User talk:Macwhiz

Chester Carlson
I want to thank you for all of your edits on this page. I was unaware that there was such a detailed battle over the small edit I made a couple of years ago. Your attention to detail with regard to the facts is commendable. I have been trying to add that one small detail for years and it kept being deleted by many different sources. It seems that your research has helped it now be a more cogent and reasonable addition to his page. From what I can read on the talk page it seems the discussion came to a decent conclusion. Well done and thank you for doing more than I was able to. Golgofrinchian (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles?
Hi, I noticed that you've got stats up for having copyedited a number of articles, but the articles themselves don't appear in your tally. Was this an oversight or is there something I'm missing? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it was an oversight... what are you looking for? I looked through the drive page and didn't see anything about listing articles... if you can point out what I'm missing, or tell me what sort of list you need, I can round that up for you.  // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I see now, updated... was this documented someplace that I missed? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I quit
That's fine, MacWhiz, let JimWae indulge in any nonsense he wants; he's among the many reasons I no longer see Wikipedia as a useful way to waste my time; I have better things to do than argue with somebody who's being wilfully inane. I'm gonna try and stay away this time; when you lead a horse to water and he not only refuses to drink but disputes whether it's water or not, it's time to find another planet. I'll just write a webpage on geographic idioms in British Columbia in my own webspace where I don't have semi-educated but degreed nonsense-spewers telling me what I can and can't say, and THEN somebody can use ME as a citation. Nobody in their right mind in British Columbia (JimWae excepted) would dispute that the City of Richmond, or the islands it's comprised of, is part of the Mainland and/or the Lower Mainland. Dictionaries have nothing to do with it; it's like saying that my name (Michael) may mean "beloved of God" but it shouldn't be taken literally (even if it may or may not be true).Skookum1 (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope your time away helps you to relax; it's obvious that this issue has gotten under your skin to a regrettable extent. I can't say I agree with your viewpoint, though.  You might consider reviewing WP:DISRUPT, WP:TEND, and WP:COOL should you change your mind about Wikipedia. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AS far as I'm concerned, JimWae's insistence on absurdity was both disruptive and tendentious; and the "solution" of allowing a comment about islands-as-mainlands allowed him to re-insert the original fallacy/falsehood, namely that the islands in question (which he misnames as his pet city) are "actually not part of the continuous mainland" which I have changed to "allegedly not part of the contiguous mainland". It might as well be said also, that Grouse and Sumas Mountains are also part of the Lower Mainland, even though they are "actually mountaintops and not "lower"".Skookum1 (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Message
Hello macwhiz, I left a message for you on Chester Carlson page you edited recently. The source we discussed is in my hands now, but the name is not included. There are however other info about Carlson's. Please, take a look.Spt51 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding consensus and warnings
Hi Macwhiz, I think you need to re-evaluate your handling of the "Lower Mainland affair" on two counts.

First of all, please read "Don't template the regulars". Skookum1, with 63,000 edits over five years, most certainly qualifies as a "regular". The generally accepted method if you have a concern is to address the editor in your own words and attempt to resolve the problem with them. Using a warning template, and a vandalism warning no less, is seen as both rude and often provocative. It is not an "attempt to resolve the dispute:.

Secondly, please review the RFC discussion in detail, examining the views of all the participants. I think you will find that consensus was very clearly against including the wording. The views included those of Skookum1 and Pfly, two very experienced editors in geography topics. What actually happened there was that one editor kept repeating himself over and over until people just got fed up and gave in. And in fact only the last two comments, one by me, said "fine, put in a footnote". That is not consensus to use JimWae's desired wording. Rather than blindly revert Skookum1's edit as against consensus then go on to accuse him of vandalism, you could have tried a further edit to improve the wording. I have since done that and hope to see that version or one very much like it stick.

