User talk:Mltinus

New replies to your request for feedback
Hi, I replied to one of your queries. I regret I cannot help you with the other questions (those areas are not my areas of expertise 'round here!) but I hope my reply was OK. The exact location of the thread is here, so please click that link to take you to the thread on the page directly. Thanks and I hope you understand. Chevy monte  carlo  - alt 11:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your rollback request
-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Results by week tables
Hello,

I have seen that you have added a "Results-by-week" table to 2009–10 La Liga, which was reverted by. Since this is a concept that may potentially be copied by other league season articles and hence being a major and possibly controversial change, it might be better if you take your proposal up for discussion at the talk page of the season article task force of WikiProject Football first. If there is consensus to add a table like this to the articles, you may then proceed and add it back again.

In any case, please do not insist on putting the table back in, as Wikipedia guidelines suggest to keep the "status quo" until the content dispute has been settled. Constant reverts and re-reverts are also considered as uncivil behavior (in this case an edit war), which might lead to a block from editing. Cheers, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 10:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did I say "This has been decided"? You are probably mistaking Qampunen's comments for mine. All I said was "Take it up to discussion with a broader audience, as this would be copied to articles everywhere".
 * Anyway, there are two major counter-arguments that speak against inclusion. First of all, the table is basically a duplication of already present information, namely, the results table. Furthermore, and this is the more important point in my opinion – every season article should contain a sufficient amount of prose in order to meet the encyclopaedic requirements; a section where a textual overview over the season is provided is especially encouraged. If there are winning or losing streaks which decisively impacted a team's position, it should be written in exactly this section. Unfortunately, many editors prefer slapping tables onto the pages (another example for this is the Pos-by-round table) instead of adding a written sentence or two, thus degenerating the articles to a bunch of tables of all kinds with the occasional written line or two inbetween, which is exactly how it should not be.
 * So, to re-iterate things, please put up your proposal at WT:FSATF and seek for a project-wide consensus. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the discussion of the week-by-week results at WT:FSATF. Mltinus (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

999,999
There is one called 999999 (number) that redirects to 100000 (number), so I thought would add it to allow for less piped links. Atfer the message I thought I had made a typo and tried to fix it. Pease don't ask any more about it. If you want to delete it go ahead. Aaron Kauppi (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--Just be careful and you should be fine. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)