User talk:Inomyabcs/Archive 1

Autoblock

Blocking of IP 132.3.9.68

I've changed the settings of the block, so you should now be able to edit while logged in. Sorry for the inconvenience! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry

I was editing the page by using 'add new section' and realised my mistake when I got off the page, I meant to warn that IP instead. Sorry for any inconvenience caused, and thanks for understanding :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Return_of_the_King

Hi, I responded to your message on the talk page for the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comment, at Talk:1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. I have posted a list of quotations from published books on the subject, at Talk:1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack#Bioterror_characterization_used_in_multiple_reliable_sources. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Jargon

Thanks, Inomyabcs, but not quite what I was looking for. The Direct Action link does not talk about Special Forces type Direct Action, which is largely a term of art, and which is referred to in the article. As for the other edit, I was looking for an explanation of "flank-less". Actually, I know what these are all about, but I tagged so that another editor clear up what was meant. Best regards.--S. Rich (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

My advice -- I'd simply remove the "flank-less" adjective. Explaining the nuisances of defensive military positions in particular potential battlefields is well beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. The material is best left in the context of articles dealing with defensive and offensive military tactics. --S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sea surface temperature - GA nom held

Hi. Does your "hold" place the GA promotion on freeze until those image issues are addressed? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey there all. I've replaced the image in the lead, which had questionable parentage. As for the vertical temperature profile images, they have been removed until suitable replacements can have been be found. This should address the concerns. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the recommended one or two refs in the lede? Also I suggest adding a link to La Nina to the caption in the first image. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Which line of the lead isn't already referenced below? I'll se if El Niño-Southern Oscillation is already linked before then. If so, it's not needed. If not, I'll add it. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the GA review isn't showing up within the SST talk page. For some reason, it's neither being transcribed into the talk page nor showing up in the GA header. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Eglinton

Please delete as per your suggestion. I am not entirely sure how to delete.Rosser Gruffydd 11:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Inomyabcs,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

WT:New editor feedback#Proposed office hours. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard upgrade

Hi Inomyabcs,

Thanks for signing up for the Feedback Dashboard response team! I wanted to let you know that the tool just got an important update (see here for details). I also wanted to invite you to the IRC office hours session that Steven and I are going to hold this Sunday, December 4. Hope you can make it and share your experience/questions with us! Thanks again, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

PC reviewer

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, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Old Burke County Courthouse

Hey there, Thank you for your work on Wikipedia! Just to clarify, The "Old Burke County Courthouse" is a structure built in 1837 and on the National Register of Historic Places. It is no longer used as the county's courthouse. The "Burke County Courthouse" is the current working courthouse, built in 1972 and one block away. The two are only a street apart, but are entirely two different structures with the "Old" serving as an event venue and historic museum and the current open to the public for legal matters. So basically there should be two separate entries, with the current page title corrected to "Old Burke County Courthouse" and an entirely new page added to represent the modern, working 1972 Burke County Courthouse...

1837: http://historicburke.org/historic-burke-county-courthouse/ 1972 :http://www.nccourts.org/county/burke/ 152.11.88.1 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 152.11.88.1 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)152.11.88.1 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.11.88.1 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roku

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roku. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Tasmanian Devil

Would it be possible to lift the protection on the Tasmanian devil article? It's not a topic that is wildly controversial (sex, conspiracy theories, about a living person), and the protection has apparently been in force for five years. That would let IP editors update the article. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - hopefully although it did have vandalism five years ago, unprotection might be given another shot. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Zac Efron

Please revisit my Zac Efron edit request. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauntlessome (talk • contribs)

 Done Inomyabcs (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I don't really know what you didn't approve about my galaga content I added. Can you please tell me why, thanks Epic Dragon123 (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Inomyabcs (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Abbey Theatre School has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Abbey Theatre School. Thanks! --  Kethrus |talk to me  04:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abbey Theatre School (September 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Flat Out was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abbey Theatre School and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Flat Out (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For keeping a cool head when the RfC got hot. Your attempts to preserve the process and find consensus were important in resolving the content dispute and coming to a decision. Wugapodes (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment @Wugapodes: Sinceriously?! Much of the FUBAR situation on the Roku talk page was caused by the @Inomyabcs efforts.