Skookum1 was reacting in utter frustration earlier, at the same time that another page he'd worked very hard on had been rendered unusable because of changes to template code. His language and tone was unacceptable and I had addressed that with him elsewhere, using rather stronger language than your own. However I also show respect for his vast contributions here and I certainly never suggested he was a vandal. Please consider what happened here and modify your approach in future. Regards! Franamax (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate and respect your opinion, but I do have to disagree with some of what you say. Perhaps "consensus" was not so good a word as "resolution," but the matter had been resolved and the issue laid to rest.  I did not "blindly" revert Skookum's revisions, as you assert; I reviewed them carefully to see if they added anything to the article.  They did not.  In fact, Skookum's edit comments say it all: he was adding absurd detail to the footnote in an effort to prove a point and beat a dead horse.  The actual content was not overt vandalism, but when taken in context with the edit comments and the discussion on the talk page, I still believe it was "vandalism" in the sense used at WP:DISRUPT.
 * I have no opinion on Skookum's past contributions, but no amount of past contribution justifies the disruptive editing, personal attacks, incivility, and the other behavior I saw on that page. There are no vested contributors. (Sadly, I can now say I have seen a diva, however.) Frankly, I felt that a template warning was a kinder, gentler response than calling an RfC over his behavior, which I was strongly tempted to do.  While I can understand how the template pages could have been frustrating, I can't say I think it excuses the type and duration of behavior that was exhibited from this incident. And, of course, sometimes you do have to template the regulars.  It's obvious that Skookum has a great deal of anger, and perhaps not so much ability to cope with it sociably as one might desire; I sincerely hope that he finds some peace within himself.
 * As for my edit: First, please note that I did not directly revert Skookum's changes; I reviewed all of them, making sure that I left intact those constructive edits he made.  I carefully reviewed all of the wording to the footnote that he altered, and his stated reasons for each edit, and concluded that none of them were done constructively, nor did they add to the article.  I therefore boldly reverted them.
 * Second, I'm confused by what seems to be a contradiction: On the one hand, you say I misinterpreted the consensus of the RFC as saying that the footnote should go in. On the other, you criticize me for removing material from it, and say that I should have edited it further to improve the wording.  If you truly believe that the consensus was that the footnote doesn't belong—a position, by the way, I actually support after reading discussion rather than diatribes on the topic—why not just further remove it altogether? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please spare me the armchair psychology and patronizing comments like "hope he finds some peace within himself". And your glib use of wiki-acronyms. Yes you did blindly revert the edit, your edit summary said the reason was a non-existent consensus and you now seem to be saying that you didn't read the entire discussion.
 * The content RFC was closed incorrectly, the closer should have determined the consensus rather than just shutting it down without resolving the issue. Rather than reopen it or further escalate the debate, I chose to work on a better wording for the footnote. It's fine now (needs some further tweaking to include a few more items) because it doesn't attempt to torture any logic, it just states a plain fact, islands are part of the Lower Mainland. The issue is over with, or at least better be. I chose a route toward effective conflict resolution. I hope you can do the same in future. Franamax (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edit
For copyediting the list of King of Fighters characters. If you have some time, could you check the article Final Fantasy VII Advent Children? Last months I have been expanding the article with production, reception and other info, but I have doubts about nominating it due to my poor grammar (I'm still studying English). Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:inuse vs Template:GOCEinuse
Hey Macwhiz - I'm curious what led you to place both "in use" tags onto Cheri Elliott. I was looking through the backlog and first half-panicked when I saw the two tags, thinking that two people laid claim to it, the second without seeing the first... glad that only one user was responsible for both of them. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 01:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's a good reason for both of them—for a certain value of "good reason"!


 * It turns out that does not stop bots from editing pages.  Most of them only pay attention to  .  However, I know all us GOCE folk are looking for "our" inuse template.  So, I add both of them.  That way, I can check in long pages from time to time—or, say, move from the Mac to the iPad if I want to move around—and not have to worry about edit conflicts.


 * I already brought this up with one of the bot authors. The response I got boiled down to "why do you guys need your own inuse template, anyway?"  *shrug*  Rather than bang my head against a wall, I just cover all my bases. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, there's something I didn't know... the last time I squabbled about inuse with a real editor, it was my distractedness that cost me some serious time merging my edits manually. Never had the "joy" of resolving an edit conflict with a bot! I wonder if there is a way to make our inuse template "inherit" the blocking behavior of the general one... I'll look into it and let you know. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 02:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on some feedback I just got on Template talk:In use, maybe we should prescribe a way of writing our inuse tag... maybe provide a subst template that pipes some copyedit boilerplate stuff into the inuse tag so that it is the same tag but has the added information that the major edit in progress is a copyedit? –Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 15:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Enterprise content management
Props to you for taking on that piece of vacuous drivel. I tried last drive and got so nauseated I had to stop. Thank you thank you thank you! Lfstevens (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for fixing my Namu Dai Bosa reference in Shimano page. It seems every editor has his own style... Still some notes go by authors, other by title of book, in that page. What is the appropriate or preferred style in Wiki? I hope the consensus there will be reached. It looks that some folks now are inserting nasty comments about the subject in Discussion page. Is this acceptable??? As far as this source is concerned, I think it is acceptable due to wiki rules. Time ago I saw self-produced brochure by an organization used as a source. Having a question about it due to the advertising tone and some outdated data, not really true at present time, I asked and it was answered that it is a good source for that page! Organization advertising itself! Which sources and what is right or not, is not clear to me...Thanks for your help.Spt51 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There isn't really one anointed style of reference; there are a few referenced in the MOS, and the main rule is that the style should be consistent. Personally, I prefer to use the citation templates, because they make it easier to remember all the information that needs to be filled in, and they generate metadata that can be used in searches, etc., and they generate references that are formatted nicely and consistently. However, nothing requires their use, and if a page doesn't use them and has an otherwise acceptable reference style, it's bad form to change and use them without consensus for the change.  My personal opinion is that this is a bit silly, and there should be a standardized citation style for the entire site, but oh well.  As for source reliability, WP:RS is about as clear as it gets. Sometimes it's all about convincing everyone else. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks
For your opinion of youtube and "I heard him" as "reliable sources" on Carl Paladino. Collect (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

chrissie maher
In 1997, an industrial tribunal found that the Plain English Campaign had constructively dismissed two employees, Martin Nobbs and Jill Cushway, who resigned from the Campaign after unfounded rumors were spread that they had an affair. In their action, Nobbs and Cushway alleged that Maher had started the rumors. Maher denied starting the rumor, calling the tribunal's decision "a miscarriage of justice".[8]

