User talk:Happysquirrel/Archive 2

Please comment on Talk:Kansas River
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kansas River. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vani Hari
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vani Hari. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Domestic violence. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Tasos Georgiou Vatikiotis
Happysquirrel, PLEASE help us with adding correct license for our 2 images we've beeng getting savaged on by other wikipedians on the story you helped us edit, Tasos Georgiou Vatikiotis. They keep removing our 2 photos.

Please comment on Talk:Anti-communist mass killings
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-communist mass killings. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 November 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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Unreferenced
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Unreferenced. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David L. Jones
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David L. Jones. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome
Thanks for the warm welcome! I'm continuing to figure out how to successfully navigate the wikipedia editing process so I appreciate the guidance and notes.

Take care! Writerjns (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)writerjns


 * Hello, it was my pleasure. I have taken a look at your article. Looking much better. I have done a bit of specifying. Keep up the good work! Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Tacy M. Byham page
Hi there,

I hope the tone has improved even more and I've added additional references in the first paragraph per previous notes. Will you let me know if there's anything else I should do to improve this page?

Thanks! Writerjns (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)writerjns


 * Hi, the tone and referencing look good for now. Don't be surprised if other editors come in and tweak, that is how articles improve. I also see you have been doing great work referencing the article about the company. Continuing that would be amazing. The next step would then be expanding the articles with similarly quality material. If you are sick of these articles (I always get quickly sick of articles I write), maybe improve other articles or write more. In either case, if you have more questions, let me know. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi, Happy Squirrel. I just would like to explain how this is not at all a debate over titles, but one over how to designate the person with the title.     21:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Happysquirrel!


Happy New Year! Happysquirrel, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thank you! Happy New Year to you too! Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi HappySquirrel, Thanks for your help editing the page for Danny Keogh, it is much appreciated and thanks for the helpful links into getting me more familiarised with editing and creating wiki pages.Willsrob (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello! No problem, itis always my pleasure to help out. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crowdfind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reward. 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) 09:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Happysquirrel!


Happy New Year! Happysquirrel, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you so much
Thank you so much for fixing my formula but it is still a little to large to fit in a browser window. Is there a way to make the numerator text two lines over the fraction bar? Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi I've tried a few things, but nothing is working. Once the draft is accepted, I'll post a request at Wikiproject Math. Does that work? Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quantum anomalous Hall effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantum theory. 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) 11:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Return of disruptive IP editor
Hi, Happysquirrel--The editor, who was writing incoherent contributions on topics relating to Plurality (voting) and Plurality voting system has returned with these edits. Since he seems to be trolling me, perhaps you could look at this. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry for the late reply, I was logged off for a week. I've undone the only edit that has not been caught in the meantime (to a template, this looks more and more ducky) and left a warning on their talk page. This is a really slippery one. I don't know if requesting any admin action would help. Let me know if you they pop up again. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And they're back again. I fixed their changes to the template. The rest looked to already have been cleaned up. I also left a message explaining the meaning of the word plurality on their talk page. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Happysquirrel,

User:BalCoder is back to vandalizing the Electoral Systems Template again. Sometimes this user edits while logged out in order to avoid getting blocked due to edit-warring. Please continue to help me police this article. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . The template is currently semi-protected so there should be no more IP edit warring. BalCoder is more civil in their edit summaries than the IPs (no comment on if they are the same person, I don't get into these matters), so dealing with them should get easier. I am very leary of getting involved in edit wars and content disputes between established editors. I got into a really nasty one earlier this January. However, if this is intractable, I strongly urge you to seek full page protection and conduct an RfC. FWIW, I agree with you on terminology, but I really don't think this is worth constant edit warring over. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Happysquirrel,


 * Thank you for agreeing with my on the terminology, which classifies voting systems as: "Majoritarian/Plurality", "Mixed Member", "Proportional" and "other. It is backed up by several reliable sources.    Please post your agreement on the talk page so that consensus can be evident to other users. I appreciate your support. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

