User talk:Wikisian
Welcome!
[edit]
|
May 2011
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Ruhollah Khomeini do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here to Ruhollah Khomeini was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfrJ2rBobGs&feature=related) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
June 2013
[edit] Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Noam Chomsky may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 9
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Frontline (PBS) episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hacker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Ice hockey at the 2014 Winter Olympics
[edit]In response to your comments on my talk page, I had not actually looked at the Ice Hockey at the <<previous>> Winter Olympics pages, and so didn't see this consistency. However, I had looked at other articles for the 2014 Winter Olympics, such as curling, which follows a similar tournament style to ice hockey, but does not include the infobox. Scrolling slightly further down the page, to the Medalists section, a clear table can be seen detailing the winners. However, this could be too detailed, with many names per team, and the infobox does appear to fit with previous ice hockey olympic articles, so I am happy for you to reintroduce the infobox, if you wish. If you've got any more comments on this, please reply on my talk page, or if it is more appropriate, on the Ice hockey talk page. 97rob (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
TrueCrypt revert
[edit]No need to be petulant. The date format was inconsistent with existing usage in the article, and there was no directive as to which format was preferred. My edit was no more "subjective" than the existing text, but was more accurate in describing what happened. — QuicksilverT @ 19:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry if you felt I was being petulant. I saw no other usage of the date format which you switched to, yet every other full date in the article used the format that you switched from. If you can point out any inconsistencies, that would definitely be helpful. As for subjectivity, the text already accurately described what happened. Given WP:SUBJECTIVE I saw no reason to reword it simply to include the word "abruptly". (How does a redirect begin not "abruptly" anyway?) If it's really that important to you, definitely feel free to bring it up on the talk page. --Wikisian (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 22:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
[edit] Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to TrueCrypt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- //www.wired.com/2012/02/laptop-decryption-unconstitutional/ | accessdate = 2014-05-24}}</ref><ref>[http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=38545 Court Rules TrueCrypt User Cannot Be Compelled To
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:
- Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
- You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
- We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
- We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.
Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
November 2015
[edit]
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Dwayne Johnson. Thank you. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: Unwarranted reversion
[edit]Well, I'm glad you added sources, good for you.
As for edit warring, don't worry, I don't intent on going to any edit wars. I usually just revert someone once, and that's about it. If I disagree with something, I always go to the talk page and talk about it there. Oh and regarding my history. Yes, it is true that I went to many edit wars in 2007, but that was a long time ago and I assure you I'm nothing like I was back then right now. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad you believe you have grown up, Blaze The Movie Fan, good for you. --Wikisian (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 30
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Morning After (web series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Holmes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Feedspot logo.png
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Feedspot logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.
Not a big deal, the article for which the image was uploaded for was deleted at AfD so there's no article using the image now. Elaenia (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
UFC 205
[edit]Hello. I supposed that you know how Wikipedia works, right? As I've seen lately, you have a tendency to try and keep articles 100% as they were after you made major edits. You can't accept changes and engages in back-and-forth reverts. Anyway, focusing on this event: only you show up adding rankings. Plenty of veteran MMA editors do not add them. They have no relevance to match-making or plenty of other functional stuff. They barely appear in medias just to "give some north" to casual fans. That being said, you have the right to propose such changes. BUT they must follow procedures, something you seem to avoid. WP:JDL fits exactly your behavior here. You "just don't like" the fact that we tell you to not add rankings and keeps getting them back. So gather a discussion (per the rules) so you can propose it. I can call the editors that have been on mma articles lately and we all discuss. I believe the outcome will be the same, but it's done by proper means and the discussion ends. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Reply when talked to here instead of bringing that conversation over to an article talk page. This one belongs here and there is the place for you to work by the rules - something you haven't done. You now bring "harassment" to the table? Where is your part of gathering a discussion because you're the only one proposing changes? You will only accept your version and that's it. You're not the first to add rankings (unregistered users and other registered have done it in the past) and I'm not the first/only one to revert those edits in the last months. Yet, you're the first acting as a victim. Stop that, it's lame. I don't care who you are and what you edit anywhere. I'm simply reverting that based on what I said, not your username. If somebody else did it, I would do the same thing. So you have no solid points other than "they are offered by the ufc and are relevant info, let's add rankings and if you don't agree, let's add them anyway". I wonder why always an editor shows up out of the blue, engages in big arguments (like this one) and they never - NEVER - do their part of gathering a discussion for proposed changes. Even if they were right or just partially right, they never do it properly. And then they vanish like nothing happened. You're following the same steps. So please, stop the drama of pasting one-on-one conversation there and gather a discussion with proper arguments. Keep our conversation here as I won't fill a talk page with our specific discussion not-100% directly related to that issue. If anybody want to see it, this page is public anyway. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Gsfelipe94 again you're making false accusations. I am demonstrably not the only one "prospering" changes. And as I said before, it is demonstrably false that I will accept "only my version and that's it." And it's ironic that you would openly admit that I am not the only one to add rankings, as just a moment ago you claimed "only you show up adding rankings". So which is it? Those two statements are in direct contradiction. Further you claim I am acting as a victim. When a person continuously reverts edits that have absolutely nothing to do with the point in question (in this case rankings), and yet cites rankings as a reason for reverting every single edit by a particular editor (whether those edits had to do with rankings or not), yes, I don't see how that would not be considered harassment. You are directly targeting my specific edits (all of them, not just rankings), and reverting them with no reasoning (or pretending that you are only reverting rankings). Either you are being totally negligent and reckless in your editing, or you are engaging in classic harassment.