I have noticed you edits however ..I dont see why this section is on a biography page when it is about a company ...i.e plain english campaign —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinos155 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on the article's talk page. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a note on the talk page to say that I concur. I had been meaning to say, thanks for your re-write: I went to bed worrying about how to defuse an obviously over-the-top attack without censoring the information entirely, and was delighted to find in the morning what a good job you had done. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! From my viewpoint, it was a particularly enjoyable article: I like stumbling across some interesting topic that I hitherto knew nothing about, and then combing through the article and the Internet learning as much as I can about it to digest into a reasonable précis for Wikipedia. In this case, although I wasn't able to verify the sources provided by the original contributor, I did find sources that established the fact as "notable" within the bounds of the guideline, so I wrote from that. While I did waffle on including it a little bit, my thinking is that constructive dismissal is generally a difficult thing to prove, and at least in the United States it's not common to win such a case; plus, I find such behavior on the part of employers to be heinous. Where a tribunal upholds such a ruling, particularly against an outspoken figurehead leader of an activist group like this, it's worthy of mention... so long as it doesn't cast undue doubt upon the organization's other good works. Speaking personally, I don't think Ms. Maher is in any way evil, but it seems she made some bad judgements as the leader of this organization. If I made a bad judgement that lead to me losing a court case and having it reported in the papers, I'd expect it'd show up in my NPOV bio too. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Date format
Hey, I know you haven't responded to the discussion on WebP for the last day, but I was looking through the history for Infobox file format/doc and saw that was the one who changed it to seemingly support DMY rather than MDY. I'm changing it back, since that change was not discussed. I don't know how that will affect the discussion on WebP, but I hope you'll check back on Talk:WebP/Archive 1. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This change is made with the consensus with one of the administrators. (I don't remember his name but I think it was Rich Farmbrough or Chris Cunninghum). It is done because most users don't know that there is a df parameter and mistakenly put mf=yes there. Most people don't read documentation details. Anyway, I just made it look like this: It think its fair, isn't?  This is the fourth edit (or so) of mine that Gyrobo has undone since that EW case. Just today I saw him doing this edit: . Well, may be my perception is wrong but I perceive this edit to be counter-consensus-making.  And you don't need to join discussion anymore. It is resolved: I didn't know that you have actually changed your third opinion. But now that I know, the issue is concluded. (Yes, Gyrobo told me but I didn't believe him.)  Fleet Command (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Tangkhul (a Naga people)
As you made the NPOV comment at Talk:Tangkhul, I thought that I'd give you the opportunity to rewrite the lead paragraph now that their is a multipage source to consult. See talk. I understand that you were unhappy with the lead, but I was not sure that it was excessively POV, nor did I get the same implication of approbation that you did. I do admit that it was unsourced and not really a summary of the article the way a proper lead should be. But because of the POV question, I thought that it would be better if you fixed it, or at least had the opportunity to do so, before I muck it up too much. The article does need general work as well to make it more balanced. I am trying to get my hands on the History volume; unfortunately, the Culture volume doesn't seem to be widely held and I have not yet been able to identify the Manipur publisher. --Bejnar (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a look when I have a moment... Might be a few days, though. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Date Format in WebP — Again
Hello, Macwhiz