He's back. Now as User:‎New Speech Killer. He's made similar edits at Plurality voting system and Plurality (voting). Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 00:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * reverted and warned. For the record, from my (albeit limited) perspective, I would guess we have two separate editors here. BalCoder who is established, relatively cordial and worth having a discussion with and New Speach Killer and assorted IPs who is rude and on a strange crusade to restrict Plurality to meaning diversity. I really don't have the time or eneregy to get involved with the former, but I will gladly help in cleaning up after the latter. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2015#Section Break 1
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2015. It has been a while since you have last commented on this issue.     20:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please look for arguments
You comment on my activity is a aggressive nonsense. You do not like the truth, which contradict you POV and you use assumption on personality to interrupt others editions. Answer to the question: what means word "plurality" in intermodal meaning (not servants English dictionaries) also what means word "majority" in common sense and you will get the answer what I doing and way. If you do not answer to this two question in logic scientific way I can say you are just aggressive POV bouncer. --New Speech Killer (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, I believe you are confusing plurality and pluralism. Please see the Oxford dictionaries definition and the OED definition and the MW definition. Note that the type of pluralism they refer to in the definition is in the sense of holding two titles at once. "Plurality voting system" is used in many reliable sources for this topic. Hence, by wp:V that is what we use.
 * As for the difference between majority and plurality, it is significant. A plurality just refers to having more than any other option. This is the meaning used in statistics and is related to the mode. For example, if 7 kids buy ice cream, 3 pick chocolate, 2 pick vanilla and 2 pick strawberry, we say a plurality have picked chocolate. Majority means more than half. In the above example, none of the flavours were picked by a majority. Voting systems based on majority and based on plurality behave differently which is why we have a separate word for the two. The articles about plurality voting systems should be for discussing these. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Here you are: Oxford Dictionaries: Plurality - The fact or state of being plural. Plural = 1) More than one in number. 2) Containing several diverse elements: a plural society. Where is the "More then one" or containing "diverse element".

Truly: What means you sentence: "Note that the type of pluralism they refer to in the definition is in the sense of holding two titles at once." - What titles? Be clear about you talking. Do you mean if you use two words of definite meaning and slash back that means the conglomerate can have NEW in fact opposite meaning?

The "reliable resources" call is the Wikipedia mixing technique. Scholars go to point of beginning, not to Internet noise. Explain me on the base of preliminary meanings of words the conglomerate name has a sense. It does not.

And, I did not ask about difference between majority and plurality words. I ask you what majority word means in YOURS dictionaries. It means more than half, is not it? So where is the more than half?.

I say the system reduce number of parties in parliament and gives false majority government, is it no a fact? The system should be call Less Plurality/False Majority.

Why you defend the propagandists manipulation? For sure not for logic reasons? Do you? --New Speech Killer (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So what is you words on my notes. If you do not answer and focuses on a point I can easily assume you have not looking for CONNSENSUS or NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Right? Or you give me a free hand for changes?--New Speech Killer (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, silence should not be seen as assent. I have simply been away from Wikipedia for the week. "Two or more titles" in this case relates to ecclesiastical titles such as bishop of somewhere or abbot of someplace as the OED makes very clear. Plural in this context is the opposite of singular. It is the grammatical sense (ie in "I love cats", "cats" is plural but "I" is singular). I agree with you that majority means more than half. This has never been in dispute.


 * Now on to the philosophy of Wikipedia. You keep going back to scholarly methods and avoiding "Internet noise". This is great if you are writing an essay or your own book on the subject. However, this is not what we do when writing an encyclopedia. As a non-controversial example in the area of mathematics (my own subject), the math articles on Wikipedia often do not include proofs. They often cite results from textbooks, not even from the original paper. This is because an encyclopedia is not a textbook or a paper, but a brief explanation summarising other work and intended to get people started. If I want to remember the statement of Abel's theorem, I go to Wikipedia. For the proof and generalisations, I go to my textbook or to a paper, and that is how it should be. When I write up my own math, it does not look like a Wikipedia article nor like a textbook. Different styles have their place in different places. On Wikipedia, the appropriate style is to neutrally give a brief summary of what the reliable sources have to say. This means OED and MWD dictionarry definitions are better for Wikipedia than trying to analyze etymologies ourselves. The current article does this, though it could use expansion. Your additions are neither neutral nor referenced and so have no place in the article. If you want to write an esasy on Plurality voting systems, go right ahead, I am sure there is lots to say and I share many of your concerns. Get it published in a scholarly source by all means, but it is not an encyclopedia article and does not belong on Wikipedia. If you want to calmly discuss published criticisms of Plurality voting systems, go right ahead, create a criticism section and cite various scholarly sources.