He/she was calm and collected and meant well, yes - and so were you - so from me, thank you both for remaining civil in the discussion!
To you Wugapodes, an additional "thank you" for reasoning "in substance" on the matter instead of blindly citing policies.
To you Inomyabcs, a bonus "thank you!" for maintaining sense of humor while getting badgered by us.

But Inomyabcs's efforts were misguided and overall counter-productive to resolving the content dispute. With an eye on the goal (improving the encyclopedia content), consider the result of the actions, not the intent alone. And in this case, if it wasn't for what Inomyabcs did, the issue could have been resolved a month ago, with much less hours wasted in arguments because of improper framing. Complimenting them on being instrumental in "resolving the content dispute" is adding insult on top of the injury caused. EnTerr (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment While I'm sure you are already aware, Inomyabcs, attempting a dispute resolution process like an RFC is always appropriate. While I am not thrilled about the setup as it was, you didn't actually do anything wrong.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mishandling of the Roku content deletion issue

@Inomyabcs: i mentioned this on the Talk:Roku page but probably should have brought it to this page in the first place (i am still learning). I don't understand how - with a heart in the right place - did you end up muddling this case? Here is a quick recap of the events:

1. @Mdann52 engaged in edit warring with multiple editors to impose mass deletions on Roku (8/18, 8/19) instead of following this WP:CAUTIOUS you cited.
2. Then an unexperienced editor - User:Lexeus (2 page edits total) - used the wrong template while asking nicely to revert @Mdann52, which caused a "Semi-protected edit request" to be created. Obvious mistake, if you look at the diff (how is a semi-protection going to help against a registered user Mdann52?).
3. Editors discussed under that section: everyone else (7 or 8 people) argued against the deletions, while @Mdann52 showed nothing for his claims of puffery and lack of sources - but disregarded the apparent consensus and re-deleted again on 8/28.
4. And then, 8/29 - we get you, Inomyabcs - who right here does the most messed up thing in the whole story - instead of leaving the existing consensus, you seemingly(?) put it aside and formally opened a completely new discussion, with a topic you changed slightly - the way you understood it. Why?
5. Three days later you warned me "do not edit contested content while there is an open discussion" but i don't understand why did you de-facto side with Mdann52 by (a) making his 8/28 deletion a "fait accompli" with your RfC and (b) making editors re-do the discussion from the beginning?
6. Your judgement on the consent seems wrong. 9/29 you commented that Mdann52's is "getting the bulk of the acceptance from the other editors" - yet just a few hours later an experienced, uninvolved editor (which someone summoned from AN/RFC) determined the consensus to be just the opposite.

With this said, i have a question - how did all this happen?
Specifically your role in it (#4, #5). You seem well intended - but i am having difficulty matching the biased outcome with the good intentions and that puzzles me.
I understand you don't "owe" me an explanation but will appreciate if you explain. I am still learning the customs around here. Were you "bound" to act in that particular way by some procedures? EnTerr (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@EnTerr: Sorry for the long delay. I felt too involved in the Roku discussion and felt I had to step away for a bit. Quite simply, when I came across this issue, I was patrolling the Edit Requests page and landed on the table restoration request by Lexeus. By that point there was consternation over adding/removing the table and a few edit reversals had already occurred. This really wasn't a valid use of an edit request and I closed it since it was on the backlog for over 14 days. As a compromise and where I started my chain of errors, was that I opened it as a Request for Comment (RfC). I still feel it should have been a RfC, but I should have expanded the topic from the narrow scope of Policy to include Electronics, Technology, and Television. That was my first error. The second was trying to guide the discussion, after posting I would recuse myself from doing just that. The intent was not to vote since my opinion was to keep the table, but by trying to guide the discussion I was inserting my bias toward that opinion. The third error was making this my first guided discussion and not making that clear from the start, since I didn't have practice other than reading a few other RfCs. Hopefully, that gives you insight into my thought process. I did learn quite a bit, but I don't think I learned enough to be good at guiding any other RfCs. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Inomyabcs. 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)

Your draft article, Draft:Abbey Theatre School

Hello, Inomyabcs. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Abbey Theatre School".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Inomyabcs. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Inomyabcs. 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

re: revert

I don't know how to tag people with notification correctly. I couldnt find much on deodorant spray, so fair enough! Cripplemac (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

October blitz bling

		The (old school) League of Copy Editors Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Inomyabcs for copy edits totaling over 15,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE October 2022 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 20:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Department of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (January 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pichemist was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Department of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 17:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Inomyabcs! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 17:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)