It is Fleet Command again, and I afraid it is about WebP article again. Since you have changed your opinion in favor ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) date style in the middle of the discussion, will you please kindly answer the following questions? — Fleet Command (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You have made quite clear that per WP:MOSDATES, YYYY-MM-DD date style is allowed in long lists and tables; you and Waldir have also said that citations are indeed list. But is this list long? How can a list of 4 items be deemed long? Don't you think a long list is something like Mozilla Firefox citation list?
 * 2) WP:DATERET explicitly states:  If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.  Is this not an instance of article being predominantly evolved using one date format? Shouldn't that date format be kept?
 * Sigh. WP:STICK...  If you want to call an RfC over this, feel free, but prepare to be pointed at WP:STICK a lot... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to cause undue trouble for my fellow Wikipedians by calling an RfC. So, please answer the questions and I'll leave you at piece. Fleet Command (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Citations are lists. WP:DATERET does not restrict ISO dates to "long" lists; it only prohibits the use of them in sentences. Although it notes that they may be useful in long lists, that is a suggestion, not a restriction.  See WP:LAWYER: You're digging for any technicality with which to beat the dead horse.
 * As pointed out several times, you're ignoring the part of WP:DATERET you don't like, the sentence following the one you chose to quote: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to 'the first major contributor'." The opinion I provided is based on the first major contributor to the article (for the body), and the first person to insert a date (for the references).
 * Notwithstanding all that, the consensus is against your position. Really, dude, drop the stick... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answers. As I promised, that concludes the matter. You may be at peace. A word of advice: "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself." A long good scrutinizing look.  Fleet Command (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Chester-carlson-stamp.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this issue on the image's talk page. Briefly, the image is unfree, but the file is a GDL copy of the unfree image. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I find your description far from satisfactory. There is no mention of GDL on the source you have given but I'm clearly reading: "© Copyright 2010 IEEE — All Rights Reserved". Furthermore, if the image is that of a U.S. Stamp, then IEEE absolutely has no right whatsoever to publish it under GDL. Last but not, least it looks like a Wiki to me; how do you know that that uploader was perfectly aware of copyright laws? Should we continue this discussion on the talk page of that image? Fleet Command (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a screenshot of what I see for future reference. Since this screenshot is copyright-protected and we're using it under fair-use, I've set to be automatically expired within a few days. Fleet Command (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you have issues with the file, the file's talk page is the place to discuss it. However, you might want to have a look at the GHN Terms and Conditions page first.  There, you'll find this:
 * The GFDL, like the Creative Commons license used by Wikipedia, depends upon copyright law; material licensed under GFDL or CC is absolutely not in the public domain. The creator of the content automatically has copyright upon it. Only the license grants anyone else any rights to reuse it.  That's what gives the GFDL and the CC licenses their teeth.
 * Now, if the consensus is that only the more restrictive stamp FUR should be present, I could care less; the point is, the image of the stamp is permissible because of the FUR, and taking the copy of the photo from the IEEE GHN is permissible because the image is licensed under the GFDL by the IEEE. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the image is not permissible in Wikipedia, even with a fair-use rationale: WP:NFCI strictly denies the use of stamps and currency for the identification of their subjects. And let us not forget that IEEE may not publish a U.S. Postal Stamp (a copyright-protected intellectual property) under a free license without written permission from its owner. If there is more to know about this image and its issue, please tell us. Otherwise, please remove the image. Fleet Command (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The stamp illustrates the fact that a stamp was issued to honor the man. It is fair use for that purpose. Have you read WP:WIKIHOUNDING? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only I have read WIKIHOUNDING, I am also an active member of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons in the field of images and files. And besides, this is the first case ever involving you in which I am interfering for the good of Wikipedia, hence it is not stalking. Please do not employ such distraction tactics to the elude the main issue. Also please cease your constant personal attacks against me on the pretext that I have offended another Wikipedian, (disregarding the fact that I subsequently apologized). If that Wikipedian in question is irritated, he may report my misconduct to noticeboard; but you have absolutely no right whatsoever to return fire with personal attacks of your own.  Now, shall we get down to the issue? WP:NFCI explicitly sanctions the use of stamp images "For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject." The italicization is also from WP:NFCI. We have had FFD cases in which images of the stamps that illustrated "an stamp being issued in the honor of its subject" were deleted due violation of WP:NFCC clause 1: Quoting a reliable source that the stamp is issued in the honor of that man is more than enough.  Fleet Command (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Chester-carlson-stamp.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chester-carlson-stamp.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. Fleet Command (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio
Good catch here, but there was no need to remove the table: the list itself was not a copyvio, only the comments were. Could you restore the table with images, minus the comments? Thanks, PS. I'd suggest dropping a warning note the the author (User talk:Kowalmistrz).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Done. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation - your input is required
A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I noticed that you posted as disagreeing with the request for mediation, which is your right of course. I notified everyone who made even a single post on the issue, as is required (I think), and sorry if this has been a bother to you. If your objection is just that you don't consider yourself a party to the discussion and/or don't want to be bothered with the issue, would you consider removing yourself as a party (or I'll do it for you if you request) rather than remaining as a party but actively disagreeing. Herostratus (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Mwng
Hi there, I responded to your comment at Talk:Mwng/GA1. -- Beloved Freak  17:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Macwhiz, just wanted to say thanks for the copyedit. Your a star; their ain't no mistake ;-) Cavie78 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

