User talk:Mogism/Archive 2

Thanks for your help!
Thanks for your copy editing over at Central High School (Springfield, Missouri)! Your work is much appreciated.Cawhee (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome - glad to be of help. Mogism (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Zeal or petty-mindedness
Please be sure your need to seek out typos doesn't cause you to overstep that fine line between simple zeal and sheer petty-mindedness. One single "correction": 1980's → 1980s, because it's the preferred wiki way, doesn't justify misuse of the term typo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Felix_Dennis&diff=578975846&oldid=577967115

I am sure your spell-check alerted you to that fact when it turned from being pristine non-underlined in red to having that glaring thin red declaration that someone, YOU, made a boo boo.

Wicks Steve (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The "typos fixed" summary is automatically generated by the wiki software. A while back I proposed changing the summary to something with less negative connotations, but it didn't get any responses, and that's not a change I could make unilaterally as it would mean tinkering with the code. (Pinging, who can unilaterally make that change.)


 * With regards to that particular instance, "1980s" isn't "the preferred wiki way", it's the only grammatically correct way, and in this case the "typo" edit summary was accurate, unless you're saying the author intentionally introduced an error. The apostrophised 1980's is possessive, the unapostrophised 1980s is plural, and in this case plural is clearly what was intended. (The Wall was 1980's biggest selling album; Thriller was the biggest selling album of the 1980s.) Mogism (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone! We recently changes to "typo(s) fixes" to cover single case. The problem with "changes made" is that AWB does changes anyway. Typos are related to a certain set of rules. I am still open to suggestions though. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How about "spelling and grammar changes made"? That would more accurately describe some of the changes like hyphenation, and would (maybe) seem less aggressive. The drawback would be making the edit summaries longer, but it might cut out some of the bad feeling - in this case, the "typo fixing" edit summary was correct, but for some errors which even trip up experienced writers (the subtle difference between "20th century" and "20th-century" for instance), it might seem less confrontational if we weren't effectively accusing the writer of introducing errors. Mogism (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many editors ask us to make sorter edit summaries due to length limitations. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Any copywriter would disagree, in that particular instance an apostrophe doesn't indicate a possessive. In fact either of 80's, 80s or '80s are acceptable, it just depends on the writer. Many consider 80's rather old fashioned, though perhaps still useful in preventing the s being confused with a 5. Wicks Steve (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Find me any piece of professionally written copy including an apostrophe in this context. Every style guide, from the CMoS to the Economist to the Wikipedia MOS concurs with this, and you're welcome to try to find a single one that doesn't. Mogism (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for sorting the typos! I must have been blind to have missed them, but I am still using the Alfa version! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodsman2013 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add my thanks for catching my (rather glaring) slip of the fingers on Frederick I, Duke of Swabia. It's nice to know there are folks out there with the right tools to catch these mistakes fairly quickly. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a pleasure - glad to be of help. Mogism (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A very late apology
Hello Mogism, I was reviewing some things in my past and realized that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_5#Wikipedia:IAR. I was way out of line] with my comments to you. I don't know what I was thinking, but it surely could not excuse my response. I am sorry, and my apology is very late. Sincerely—John Cline (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That was more than a year ago! Don't worry about it. Mogism (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis


 * Redone, thanks. Mogism (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Italian VAT rate
Hello,

A colleague of mine has informed me that the rates mentioned here are not up to date. He informed me that the rate from October 1st 2013 in Italy is 22%. May I ask if this is correct?

Thank you

Kind regards

Bjorn


 * Yes, that looks correct. Mogism (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

apologies
Sorry... random click on dodgy laptop keyboard resulted in an incorrect revert! Theroadislong (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem! Mogism (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