- As far as "gathering a discussion on proposed changes", that is not how Wikipedia works. Anyone can edit pages for a reason. If there was a discussion needed for any change on an article, then only specific users would be able to edit articles (and the encyclopedia would virtually never go live.) Again, you type plenty of text, but nowhere have you offered a valid reasoning as to why such information should not be included. Everything you have offered is nothing more than assertions, accusations about me personally (which are demonstrably false), and now stories about other users. As I said before, the closest thing you have offered that might even resemble a reasoning for excluding such info is "it hasn't been included before" and/or "I just don't like it." Those are not reasons to exclude information from Wikipedia. One more time, either provide a valid reasoning, or stop deleting verifiable, and relevant information. And definitely stop reverting my edits that have nothing to do with rankings, as again, this is either negligent/reckless, or intentional harassment. --Wikisian (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I said you're not the first to add them. You're the only one in this case right now. Pay proper attention to what is written. If it happened one year ago it still has nothing to do with the fact that you're the only one at the moment doing it, so there's no contraction there. Stop creating scenarios that don't exist, like your "harassment" card. I won't waste any other time here. As I mentioned previously, you're showing up out of nowhere, only caring about keeping your edits and not engaging in discussions about it. You're the first though to add the victim role to it, but it's ok. I'll do your job here and call some people for discussion. Btw, is that harassment as well? Should I be worried then? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- As far as "gathering a discussion on proposed changes", that is not how Wikipedia works. Anyone can edit pages for a reason. If there was a discussion needed for any change on an article, then only specific users would be able to edit articles (and the encyclopedia would virtually never go live.) Again, you type plenty of text, but nowhere have you offered a valid reasoning as to why such information should not be included. Everything you have offered is nothing more than assertions, accusations about me personally (which are demonstrably false), and now stories about other users. As I said before, the closest thing you have offered that might even resemble a reasoning for excluding such info is "it hasn't been included before" and/or "I just don't like it." Those are not reasons to exclude information from Wikipedia. One more time, either provide a valid reasoning, or stop deleting verifiable, and relevant information. And definitely stop reverting my edits that have nothing to do with rankings, as again, this is either negligent/reckless, or intentional harassment. --Wikisian (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Gsfelipe94 Even if you meant that I am the only one to do it here, that is also demonstrably false (again, anyone can view the history). So you can take your pick of which false statement you actually made. As for harassment, again, constantly reverting every edit someone makes on any article and then only citing an issue with one specific edit is either harassment or negligence and recklessness. Again, take your pick. As for calling other editors for a discussion on the matter, "harassment" would depend on how they behave. However, you would be advised to be careful there as well, as it would not seem out of the question for you to now engage in WP:CANVASS. I'm sure you'll contact editors who have added rankings in the past, and ask them to come weigh in on the matter as well, yes? --Wikisian (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Then it's a matter of me not noticing/remembering that. Still, that does not mean I would waste my time coming here to harass someone that goes by "Wikisian" and I have no clue who that person is. And stop sitting on your chair and waiting for things to be done. You should help the discussion as I'm not the only one responsible here. I'm bringing editors that constantly update. I can't bring IPs here that have made one-and-done edits or users that I can't find in history of pages. I had arguments with several of those users in the past, so that can't be canvassing. I'm not responsible for their opinions and if they don't agree with you (or if they do) it's not my problem. Check their talk pages, I simply added a talkback to this page. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Gsfelipe94 Even if you meant that I am the only one to do it here, that is also demonstrably false (again, anyone can view the history). So you can take your pick of which false statement you actually made. As for harassment, again, constantly reverting every edit someone makes on any article and then only citing an issue with one specific edit is either harassment or negligence and recklessness. Again, take your pick. As for calling other editors for a discussion on the matter, "harassment" would depend on how they behave. However, you would be advised to be careful there as well, as it would not seem out of the question for you to now engage in WP:CANVASS. I'm sure you'll contact editors who have added rankings in the past, and ask them to come weigh in on the matter as well, yes? --Wikisian (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Wikisian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
[edit]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
Alex ShihTalk 01:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Wikisian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Nadex logo.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Nadex logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
January 2018