F-14 Tomcat operational history‎
Mac, thanks for your note. You may not be aware of the convoluted history of this article. It was originally part of the more extensive Grumman F-14 Tomcat article and was moved out because of an edit conflict with a particularly WP:POINTy editor from Italy who insisted on adding speculative and poorly supported supposition. Later after being community banned, he admitted to creating this article as an "in-your-face" response. Almost all of the editors in the WikIProject: Aviation group chose to completely ignore this and other "revenge" articles that he had put up. I was reticent to simply leave it as is, and formulated at least the basics of an article format. I do have a large amount of resources that could be utilized in providing verifiable and authoritative references. I note that all of your submissions have been from electronic sources which is altogether fine but adding from the large numbers of available print references will enhance the article. I do tend to "go-ahead" at times, so your mild caution will be heeded and I will wait until you have finished. Do not take umbrage if the reference and bibliographical notations are wrestled back into the established "scratch" cataloging style that was already in place. My feelings on this are summarized below. In a few words, the referencing issues are:
 * 1) Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers.
 * 2) Cite templates were intended for neophytes and newcomers (certainly not you!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
 * 3) Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
 * 4) Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
 * 5) Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
 * 6) The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come is long discarded.


 * BTW, that's the least of the problems that the article faces, it has a scrambling of print and non-print references, a mix of verb tenses, two or three different date conventions and inordinate paragraph, section and sentence formations. The article needs a very direct rewriting and the establishment of a consistent style that others can follow. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks again for your response, and although the #$%^& citation templates seem to have become de rigueur in Wikewonderland, I find that they cause more than the usual amount of heartache as they tend to be a product of the garbage in, garbage out syndrome. Just as a disclaimer, I am not a luddite, as I have, in a previous incarnation, been a reference librarian and had used templated MARC records for over 20 years. These cataloguing templates, however, were scrupulously designed and outputted exactly to a Modern Language Association Style guide, which was the predominate style guide in use in the libraries I administered. The Wiki citation templates, are simply badly formatted and worse of all, even with their faults, the lack of expertise that inundates the "great unwashed" virtually ensures that the output will be malformed. After months of trying to get the template designers to adapt their templates, I was basically told to "shove it, if you don't like the templates, don't use them..." The advice probably was the best I could have received, as I, along with other experienced editors, have simply discarded the templates in favour of inputting the parameters of citation and bibliographic notation "by hand". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Capodimonte porcelain
Thank you for adding the copypaste tag (And providing the source too!) on that article. I have removed the copyrighted content which infringed the source you mentioned and therefore, removed the template appropriately. Minima c  (talk ) 13:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lee/Bourdain/Kwanzaa cake
M., I wasn't sure from the talk page whether you'd be willing to add the Bourdain material or if I should do it. Since you put so much work into balancing the article I thought you might prefer to do the honors. I've ordered the book from my library and might get it sometime this spring (it's a long waiting list). If nothing's been done by then I'll add a few lines about it.  Will Beback   talk    00:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment
Thank you, Macwhiz, for your cogent and well-written comment regarding my work on the article Santorum (neologism). It is much appreciated. ;) Thanks again! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

