is it just that much of a contentious topic? Just curious. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed a contentious topic, and was also having an ongoing edit war. Risker (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Ah. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk Page of 2024 United States Presidential Election is also locked (not only the article, which for the article is understandable)

Good evening brother. Just wanted to ask why cant one post a topic on the talk page?

And also I basically just wanted to ask what the hold up is with updating the article?

Trump was declared the projected winner for 4 hours and the article still shows him as 266. Which is outdated information.

Sources:

https://www.foxnews.com/elections

https://elections2024.thehill.com/

https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2024-us-presidential-election-results-live-map 2806:2F0:1080:F8C0:9901:73EA:1D3F:3883 (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Not touching the protection on that talk page; if you really want to pursue it, you can post at WP:RFPP. The full protection of the article has been lifted now that the predetermined 5 mainstream media outlets have unanimously called the election for Trump. You will see much work done there in the coming hours. Risker (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Donald Trump Barnstar
For your work bringing cohesiveness and order to 2024 United States presidential election during AP's, CNN's, ABC's, CBS's and NBC's reporting last night; for making sure orderly process and structure were facilitated on Talk:2024 United States presidential election. Admins like you are the best! BarntToust 13:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, BarntToust. I think. I'm still half asleep. :) Risker (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

#2024110610012222

Hey Risker! Thank you for actioning that request. For future reference, what is the correct way to request RevDel without using the Oversight process? The suggestion of 'Find active admins in Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_handle_RevisionDelete_requests' can be described as tedious at best. There has to be a better way? Thanks in advance, OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi OXYLYPSE - you did the right thing. If you're not in a position to raise an admin's attention quietly, you or any other user can make the request through emailing User:Oversight. This is especially important for apparent BLP issues; it's to everyone's benefit to keep that off noticeboards or other public spaces. The Oversight team does review every request that comes in and takes the most appropriate action; often that is revision deletion instead of suppression. Thanks for asking! Risker (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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 Misplaced Pages 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) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | tålk 10:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC).

Sorry about that

I mentioned it there, but I just wanted to reiterate here that in the light of day one of my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrator recall/Reworkshop was rude. Sorry about that.

I look forward to (more) politely continuing to share our different perspectives! - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh RevelationDirect, just the other day I was accused of kicking dogs. I do not find anything you said to be particularly rude at all. Bottom line, though, I am really impressed that you hold yourself to such a high standard. It's a challenging discussion, for sure, but I think the focus has been on improvement and re-humanizing the process. Risker (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

No big deal...

Hi, I haven't edited for almost 2 years, but I've been lurking (just a bit). I came across RECALL and its REWORKSHOP more by accident than design and I was so pleased to see you being active there. It certainly needs your special touch. It inspired me to throw in just two or three minor comments, and though I'm certainly not staging a comeback, I still have a vested interest in both encouraging potential admin candidates to throw their hat in the ring without fear, and even more important to ensure they get a fair deal when they get the bit - or lose it. Warm rgds, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to provide feedback

Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my recall process. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my feedback form. Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen


Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.
Happy Christmas and Best wishes for a peaceful 2025: "Gabriel's Message" performed by the Winchester Cathedral Choir.
("Birjina gaztetto bat zegoen", Basque folk carol)

Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@ 36.37.211.144 (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)