User talk:Adamrce

Help!
Not to interrupt your other editing but I really would like it if you could help out with edits to the following pages: The prophet pages are being forsaken while they are hugely important; your help would be wonderful! I edited Elijah and Islamic view of Solomon and I think Islamic view of Abraham is finally getting somewhere. Please help!--Imadjafar(talk) 18:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Islamic view of Jacob
 * Dhul-Kifl
 * Islamic view of Moses
 * Islamic view of Mary

Saffron terror
Saffron terror is not religious in the slightest. Actually, that's what those of us working on the article have been trying so carefully to keep away from, even adding a line at the top of Category:Hindu terrorism to explain that it is not for religious terrorism articles. Putting it in that spot on Template:Terrorism is incorrect and promoting a falsehood. Saffron/Hindu terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with Hinduism, it has to do with Hindutva, which is political nationalism. I am going to revert you on the template now. Silver seren C 08:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I've always respected your note, but we can't make research or provide sources to justify/unjustify content on a NAV template. I won't revert you, but keep in mind that the article needs to be fixed immediately/soonest :p. The article is still under "Category:Religious_terrorism" (I almost put my talkpage under religions terrorism ;). You can create another category of "Hindu terrorism" under politic terrorism or something. Again, the template should only match the article's categories, so please try to fix it to avoid conflicts with someone else. You can't just explain it in the discussion page. Take care and happy editing...     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Hindu terrorism" is still under "religious terrorism", not only "religious violence" under "religious terrorism". Anyways, I'll take a look thru their talkpages, as it really is a big mess. You've been in multiple dead-end discussions!     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for letting me know, I would have never caught that otherwise. Someone was apparently confused back when I created the category and added those cats to it. The Saffron terror article really explains it all, it's not religious in the slightest. Silver  seren C 10:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
I like this, i see your also trying to get support for it. At least your taking me seriously as a Wikipedian (i am happy at how much you think about me). i have only been involved with content disagreements with you, hardly any violation of wiki policies that require a ban. Its also ironic that you accuse me of certain policy violations--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good... It's still your opinion tho. Oh, and I haven't asked for a ban, silly.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  05:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Cossde/Girabe
Well spotted on the previous SPI. I'm glad I'm not going mad with paranoia! I have opened a new SPI for the above users. I've not done this before - hopefully I have provided enough evidence. You are welcome to comment/provide additional evidence.-- obi2canibe talk contr 19:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2009 case is already convicted; however, I just said that a new case needs to be open because you need to point-out the sock-master. The previous case was regarding three other accounts. Looks good to me, and keep the golden-eye open. I've added a bit of disrespect, also. Thanks...     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  10:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A question and a note
Q: Can't figure out what's going on on the Islam page. Would you please put something on the talk page to help me understand why you think the point about Islam not being named for a person [or deity?] is important? I have to say I came to your user page to see if you seem reasonable -- and you do. So why not post your rationale? N: On your user page I see "I continually point out to the versus that they ignore, or don't understand . . ." -- do you want "point out the verses" rather than "versus" there? Sorry if I'm missing the point. -- Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re, Q: A brief explanation for you only, and I'm confirming, for you... It was a sourced comparative introductory sentence "bla bla..., like most major religions." An editor disputed the second part saying that "Sikhism" is not named after...bla. I think he was confused, or haven't realized, that Sikhism was not included because it's not a major religion and the sentence didn't mention "all". When I removed the second part, it was reverted as if the disputer still disliked it. Anyways, I won't waste my time on a silly sentence, so I won't add it there. The mistake I know I've done is adding it in the lead, at first. If others don't like it, it's fine with me (but I don't accept un-reasoned reverts).
 * Ah -- thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Re, N: Hehe, sometimes I reply fast from my phone and fail to re-read. That was actually personal activities regarding my research. It was approved by my University and is available in the Library, even though my instructor was Atheist :p. She liked it tho. Anyways, again, those are personal statements that I don't mix with my Wikipedia editing. I'm always open about it off-Wikipedia.
 * Take care and thanks for asking.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Civil War
Sorry for mistake.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * :p     ~ AdvertAdam   talk

Text striking and deletion etc.
Hi

RE: Talk:Muammar Gaddafi Just wanted to remind you of the policy on other people's article-talk page posts Talk page guidelines.