re: BLP Victimization extension proposal
I agree with your comment here diff. Do you think The Gore Effect would be another related example? That is another page that has been through multiple attempts at deletion, see for example Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Your analysis and wording used in your comments, are quite wise. -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Query: With regards to your comment, do you have input as to where things should proceed from here, specifically the issue of multiple proposals and discussions across multiple different forums? -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A sound and wise analysis, again, and yet &mdash; I just hope you are right about it. :O -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hope it is okay I cited some comments from you at Talk:Santorum_(neologism) ? -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Per this diff, some people simply cannot see the difference between a personal attack and a provocative comment intended to stir debate and improvement. Just in case it isn't clear, I am NOT attacking you personally, but I was trying to make a point about the offensiveness of the underlying subject material that the neologism describes. Also find my explanations following the comment in the page now. Best wishes, just wanted to let you know personally. Sadly many editors spend more time finding ways to avoid improvement. -- Avanu (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you have a vested interest, it is probably best to notify you of this debate also, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- Avanu (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the discussion at Santorum. I guess each of us there has a specifically unique and interesting perspective, and I'm beginning to see yours more clearly I think.  Again, I want you to know that I don't think you're 'poo'.  It was merely a rhetorical device to make a point.  Best of luck. -- Avanu (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I feel like after we discussed yesterday and I looked at more of your other comments, I was premature to challenge you the way I did initially. To me, it looks like you're more willing to look at the overall situation than most.  As far as particular edits, I'm just looking for solutions and I'm not saying my ideas are necessarily the best, but I'm looking for other editors to at least acknowledge the concerns of others without immediately just being dismissive.  I appreciate the comment you just made at that Talk page, it was actually reasonable. -- Avanu (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a phrase that Guy Kawasaki likes. I think it would benefit you if you tried to take it to heart.  "Right thing, wrong way."  I know you want to do what you feel is the right thing.  From my point of view, it looks like you're having trouble going about it the right way.  You might want to consider that being surprised at a reasonable comment from another editor could be a sign that you're unconsciously biased toward finding opposing viewpoints to be unreasonable.  It happens; it seems it's not an uncommon wiring pattern in humans.  But, before you consider charging forth looking for NPOV and balance from others, consider that the sentence "I appreciate the comment you just made at that Talk page, it was actually reasonable" will, in the eyes of most who read it, have an implied "unlike most everything you say" appended to it.  Sometimes it can be difficult to anticipate how others will perceive things, especially if no one cares to point it out and give the benefit of the doubt that it isn't really what you meant. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If anything is to be appended to it, it would be "unlike several of the other editors". Not generally everyone, but your comment was a refreshing change from the kind of heated remarks that seem to be popping up (most frequently from the IP editor).  But honestly there was nothing more to be appended, especially regarding your remarks.  As far as NPOV stuff, I run into this often in highly polarized articles here.  I'm essentially fighting for the other side of things in the Public image of Sarah Palin‎ article, where pro-Palin people seem to be wanting to whitewash her image.  Other than just wanting to try and find a fair compromise spot, I don't mind that Santorum got attacked.  I'm not pro- or anti-Santorum, just pro-fairness. -- Avanu (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it helps, one of my big concerns is the image of Wikipedia here. Many argue that it reflects poorly on us that we have the article at all.  I think that, if we neuter the article to the extent that the RfC seems to suggest, the result will reflect poorly on us: I doubt this last media kerfluffle will be the last one of the campaign season for santorum, and if we self-censor it in ways that aren't clearly in keeping with our written principles and rules, the public will lose confidence in us.  We'll either look like we whitewashed it for POV reasons, or like we're clueless, or just plain afraid.  If there's justification in the rules for a change, great.  If an argument to base principles of the Foundation can be made that rises clearly above "I don't like it," hey, we can point to that with pride and say "that's why this bit got chopped, folks."  On the other hand, if we look like we got scared—of being associated with Savage, or Santorum, or of being the first entity in 13 years that Santorum decided to sue over the word, or of our own shadows, whatever—we look like we can't live by our own principles.  Frankly, twelve years ago I might've been behind an IAR argument for wiping the article, but thirteen years of notability and overcoming challenges does create some presumption that the article has a right to exist in some form.  I think it's really unfortunate that Slim's RfC bundled so many proposals into one; as I read it, there's too much likelihood that if supported it would be functionally equivalent to deleting the article.  It would "red link" a lot of other site's connections to our article, for one thing. I think it's a nuclear option, and while I'd be all over some surgical strikes, I can't go for a WMD.  Hell, if I weren't scared of the santorum-storm that might result, I'd love to do a ground-up copyedit on it.  You might be surprised what I'd cut and rewrite, but I'd be fair.  (Hell, go look at the edit history on Sandra Lee (cook).  Frankly, I think calling her the culinary devil would be insulting to Beezlebub.  I did my best not to let that enter into my copyedit, and I specifically sought out and included opinions opposed to my own to ensure the article was fair. )
 * Anyway... arguments that will sway me easily will be ones that point to one of our guidelines, read it correctly and neutrally, and then point at the article and show how it doesn't meet that guideline. Arguments that "it's against the spirit but not the letter" are less persuasive, and need extraordinary evidence... not just because it's my personal inclination, but because I think that's how the world will judge us on this very noticeable article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When you say 12 years above, do you mean the Santorum thing? 2011-2003 = 8 years. Still a bit, but not quite as much.  Due to disccusion at the Talk page, I went and looked at one of the sources that the IP editor seems so keen on http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/9/4/9/pages259493/p259493-1.php
 * I have to say, if our Wikipedia article were written with this kind of dispassionate and considered approach, I doubt I would have any problems with it. -- Avanu (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: your note on my page
MacWhiz, I saw your note on my page, and I appreciate the AGF on your part. I don't belive I'm doing anything other than carrying out policy, and yes, I see you're pointing to Iridescents words to me, and no I'm not going to turn this into "But she said.." It's the wrong place for such. Essentially, policy calls for attack pages to be blanked and deleted. I blanked the page and put a deletion tag on it. That simple. As much as I wouldn't want an RFC or a sanction, I should point out that there is no arbcom case on Rick santurom. There's one on | Political Activism and that case isn't even formal yet, and most of the arbs have declined, so, no, there's no case on this. I realize I'm being disagreed with but as I've stated, attack pages, especially on living people, are attack pages irregardless of consensus. (BTW - I'm not yelling or scream right now, I know you can't hear my voice or anything). I'm not really one to point at other people's actions and say "But they...but they....." I already know the answer for that is WP:NOTTHEM :).        My only interest is upholding policy, that's it.   Do you follow ?  KoshVorlon  Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 16:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * MacWhiz,

I saw your second note. I understand fully that you're advising me to back off and let the Arb process go ahead. (I'm not totally stupid, just stubborn alot ;) ).    I won't go through the speil that I belive I'm right... I've already said that.  I'll stop for now. I'll keep my eye on the Arb case, but won't comment or anything (I try to stay clear of Arbitrations ) Thanks again for the AGF.  KoshVorlon  Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 11:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Common statement?
I started working up a combined draft of the points made by apparently like-minded people at User:Wnt/User_Faction/santorum. You're one of the 11 I think should be compatible. I'd like to get as many points as possible that everyone involved can agree on completely, so I'd much appreciate it if you could endorse the statement, and/or specify which points you reject or need reworked or explained. (and in all fairness there are a few I can see need work). Interested? Wnt (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes in accordance with your suggestions. Do you think these are sufficient? Wnt (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Stellar work.