[edit] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Strip That Down. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Do not edit war over the simple wikilinking of a term you did not need to add. Why you felt compelled to link a common term I have no idea. If you continue to edit war over this, you will be reported. It appears this would not be your first time. As I linked you to a guideline, read the said guideline. WP:OVERLINK. Become familiar with it. Thanks. Ss112 22:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- As you pointed it out, yes—overlinking applies to major cities like London, so I've unlinked that too. However, we generally always link to names (so that applies to One Direction), and we always link genres in the infobox (it's what is done in Template:Infobox song). Ss112 22:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ss112: Wikifying a term that may not be recognized as an actual thing is not "unconstructive." I am familiar with WP:OVERLINK, and nowhere does it suggest that such a link qualifies. "Everyday words understood by most readers in context" are things like all the words being used here..."readers," "words," "thing," etc.
"Boy band" is a term made up of common words, but is a concept all of its own (with its own article) which is an example of "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully." Just because you personally think "we all know what it is" does not mean it is an overlink. And the genres are hyperlinked in the body of the article. Again, you have a lot of work ahead of you if you believe this is the criteria for overlink. Do we all not know what a "lyric video" is? How about "digital download?" How about "contemporary hit radio"? Are "Capitol Records" and "One Direction" really not "the names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar?" It's ironic that you would suggest reading WP:OVERLINK, as you might need to get familiar with it yourself. --Wikisian (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest you get familiar with what should be or what is ordinarily linked on music articles, because I am. You don't appear to be. It has nothing to do with what I personally know; I believe I was speaking generally. Just because articles exist on Wikipedia does not mean we need to always link to them. Also, stop acting as if I wrote the entire article or am the gatekeeper of it. I didn't, and I'm not. I just disagreed with additional links explaining commonly understood terms. Genres, names, formats and labels are linked. I don't make the guidelines. End of story. Ss112 20:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: I am familiar with what is linked. "Should" is apparently your opinion, which as I demonstrated doesn't seem to jibe with the guideline. Again, you reference WP:OVERLINK, but it doesn't seem you have really read it. I provided several examples and quoted the guideline directly. As I said, you have a lot of work ahead of you if you think the criteria for wikify is "I think we all know what this is." That being said, it's ironic that you would deny "gatekeeper" status, given that's precisely what you appear to want to be on a whole host of articles. --Wikisian (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, I meant "Genres, names, formats and labels are linked on music articles". As in, common practice. There's no "should" about that. I'm sorry that it appears that I act like a "gatekeeper" to you because you didn't get your way—just because some editors spend more time here and have made more than 500 edits since 2014 doesn't mean they think they're gatekeepers. Also, anybody can quote a guideline. Quoting something doesn't mean one understands it. I've read WP:OVERLINK plenty of times, and it is precisely about "we all know what this is so it doesn't need to be linked, because a sea of blue links doesn't help anybody or readers ascertain what is important" (that obviously is not a quote, it's a paraphrase). But sure, you can keep nitpicking/disagreeing if you wish. Ss112 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: I am familiar with what is linked. "Should" is apparently your opinion, which as I demonstrated doesn't seem to jibe with the guideline. Again, you reference WP:OVERLINK, but it doesn't seem you have really read it. I provided several examples and quoted the guideline directly. As I said, you have a lot of work ahead of you if you think the criteria for wikify is "I think we all know what this is." That being said, it's ironic that you would deny "gatekeeper" status, given that's precisely what you appear to want to be on a whole host of articles. --Wikisian (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I guess that's too bad that you don't say what you mean then. As for your gatekeeper sensitivity, it's not about edit count, it's about behavior and MO. That being said, I'm not sure why everything seems to come down to edit count with you or why you think mentioning it all the time is relevant. Although, it's quickly become obvious why the count is so high, given that it takes you 3–4 edits to make a single post. In any case, happy trails to you in your crusade. --Wikisian (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I did say what I mean, I just didn't think I had to be overly specific for you. Probably should be next time. Also, not everything does come down to edit count—pointing out you've made few edits since 2014 wasn't about your edit count. I brought it up in the first place because you evidently looked at my contributions, so I looked at yours and pointed something out—in my experience, lack of edits often correlates with lack of awareness of policies and guidelines. Also, do you think because you evidently saw I mentioned it earlier to another editor (who seemed to miss that trolls don't generally make any edits on WP or hang around for long) that that equates to bringing it up "all the time"? If you're going to look at my contributions, please look more closely. Also yes, that's absolutely why. I've been exposed. My edit count is so high because I edit my talk page messages a few times. Got me. Ss112 21:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I guess that's too bad that you don't say what you mean then. As for your gatekeeper sensitivity, it's not about edit count, it's about behavior and MO. That being said, I'm not sure why everything seems to come down to edit count with you or why you think mentioning it all the time is relevant. Although, it's quickly become obvious why the count is so high, given that it takes you 3–4 edits to make a single post. In any case, happy trails to you in your crusade. --Wikisian (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- "we always link genres in the infobox" [...] "No, I meant 'Genres, names, formats and labels are linked on music articles'" [...] "I did say what I mean..."