I have un-stricken the text and archived it as per guidelines to Talk:Muammar_Gaddafi/Archive_4. I do not assume that you want your comments moved, but have copied them there as well so that you may delete your own comment knowing it is already archived if you so wish :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note, hatting/collapsing is the preferred method in Talk pages, but generally we just let what others say in Talk pages stand as it was written. -- Avanu (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that you saw the policy above. Almost all the comments by this user ain't related to the talkpage, nor discussion, like this one: "I can't understand why Mrs Thatcher didn't kill Gaddafi 25 years ago when he was openly arming the IRA, as well as many other terrorist organizations all over the world".     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sounds fair to me :). I did that after the above editor reverted my removal, but I'll consider archiving instead (if needed). Nice nose ;¬)     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ta, those other faces such as :) always seem to me to be gurning lol - My version has a lovely strong aqualine nose which gives it respect and an air of... lets face it, I just wanted something that was different lol. I do have some others though: Sleeping ¦¬( and indifference ¦¬| and feline ∑:¬⟩
 * Have you seen the image at the bottom right of my userpage (from 1881)?
 * @Avanu, in this case the problem was getting a little convoluted - as the comment had been removed, restored, stricken, and debated - and I felt it was best to remove it to the archive to prevent any issues arising that might get the best of intentioned editors into any trouble. I had already placed a note about "not using the talk page as a forum" some days previously. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Kool. They're lovely, and the 1881, ugh o.O... Good work :)     ~ AdvertAdam   talk

Santur
Dear Adam,

I modified the santur page so that it is representative of the different santurs out there. I included citations and added a talk to the discussion page. This is not emotionally and politically motivated since I am not Babylonian and Babylon doesn't exist anymore. It's just that the real history of this instrument wasn't on this important page.