 * Original Barnstar from Avanu moved to my User page. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I thought I might give you some additional background on why this impressed me so much. I've had many conversations at this point with the Article Rescue people about the drive-by tagging of articles with the Rescue tag, and it seems there are a stubborn few who stymie any attempt to improve the process. I hear them go on and on about Rescue, but then I saw the article you worked on. Not only did you not drop a Rescue tag on it (not that there is anything wrong with that), you actually took a sincere interest and developed it into a fantastic article. What you did is more than talk. You actually showed there was a diamond to be found and unearthed it. So really it was the fact that you're a person of action that most impressed me. I may have stuck my foot in my mouth with my first comment to you, but I can tell by your work that you're a much better editor than my first comment would have given you credit for. -- Avanu (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, it's very appreciated... especially given our first conversations! // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I 2nd the praise for the rescue of Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor). Notwithstanding Avanu's fixation with proper use of the rescue tag, he's right that this is the type of work we need done to save worthy articles at AfD.  Cheers.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

BLPN - Robb Todd
Hi, your editing and additions to this WP:BLP has been mentioned in a report at the BLP noticeboard - Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

AFD on Satorum
Macwhiz I wanted to alert you that the Arbitration of Santorum got closed and I have re-nominated the Santorum Neologism as a delete [| here]. However, I didn't want you to think that I was starting up the same drama as I had before. I will voluntarily place a 1RR on myself on the Campaign_for_santorum_neologism page, I will also not blank the page, nor make any comment in the AFD beyond my nomination. (in other words, no drama :) ).

Thanks KoshVorlon Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 11:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

talkpage templates
Hi, the article was not prodded at all, it was without basic in policy nominated for speedy delete - the article is still able to be prodded if desired. Pleas try to help reduce dramah with the account/accounts that are upset, adding name and shaming templates is of no value to the reader or the BLP article either, lets try and reduce and stabilize the article please, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

For your amazing work
(Article Rescue Barnstar from moved to my user page. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC) )
 * You deserve it. You do so much work around here and you should be recognized for that fact. Thanks for everything you do to improve Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 01:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Another SUNY article
Do you suppose Julien J. Studley Theatre will ever progress beyond its current stub-like state? I've thought about nominating that and Parker Theatre for a while now. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think it likely. Besides, the notability guideline is pretty clear on these things: although the school may be notable, that doesn't mean that every building it possesses is notable.  There'd have to be some evidence for it... and since anything that simply states that a performance was held in the building doesn't really count toward notability, that's going to be pretty tough.  If the building were designed by a famous architect, or were the home of a nationally-prestigious event, it might make the bar... but as nice a place as New Paltz is, it's just not that famous.  These should all be part of the SUNY New Paltz article, I think. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, and have nominated it. These articles seem to be holdovers from a few years ago, when someone created articles for all SUNY NP theaters. McKenna Theatre was redirected, but nobody seemed to notice the others. I'm planning to work on SUNY NP in a few months, and these forks would definitely make it hard to keep things focused. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Transliteration of Mandarin
Regarding your comments on transliteration on Jimbo_Wales's talk page: I'm not sure if I understood your comparison of Mandarin and Vietnamese correctly, so if I'm telling you something you already know, my apologies. Mandarin also has different tones that are necessary to distinguish between different words. In addition, the same sound and tone can be overloaded with multiple meanings; the only way to know which word is meant is through the surrounding context (for something like personal names, of course, the context doesn't help). isaacl (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, I do remember hearing that. I'm no Asian-language scholar.  I guess Mandarin was a bad choice... but I suppose it's more support for my point, that there are languages you just can't pronounce with "English" characters. What would be a better counterexample?  Japanese?  // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not enough of a student of language to give an example of a lossless transliteration that does not use accents and similar modifications of basic Latin letters. As far as I know, Japanese doesn't fit the bill, though. isaacl (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notification
Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Case The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * is excellent William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Re However, the RFC/U in question wasn't written to help Cirt, but to accuse him of Wikipedia "high crimes": compare . It seems each mistook the other for a pro-Scientologist—quite funny really. That was an adversarial RfC/U, complete with a call for desysop. -- J N  466  17:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say I see that when I read it, especially the finished version. I don't see Cirt ascribing motivations to Orderinchaos.  It seems to be a much more focused complaint.  While it initially asked for participants to assess the need to desysop Orderinchaos, it laid out a dispassionate groundwork for a prima facie case.  It may have been mistaken, but it also doesn't immediately raise questions of good-faith. It also seems to have been resolved in about an hour and a half without much rancor within the RfC, so I can't say I'd characterize it as particularly "adversarial".  The mistaken identity thing is amusing; I was struck by Orderinchaos' comment: "I owe Cirt an apology for listening to whispers regarding the Sc. stuff. It seems in doing so I came to a false conclusion about possible motivations."