- Got it. As for your history, in the first post you made here, you issued a threat that I would "be reported" and added, "It appears this would not be your first time." In my experience, projection can be quite common here, and given that I have never been reported for anything, it made me curious if this were an example of it. I didn't care enough to do the digging to find out definitively if that were the case, but even a quick glance of your history offered enough of an MO. At least you're sticking to it. Got your minimum 3 edits in as well. I assume you'd like to continue? --Wikisian (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- The second quote has nothing to do with correcting the first. With the second quote, I was adding to "Genres, names, formats and labels are linked. I don't make the guidelines." You can't catch me out here, because I'm not contradicting myself. Both the first and second are still true and not contradicting each other anyway. Are you going to keep bringing up ridiculous things? Now I'm "projecting" onto you? Where are you getting all of this from? Could you honestly have any more of a meltdown because you got reverted on an article? Stop adding unnecessary links and there won't be a problem. You really keep wanting to dig back into uncivil territory here, and you should stop, because it could get you reported, whether by me or not. I don't care whether it'll be your first time. Ss112 22:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Got it. As for your history, in the first post you made here, you issued a threat that I would "be reported" and added, "It appears this would not be your first time." In my experience, projection can be quite common here, and given that I have never been reported for anything, it made me curious if this were an example of it. I didn't care enough to do the digging to find out definitively if that were the case, but even a quick glance of your history offered enough of an MO. At least you're sticking to it. Got your minimum 3 edits in as well. I assume you'd like to continue? --Wikisian (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Meltdown? Uncivil? This is what I mean by projection, as there's nothing uncivil our meltdownish about anything I've said. You have come to my talk page to make these accusations and threats, I have simply responded to them and even offered clarification (quite civilly, I would say.) It is you who keeps coming back to my page to make edit after edit (even for the same post). If this is all such a big deal to you, and if you seriously have so much of a problem with me or think that I should be reported for something, by all means do it. I'm not sure why you keep coming here. Do I have to tell you to stop? Stop. --Wikisian (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Survey Invite
[edit]I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_87EicU0PJX7siPj&Q_CHL=gl
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
May 2018
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Internet Famous shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ss112 08:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to have created both redirects Off the Dock and Off the Dock months ago, so therefore, what is the point of correcting all (or even some) instances of the lower-case redirect? Your creation of the redirect would seem to acknowledge its validity. Search results can't be a reason you made the lower-case "t" space, because users can type using whatever capitalisation they like in the search box and the article will show up. This page is not exempt nor is it a special case. Users always try to claim things they're arguing over are "special" cases. Even if nearly all sources decided to capitalise the t in "the", we still have our own style and preference on Wikipedia to not capitalise "the" in basically every instance, unless it's at the beginning of a title or name. Ask any editor who knows our MOS—they will tell you this. Ss112 09:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, and you also don't seem to get WP:BRD works at all. The one seeking the change brings it up on the talk page—that's you. I have reverted you twice so far, so your claim of three reverts is incorrect (me piping a link is not a revert; also, going over three reverts is when it breaks our policy regarding this). I warned you against further reverting as you are the one seeking the change: you made the initial change by changing the "T", then were reverted, and began an edit war by reverting me back. As you seem to think our standard capitalisation rules should be disregarded, you need to explain on the talk page why you think this is such a special case (note: it isn't. Even proper names don't have "t" in "the" in their titles capitalised, or similar words: see Through a Glass Productions for a similar example). I won't be responding here; either take it up at the article talk page or leave it. Ss112 09:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: You were the one who made a change to the page and got reverted. Again, you are projecting. You claim I don't get how WP:BRD works, when it literally says "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again." This is exactly what you did. And you did not engage in any discussion of your change, you came to my talk page to accuse me of edit warring. All I did was revert your change, per WP:BRD. Then instead of discussing, you immediately made your change