Thanks! Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.65.117 (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  20:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Abraham
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt for some context. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you :). I didn't wanna discourage the editor on my summary, I would of said "IT'S AWFULLLLL".     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusation
I didn't remove sourced material, I removed what wasn't in the source provided. Big difference. There was no mention in this particular source of rebel forces having success in securing battlegrounds of key cities except that they took a few checkpoints in no-mans land between Zliten and Misrata. And I didn't violate the OR rule because my sentence was properly sourced with what the admiral said, that the campaign is at a stalemate. I was offended by your accusation considering I am currently fighting a number of editors who are trying to remove from the article sourced information and phrase things to their own POV because I am trying to keep up the neutrality of Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing: there where two sentences from the same source, you left one and removed another. Ain't that removing sourced material? Don't try to flip the coin, and I'm still with my words. If you don't get it, I'll quote it here for you if you'd like.
 * You also violated WP:SYNTH, when you removed that half-of-the-story and added another half from another source to push your-own conclusion. If you re-read WP:NPOV, you'll understand that you can't take one-side of the story. I fixed the paragraph, based on mentioning both stories on the existing source and your source. Any questions? I can bring the whole text here...     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  16:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not my conclusion, I removed the part that wasn't even in the source. Again, there was no mention in this particular source of rebels having secured battlegrounds of key cities, what the source did say was that they took only a few checkpoints in no-mans-land. And I wasn't pushing my personal point of view by adding the new source. I added the new source because it was an updated (three weeks after the previous source) point of view of the top American military officer. If you have a problem with his point of view that's a whole 'nother matter. In any case, Geromasis had the right idea by totaly removing that paragraph from the lead since opinions of that kind should be mentioned in that kind of article but not in the lead. EkoGraf (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the paragraph, but care about insistent denials. Did I ever dispute your source? NO! Did I remove it? NO! Here's the sentence from the first source: "The attempt by Qaddafi to retake rebel territory has “fallen apart” as opposition forces capture key cities."     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  18:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, take it easy, we're not in a life and death strugle here. :D Hmmm, actualy they haven't taken any cities for two and a half months now since Misrata back in May, so by all accounts that reporter is grossly missinformed. :) They have only taken villages and small towns in the mountains of no more than a few thousand people. Wouldn't call that cities. As far as key goes. They haven't taken the key town of Gharyan (gateway to Tripoli from the south), they haven't taken the key town of Zawiyah (gateway to Tripoli from the west), they haven't taken the key town of Zliten (gateway to Tripoli from the east), they haven't taken the most importantly key town of Brega (gateway to west from east Libya). There is a reason the word stalemate is used so much. In any case lets leave it be as it is and cool our heads for a while. Ok mate? See ya! ;) EkoGraf (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, you're funny dude. I'm not mad, but all human make mistakes. The first thing I do is apologize or at least avoid the matter, so insistence of accusations that I falsely accuse others is simi-insulting to me (personally). Anyways, it's no big deal, and I never liked the paragraph anyways. When it comes to editing, who cares about those details and original research. We just have to present whatever sources we have there, without being picky. Actually your second false claim about the reporter mistaken is simply wrong, as that was a statement from the "NATO Secretary General" :p. Actually, key cities doesn't even mean major cities "diplomatically", but key areas "geographically" (military-wise). Take care and stay out of trouble... I'm watching you jkjk, see ya around     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hes a troll anyway, Ignore him. He just wants to stir up trouble. Goldblooded (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring talk page
In regard to your recent ediit here the material from a book used in Talk:Jihad is not being distorted by original research. I have already answered you objection a long time ago, and you should at least respond on the talk page before you revert edits, thanks. Davidelah (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What has your source, in the talkpage, have do with my revert. I reverted your unjustified removal of well-sourced material, based on your opinion from some other source. Anyways, this RSN already answered your concerns. So, don't do that again, please :).     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So what did you mean by WP:OR in your summary? Davidelah (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you forgot what the whole talkpage is about, which was pointed to you by multiple editors. I've also replied here on the article, including your new edit that I reverted.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  02:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: Hijri Gregorian conversion
It is a good step to raise it in MOS:ISLAM.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 17:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is useful, as well.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅, so please dump your thoughts on the proposal, or erase it all if necessarily :p.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  02:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont think you should be editing
If you have issues reading and or understanding text i dont think you should be editing! Just a word of advice! 188.72.250.92 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh lovely, thanks for diving here too. Hmmm, I feel sorry that the selfish admins poorly block you instead of me :(. Btw, I love this too: User:Ban me I love it.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  02:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just commenting
I went back and read your first comment in the MfD, and in many ways I agree with you. I don't think the page is particularly stellar, my main 'beef' is just whether its ok for a person to express in a fairly private way, the things that they feel should be improved. I don't want censorship of critical and thoughtful speech in Wikipedia, mostly because I see this as a useful thing for some people to work out their thoughts and feelings on an issue before they take it anywhere more public.

I think in a lot of cases, just thinking stuff through by oneself is sufficient to get past it, and if they feel they need outside help, they can go do that, or if an admin sees these complaints, they can thoughfully respond and try to bridge that gap and make the person feel welcome.

My impression is that censorship of things done in the private userspace, although they are not hidden, it is clear that they aren't for public use, and policy gives us more latitude. I think if admin Ed had actually just had a friendly chat with Surturz after he saw this page, he could have at least got him to think about things more, and maybe a bit later Surturz would have deleted the page as unnecessary. Instead its a big hullabaloo because an admin got zealous about squashing it. I'm really just in favor of admins using the 'tools' that *all* editors have more often, which is communication and the interpersonal touch, rather than so quickly resorting to the 'tools' that only admins have. Leadership by example more than leadership by force. -- Avanu (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I partially agree to your points, but you also agreed that it's not private. He probably didn't have much visitors (assuming, as the statistics clears when a page is deleted), but it was still a misleading conclusion of one editor's false opinion that admins are unaccountable. He got over 800 visits by this mess :p. I do agree that alternative actions could-of been taken, but I'd also see it a pathetic subject to waste my time on. It's the same thing if a non-admin tagged it with speedy-deletion then an admin deleted it. Also, I think the statistics proved to you that non-admins had a close vote with admin, which means that the admins didn't take it personally. Anyways, don't be too picky, have fun, and stay out-of trouble... jk     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  16:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome... It's my duty ;)     ~ AdvertAdam   talk