 * As for the dispute about the name Plurality. This is a name used in multiple reliable sources. As I have said many times, it simply refers to the mathematical meaning of plurality which is commonly used in statistics and elsewhere. You have yet to provide any evidence that the meaning is some kind of propagandist plot. The system is clearly not based on majority and one can produce multiple round voting methods which do not use plurality to determine a winner, but do provide a single winner. Plurality voting system is a descriptive, commonly used name and that is what matters on Wikipedia.


 * Have a nice week. I will once again be away during the week and back on Sunday. I am giving up Wikipedia for Lent which is why I am on this strange schedule. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Such kind of assumption #3 of Britannica. (Underline #3) i.e. plurality is more than others - is only in UK and US encyclopaedias, maybe in Canadian ... thus the only countries where the make-up of democracy still exists. The English speaking postimperial and imperial states attempts to manipulate the language for political reason and some become shamanistic about their way - because it is in ENGLISH. This is not good it can be insolent anyway. The logic says if #1 is truth means "many", can not means "most" i.e. #3. Simple. --New Speech Killer (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am happy that you agreed that Majority you do not dispute and you agree it means "more than half". You can easily find that the system produce FALSE majority governments - supported by less than than half electorate (30-39% in most cases). Thus it has nothing to do with "majority" in truth meaning. Since in reality the system also reduce/eliminate the smaller parties on district/constituency level and become in fact two party system - like in US it reduce the number of parties in parliament. It should be call LESS plurality/FALSE majority system, is it not? Be honest. A scholar way? Logic language? --New Speech Killer (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am glad to find that we are in fact agreeing vigorously on some points. We both agree that plurality voting systems are not based on majority and often create unrepresentative governments. That is why, in fact, they are called plurality voting systems rather than majority voting systems. There is a lot of litterature on this, including a rather nice recent article in the latest issue of Pi in the Sky (the magazine of the Pacific institute). It is a fascinating mathematical problem which can have very strange effects on society. The Plurality voting system article really does need a good criticism section to explore this (of course written neutrally and based on reliable published secondary sources).


 * My main problem at this point is your inssitance that plurality can only mean diversity. I have provided you with some well regarded dictionnary entries which explain the statistical definition used in this context. You have argued that they are part of some imperialistic plot to pervert the meaning of words. This is a significant assertion and needs significant evidence. Please provide me with a source. If it is true there is some significant regional variation in the meaning of words, good sources such as dictionnaries from various parts of the world and different in history would be very interesting to bring into the discussion.


 * Have a great week! I know it must be frustrating for you to have me only logging on so infrequently, and I do apologize for that. Hopefully, giving myself a break between responses will help me be a calmer participant in this discussion. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I just checked and there is an excellent crticism section at Plurality voting system. It could use a few sources. Maybe you would like to work on that. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, In the template of "Voting Systems" other editors obstinately using Plurality/Majority term. I would opt temporally to single "Plurality" and discuss its corrective later. However there some bouncer and pushers who do not take my invitation to discuss. I am not frustrated with delay until somebody take constructive conversation - some do not. I will check you link regarding so call Plurality Voting Systems. However look again on the dictionaries which introduce the meaning, they are English and US and providing the reference as third - after the correct Latin/International meaning: Plural means many, plurality = large number, multitude, battalion, pack that is the International/Latin meaning. For me the position of the definition is already essential i.e. the introduction of Plurality - name of voting system is written as last position. Secondarily, I would repeat - if the word plurality means "many" it can not means "most". Word "most" is used in the Anglo/American dictionaries to describe the "Plurality Voting System" anyway - pleas focus on it. And it is the fact, the winner receiving "most" voting of all, that is all - not necessary many votes :).--New Speech Killer (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again. We do seem to be understanding each other. I absolutely agree that majority means most and plurality means many (where many can be less than most). Most of the problems in plurality voting systems stem from vote splitting, which is a problem since majority is not required. I think a lot of our problems come from the fact that when ranking quantifiers, you view many as being more than most. That is interesting, I always saw it the other way around. Once again, I would love to see some dictionnary citations from other parts of the world.