 * You'll notice that I've agreed with most of the views in the RfC/U that focus on what Cirt has done improperly in terms of editing and how he edits, including comments you've made in talk; it's the parts that try to divine why Cirt does those things that I feel just go off the rails—especially where the implication is that the why is the objectionable behavior even where the what and how may not break the rules. I don't know what Cirt's motives are.  I can only assume that some of the people assigning motivations to Cirt may be as mistaken about him as they have been mistaken when they try to divine my motivations—and I've tried to be more forthcoming about my motives than Cirt has been lately. (Then again, I'm not—yet—feeling particularly embattled.)


 * The RfC/U increasingly reminds me of a saying that Guy Kawasaki was fond of in his books: "Right thing, wrong way." // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, with the benefit of hindsight, I guess you're right that I should have worded the Statement of the dispute more descriptively, rather than voicing my conclusions. It's a learning process, I'm afraid; this is the first RfC/U I have drafted, and were I to do it over again, I would do lots of things differently. ;) -- J N  466  23:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Following the principle of "better late than never", I've made some copyedits to the thing:, , , , . As I say, if I wrote it from scratch today, it would look more different. While I don't feel I have done well, it's been a useful learning experience. Thanks for your feedback. -- J N  466  23:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You probably should add a note that you made those edits after x number of endorsements, just for clarity, though. (I'd hate for someone to start a tiff over that; we don't need more absurd we can avoid, eh?)  And I should say, I understand your point of view even if I don't necessarily agree with it, and even though I'm not fond of the way you expressed it in this case.  I know I've been picking your argument apart, but it's been your argument and the form it took, not you.  Say, here's a thought: You've got a lot of stuff showing what you think Cirt has done wrong.  Why not add some more specific suggestions on what Cirt could do about it?  How you would have handled a conflict, ways you avoid committing the behavior you don't like, that sort of thing?  It would help bring the whole thing on a more positive course, especially coming from you. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the new view on the RfC/U page; I've endorsed it. A minor point: as I mentioned before on the RfC/U talk page, the Anderson article did include a small reference to the campaign finance issue, at the end of this section. However, given the media prominence of the issue at the time, the overall tone of the article, and that it mostly quoted Anderson himself on the matter, I agree that it effectively glossed over it. However, in the interest of fairness, you may want to reword the relevant statement. -- J N  466  20:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch! I've updated the view per your suggestion. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your view on the RFC. It is a good example for others to follow. I take no position on the content, but the tone is just right. Jehochman Talk 15:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to your additional view
As there is now an ongoing RFAR, it seems more appropriate to respond there. I've gone ahead and done so, diff. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point
Macwhiz, you've made a good point with this comment, looking back on that a year and a half later, I think at the time I was searching for additional sources for the article. Reflecting on it now, it doesn’t appear to be particularly reliable, and I don't quite know what I was thinking when I added it. Granted, it was over a year ago, and I've tried to be more stringent since then. Going forward writing in other topics, I’ll exercise yet more scrutiny in vetting sources, and query WP:RSN in case of any questions regarding source reliability. Thanks for pointing that out, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cirt, although that edit was made over a year ago, it was made after the WP:ARBSCI recommendations. I suggest you review the section labelled "principles" (specifically, the "Quality of sources", "Neutrality and sources", and "Biographies of living people" subsections) and then read the remedy entitled "Editors instructed", paying close attention to point (C) in that section. While I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your promises to improve your editing the future, it appears that had you followed the very specific advice in ARBSCI, you would not have made this edit (or many more that I have pointed out elsewhere). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 23:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed
An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
 * 1) Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
 * 2) Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
 * 3) To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
 * 4) If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A small request
Can you notify me when you are online so I could ask for a very small favor? Thanks and happy holidays, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  18:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ontology versioning
Please look at Ontology versioning and see if tag you placed on the talk page can be removed, or if some other effort is needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

El Salvador national football team
Please look at El Salvador national football team and see if tag you placed on the talk page can be removed. There are no tags on the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: New helper policy
Hello member of ! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from. Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page. This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of —

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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.
Hello ,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.
 * RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Achoth Pledge Button.png


The file File:Achoth Pledge Button.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User category proposed deletion
You may be interested in Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 21. It is proposed to delete this category. SpinningSpark 16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)