Canvassing
You had asked about the specifics of the canvassing, and as far as I'm aware this is the only particular case where he asked an individual editor to participate. My comment was largely made to discourage any further individual "invitations". To maintain balance in the conversation, I also notified one other editor, WMC; any other participants are likely to come from the regular talkpage notices. Thanks for taking time to comment on the new Category issue. Doc  Tropics  20:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, 1 and 1 looks good ;). Ya, I also thought so (I do that too :p). Thanks for the notes.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  20:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on my Edit
You commented concerning my edit of a page. As you know I am new and just finding my feet my article which I have extensively corrected is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_sexual_jurisprudence and some others which you can check out from my talk page. First I went to twinkle page as it was what I thought was the area to respond in as the page of the article said it needed major clean up by an expert and directed me there. I felt I could assist. If I am on wrong pages or doing things wrong I will happily mend my ways. As for citations please help me as to how to do it as most of the knowledge is in my head and pretty basic for any one who is knowledgeable about Islam but to find e.g. a particular Hadith number or book is very time consuming. In fact the references already in the article contain many of them already, but the past author did not have sufficient understanding to convey matters in a more precise way as I have tried to do. All advise and suggestions will be gladly received and acted upon.Mhakcm (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. It's not a big deal. We all started on Wikipedia the same way, so we're all here to work together on improving the project. I think you've got faster and more detailed answers already, so just keep in mind to cite inserted materials following reliable sources. Don't forget to read WP:NPOV & WP:DUE, and you'll be fine :). You can also find some tips and links on my userpage. Please try to avoid marking re-wording and clarification edits with minor, although others might have a different opinion on that. Happy editing...     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Further Point
There seems to be unnecessary duplication of subject matter some unnecessary and others better placed in one combined article e.g. Islamic Jurisprudence - Marital. Rather than separate ones on Marital another on Sexual another on sexual technique another on marriage in Islam etc.. Let me know who or how to convey this to others so a succinct encyclopaedic entry can be achieved.Mhakcm (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just can't seem to find the discussion that was on that topic, but I'll keep looking. There's a group of editors that are working on clarifying the Arabic terms and merging what needs to be merged. This template might help you if you're interested in editing in that field.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  21:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

August Wikification Drive barnstars

 * Thank you... I wish I had time to work on more (crazy August)... maybe next time.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  10:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Civil war
Why has the civil war section been totally removed from the Sri Lanka page ?(Arun1paladin (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC))

Are you not monitoring the Sri Lanka page anymore?Cossde and Astronomyinertia are incessantly removing the Civil war section in that page.Astronomyinertia removed the civil war section and merged things about it in Post independence Sri Lankan section complaining about the style in which the civil war section.But when I included the civil war section again with the things mentioned by Astronomyinertia ,Astronomyinertia and [User:Cossde|Cossde]]don't agree with that.They just don't want anyone to know about the ethnic conflict and civil war in SL(Arun1paladin (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Unfortunately, I won't be as-active for quite some time. I have a pretty exhausted period-of-life.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  00:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

October 2011 Wikification drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 16:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

WikiProject Wikify's October Newsletter
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 15:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