 * About the template, yes there is a rather nasty dispute between two fairly established editors going on. I've tried to get them to discuss or go for more formal resolution processes. The whole situation is rather messy at the moment and tempers are running high. I've found such situations to be emotional black holes in the past. Newcomers wandering in and changing the page being disputed can break up discussion so sometimes it's better to leave even a bad equilibrium alone for a little while and focus in on talk page discussion.


 * There was, last week, a misguided editor who was insisting that candidates in Plurality Voting Systems had to have a majority to win. This is of course not the case (ridings are typically won with closer to 1/3 of the vote in Quebec). I reverted and tried to explain. If they are back, some clean up may be in order. All the best! Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 1) Most for me is the number (quantity) greater (higher) than any other in particular set. The word most unnecessary means many, for example in set of numbers 10,9,7,6 the number 10 is for me the most (greater, higher) number, but of course it is not many in comparison with other members of the set. In a set 100, 10, 17, 20, 30, 31, 32 of course 100 is comparatively many but not a majority of course. That is my qualification of the words most, many and majority. English is not my first language but when I look into other languages I know in translation from English it seems to I would be correct.

2) I attempt to give a proposal for the group, which is called presently Plurality/Majoritarian. Even on the base of opposers sources there are actually two separate groups, and the Single Winner System in question, once is put into Majoritarian systems the other time into Plurality systems by UK sources. However neither of the external UK sources I checked, say they Plurality and Majoritarians are equals (the same group). Seems to me some editors concluded themselves that if Single Winner System, which they like very much, are once in one group, the second in the other that means there is single P/M group - seems to be a nonsense conclusion not supported by external sources.

There so many inconsistences in names and selection in the group P/M (which I would name “Constituency level systems”) that I would rewrite all the group. This contains three separate groups at least.

A) It is right some of the Constituency Level Systems” are for “Majority in a final round”. B) “First pass post” belongs to the “Most votes” group – absolutely it cannot be call “Plurality system” as plurality does not mean most. C) There are “Constituency Level System(s)” which provides "More than Single Winner from a Constituency", so it is different from “First past post“ and “Majority in final round”.

Only common for this systems is the members of a parliament are selected on the level of a constituency. However, none of the three provide plurality in political live, those systems eliminate the smaller parties on constituencies’ level. - Great for corporations /lobbing but not for citizens’ democracy! Best regards, --New Speech Killer (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * New Speech Killer, you wrote "it cannot be call 'Plurality system' as plurality does not mean most." You are very simply wrong about the meaning of the word plurality.  The word plurality has several independent meanings in English (just as many other words do).  In the context of voting, the word plurality really does mean "the largest number (among several options)".  This is completely consistent with the fact that in other contexts the word "plurality" has other meanings.  This has been explained to you several times by several different people, and it is about time that you start accepting it.  Any analysis that is based on your misunderstanding of this point will necessarily be worthless.  --JBL (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear JBL, I will answer to you here, but I will also copy my answer on your talk page. Let Happysquirrel decide if she want to keep yours and my note.
 * I invite you to my talk page for discussion. I asked for arguments three editors already, where is foundation to say plurality means "most". Only what I got were third or fourth subsection in UK or US dictionaries saying in the sense: 'plurality voting systems in UK or US means such or such election processing'. Two or three preceding subsections in those dictionaries provides always meaning of plural as word 'many' 'more than two' etc. Thus not me but you are double wrong: 1) attempting to assume that the word has different meaning 2)attempt to deceiving the public unethically that UK and US has a system supporting political diversity and voters equality. There is no honest person that would tell after logical thinking that a word of meaning 'many' change to 'most' after appalling with second one like 'voting'. You put equality between : 'Plurality voting'='largest number among several ...' This is a statement, or definition, or name but does not change meaning of word 'Plurality'. I wonder if you can understand it, but defining of a subject by wrong words does not change the historical meaning of the word. This is simple usurpation to name something invalid with beautiful words  - i.e. New Speech. I assure you that your validations of my understanding is based on wrong doing which obviously will collapse. Yours very truly. --New Speech Killer (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