again, citing WP:NCCAPS, to which I pointed out that guideline literally says "exceptions may apply" and explicitly states "proper names" as an exception. The literal name of the company is with a capital "The." Your reasoning then became "Doesn't matter, you were reverted," which is not a valid reasoning. The fact that you simply performed a change without discussing it is not a reason to keep it. The existence of other pages with miscapitalized proper names is also not a valid reasoning. Once again, the proper name is Off The Dock. The guideline page which you cited clearly states proper names are an exception. If you have some special reason as to why a proper name should be presented in some other way than what the proper name actually is, it is on you to offer that reasoning. And you should probably follow WP:BRD yourself before telling other people they don't understand it. --Wikisian (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wheeling out this "projecting" crap again...This is Wikipedia, not Psychology 101. Nobody cares. You just don't get how ordinary capitals work in titles and names of companies on Wikipedia. I implore you, go ask an editor who actually contributed to our MoS, like Koavf (who I asked to explain to you but who appears to be busy with other things), who I'm sure will tell you this is not an exception to the standard. Or basically any other editor more experienced than yourself. I'm done here. Later. Ss112 01:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Ss112: You were the one who made a change to the page and got reverted. Again, you are projecting. You claim I don't get how WP:BRD works, when it literally says "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again." This is exactly what you did. And you did not engage in any discussion of your change, you came to my talk page to accuse me of edit warring. All I did was revert your change, per WP:BRD. Then instead of discussing, you immediately made your change again, citing WP:NCCAPS, to which I pointed out that guideline literally says "exceptions may apply" and explicitly states "proper names" as an exception. The literal name of the company is with a capital "The." Your reasoning then became "Doesn't matter, you were reverted," which is not a valid reasoning. The fact that you simply performed a change without discussing it is not a reason to keep it. The existence of other pages with miscapitalized proper names is also not a valid reasoning. Once again, the proper name is Off The Dock. The guideline page which you cited clearly states proper names are an exception. If you have some special reason as to why a proper name should be presented in some other way than what the proper name actually is, it is on you to offer that reasoning. And you should probably follow WP:BRD yourself before telling other people they don't understand it. --Wikisian (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, and you also don't seem to get WP:BRD works at all. The one seeking the change brings it up on the talk page—that's you. I have reverted you twice so far, so your claim of three reverts is incorrect (me piping a link is not a revert; also, going over three reverts is when it breaks our policy regarding this). I warned you against further reverting as you are the one seeking the change: you made the initial change by changing the "T", then were reverted, and began an edit war by reverting me back. As you seem to think our standard capitalisation rules should be disregarded, you need to explain on the talk page why you think this is such a special case (note: it isn't. Even proper names don't have "t" in "the" in their titles capitalised, or similar words: see Through a Glass Productions for a similar example). I won't be responding here; either take it up at the article talk page or leave it. Ss112 09:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 3
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kavanagh (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kavanagh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 6
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chobani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Healthy food (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about NinjaTrader
[edit]Hello, Wikisian,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether NinjaTrader should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NinjaTrader .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
Meatsgains(talk) 01:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Wikisian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:NinjaTrader logo.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:NinjaTrader logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:NinjaTrader screenshot.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:NinjaTrader screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
April 2019
[edit] Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 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 |
Disambiguation link notification for November 20
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gwyneth Paltrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godfather (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 20
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flash Boys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanction Notification and more
[edit]Do not add the warrant info (yet). Per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPRIVACY, we only should report on those if they were the reason for the arrest. See talk page for discussion.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
EvergreenFir (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 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 |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 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 |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Star Furniture logo.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Star Furniture logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)