User name in Welcome message
Hi, I haven't checked whether this happened more than once, but you left the wrong newbie user name in the welcome message here. – Fayenatic (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch and notice ^_^. I had an error in the template one-day and fixed most of them, but I probably have one more left out there. Although, the email-welcoming was correct.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  00:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Civil war section
User:Astronomyinertia has taken the issue to the DRN.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good :)     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  00:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Spelling error?
FYI: In a recent RfC for Sri Lanka, you wrote ".. ethical conflict..". Did you mean "ethnic conflict"? --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks :). The Dead Sea Scrolls are flipping my mind :p     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  00:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force
Hi Adamrce,

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 Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, looks interesting. I'll be around some-time soon.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  00:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A Message From [WP:WPBA|[WikiProject: Barnstar Awarding]]
Hello, I am writing from WikiProject Barnstar Awarding. As a member of the project, I thought you may be interested in one of our new feature - a live news feed. Formally, any project news was displayed on the project page and any important messages (like this one) had to be idividualy delivered. We now, however, have a new feature - a news feed. The way this works is by the project having a news page (which can be found [[WP:WikiProject Barnstar Awarding/News|here). Users then place the following on their talk page

News will then be updated on your talk page (or anywhere else you decided to place this template). Please note that the new messages template will not be shown as news is updated.

We hope that you will help support this new feature and will add the template to your user space. Now this feature is in place, messages adressed to the whole WikiProject will no longer be individualy delivered.

Oddbodz (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to the December Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

You've got mail!
SarahStierch (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Civil War section on Sri Lanka
Reference to the comment User:Steven Zhang, "For what it's worth, undue weight is something that has to be considered with a few points in mind, the impact it had, how long it lasted, how significant an event it was in the subjects history. Duration of time is not the only deciding factor, however. The fact that the civil war lasted only 30 years should not be the sole deciding factor." and since the the editors who voted "Disagree" after RFC never turned back for discussion with who voted "Agree" even after Two Months, I revert back to the non-involved editor User:Adamrce's last version on Sri Lanka page on "Civil War" section.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Civil War Section in Sri Lanka Article
Since the editors have commented Clarification needed, I have added my comments, if you agree or disagree with me and come out with your comments or want to participate in the discussion with other editors, please do so.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:GuedoirObama.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GuedoirObama.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSISLAM
-Peter Deer (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: July Newsletter and August Drive

 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify and the future of wikification
Hi! There is an ongoing proposal at the project talkpage concerning the future of wikification, including possible deprecation of the wikify template which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of the wikify project. To update your status, go here.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf of Project Wikify

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify, 22:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

February 2013 Wikification Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

WikiProject Wikify April Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

October 2013 Wikification Drive
This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

October 2014 Wikification Drive
This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Salafism
There's a discussion that you might be interested in here. GregKaye ✍ ♪  20:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

February 2015 Wikification drive
Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the February drive has been started. Better late than never! Come on, sign up! :) Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Wikification drive.
Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Work package
 * added links pointing to Contractor, Develop, Permits, Templates and Assessment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedian page patrollers
Hi, Category:Wikipedian page patrollers has been tagged as a container (subcats only). Please consider a subcat. Thanks, Slivicon (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Olfa Hamdi for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Olfa Hamdi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Olfa Hamdi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olfa Hamdi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tunisian. 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) 09:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking Third Party Opinion
Would you please be so kind as to render your opinion on Draft:Sorcha Faal after reading article and Draft talk:Sorcha Faal?

Please start a new section on Draft talk:Sorcha Faal to leave your comments at.

Thank youPicomtn (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Requesting page assessment
Hello Adamrce/AdvertAdam,

I created a page late last year that has not been assessed yet. Since you are an experienced active user within the project, if you could spare a few moments to assess Ideas of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez it would be highly appreciated. Thanks. c Ө de1+6 TP  15:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Importance of Jesus in Islam
There is an ongoing discussion on the article for Jesus that reached a point where an RfC is being formulated about mentioning Islam in the lead paragraph. Would you please give us your opinion about how Islam should be mentioned, if at all? Many thanks. Nxavar (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

"Final Testament" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Final Testament. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 05:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)