One thing more
Who designed you to say what is or is not in adhere to neutral point of view? Set you arguments not you opinion and stand off "superiority" - you know better what is or is not neutral point of view. A band of three editors use to pretend that they have neutral point of view. Let find not their/yours "neutral" but the objective/scholar point of view. Attempting to be Wikipedia editor you suppose to be scholar like - not a neutral but objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Speech Killer (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, first of all, you need to read wp:NPOV and wp:SOAP. You have been trying to insert an attack on plurality voting systems into the lead. We can and do have discussion of the pros and cons of voting systems, but usually not in the lead, and certainly not an unsourced rant. Plurality voting systems are not perfect but our job is to tell readers what it is, where it is used, maybe different names in different places and then finally pros and cons, sourced and expressed in a clear and informative way. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

But it is not our job top use names of a voting system which are misleading. Is it? The system Was called on beginning Single-member district or Single-member constituency, need not, and should not be call different way in particular deceiving public opinion by using beautiful words "plurality" and "majority". They are foundation of democracy which are wounded by the Single-member constituency system. My propose is to use the preliminary name for the sake of honesty - against propagandists attempts.--New Speech Killer (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Related: There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JBL (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
Editor User Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Mentoring new editors is a splendid way of forwarding the future of Wikipedia. User Happysquirrel enjoys welcoming new users and assisting them to become responsible content creators. She cheerfully answers questions at the Teahouse and provides carefully thought-out comments at various Articles for Deletion. Since Jan of 2015 Happysquirrel has been linking from article to article "looking for something to eat" and always leaves an article better than before she found it. Half of her 3000+ edits are to mainspace and she always uses the edit summary to explain her actions. Black Women Syllabus and Chuckmuck are just two of the articles that she has worked at improving. The novice editors that she takes time to help have no idea how lucky they are to get such a friendly teacher and guide during the difficult early days of WP editing. This nomination was seconded by User:Go Phightins!

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven   Talk  16:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Well deserved!  Jim Car  ter  20:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Happy Squirrel! User:HopsonRoad 23:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your work engaging with new editors, Happysquirrel. It's important work that takes a lot of energy and effort, and I really appreciate it. I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line 07:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much everyone! This means so much to me. It's always good to know my efforts are appreciated. As someone who works mostly with new articles and new editors, I find myself often on the margins of the community, helping people inwards, but never going in completely myself. You can't imagine how great it is to have people coming out to congratulate me. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor mentorship happens one at a time, and you are a huge contributor to that endeavor. Thanks for all you do.  Go  Phightins  !  01:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Women's day! Greetings also from mathematicians (given that you are sometimes interested in retracts). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Congratulations, Happysquirrel! Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Nice to see hard work being recognized.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yay, Happy Squirrel! Hope this made you even happier! I was the recipient of this honor a few years ago, and it really did add a needed boost to my (usually thankless) work here. Blessings to you in your life on and off-WP. Thank you for being here!   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Iman Foundation
Thanks Happysquirrel! Salvage181 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kampung Quest (web series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Survivor and Big Brother. 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) 12:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Marc-Christian_Riebe page
Hi, I've made changes to the Draft:Marc-Christian_Riebe, could you review it once more? Buhram (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Buhram, I see 333-blue got there first. Although your aditing was going in the right direction, the goal of the submissing was still to promote rather than inform. Perhaps you need a bit of time editing articles you have no relationship to in order to learn the style and tone required. Anyways, I try to avoid re-reviewing most drafts as I find my judgment becomes clouded by repetition. Happy edititng! Happy Squirrel (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

B4 clarification
A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 15:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)