AWB
Hello! Just a friendly warning that per WP:AWB, it should not be used only to make insignificant or inconsequential edits. Repeated abuse of this rule could result in your software being disabled. I've been guilty of it myself, but each edit in AWB should have more of a purpose (and for that matter, more of an edit summary), than fixing typos or spaces before commas. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the "should not be used to make insignificant or inconsequential" part, but completely disagree that fixing typos is "trivial". That guidance is aimed at people who use AWB to make edits which have "no noticeable effect on the rendered page" (direct quote from WP:AWB). Fixing typos is exactly the sort of thing AWB or similar semi-automation should be used for, as a "tedious repetitive task" that would be time-consuming to perform manually. Every visible typo contributes to the public perception of Wikipedia being riddled with errors, and rapidly gets perpetuated across dozens of mirrors if left in place, so the idea that leaving them does no harm is based on a false premise. If anything typo-fixing ought to be given higher priority. (Feel free to go over to WT:GOCE or WT:MOS and explain that fixing typos "has no purpose".)
 * And yes, I do consider removing leading spaces before punctuation a high-priority task. Quite aside from screwing up the appearance of any page on which the punctuation mark happens to coincide with a line break (which given the viewership of Wikipedia pages and the variety of browsers and screen widths used by readers, is essentially every page on the entire project more than a couple of sentences long), it messes up the page for anyone using a screen reader.
 * I'm baffled by your "needs more of an edit summary". What more do you want than (for instance) Cleanup/Typo fixing, typo(s) fixed: annualy → annually using AWB - which gives what I'm doing, a link to the further explanation and definition of "typo" I'm using, the specific change made, and the tool used to make the changes? It's considerably more of an edit summary explanation than any sane copy-editor would provide were they to make the same change manually, and a hell of a lot less time-consuming. Mogism (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I'm sorry if I upset you, I was actually trying to be helpful, and it seems like you took it personally. The edit summary comment was probably uncalled for, I'm just used to seeing more added to it manually, instead of letting it be mostly generated by AWB. And I too see the advantage of using AWB to fix typos and spacing, but when that's ALL you're using it for, and it only changes the article by 1 space or none at all, it can appear to be inconsequential. I usually try to include such edits IN ADDITION to other changes I'm making, because other editors have threatened to report me for abuse of AWB before, and I was trying to spare you the same fate. Sorry again if I bothered you. Fortdj33 (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A complete stranger turns up out of the blue, calls my edits "insignificant and inconsequential" (a complete stranger with this as their recent edit history, to boot), and accuses me (without the slightest evidence) of "repeatedly abusing rules", and you wonder why I "seem to take it personally"? If you honestly believe I'm abusing any rule, go report it at ANI. Don't expect to be taken seriously unless you can find some actual evidence, though. Mogism (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Dmitri Jurowski
Hi. I checked the Duplicate Detector Report before I removed the notice and the only matches it showed were titles, which you can't exactly avoid duplicating word for word. I am very intolerant of copyvios in general so I would be sorry if I got it wrong. Deb (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not losing sleep over it. User:Ironholds and User:Moonriddengirl are looking at it now, so I'll leave it in their hands. I personally think it's blatant plagiarism, but they're both WMF employees so they presumably know better than me as to the WMF's view of whether "cut-and-paste and replace each word with a synonym" is acceptable. Mogism (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, just to make clear, we're both engaging as volunteers. That's very different from a WMF view - we're not providing that. FWIW, having compared the version as tagged with the duplication detector I've come to agree with you (the problem was it was comparing current version == duplication detector. Mea culpa). Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's no problem - as you seem to get on with the uploader he's presumably more likely to listen to you than me, so I'll leave it to you to advise him if you feel there's a problem. Mogism (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hew Dalrymple Ross
Hi - Many thanks for doing a copy edit on William Rowan. Please could you also do one on Hew Dalrymple Ross as well? Many thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do, although I can't see any obvious problem at a quick glance. Mogism (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great. Many thanks for the improvements you have made. Dormskirk (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've added a few (very minor) queries to the talkpage, over things that aren't clear to me coming at the topic with no prior knowledge, and which should probably be spelled out for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the history and background - other than that, the only issues I could find were a couple of minor typos. Mogism (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Mogism (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

```Buster Seven   Talk  13:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Frightening. If I'm counting right, edit number 100,000 was this - a shame I didn't notice the landmark coming or I'd have tried to make it something a bit more impressive. Mogism (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Mogism!

 * Thanks, and the same to you Mogism (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

MonaVie deadlink
Hi Mogism,

From MonaVie Please remove the newsweek source, cite 10

http://www.newsweek.com/id/150499/page/1

It is a dead link. The text is already supported by other blogposts about schemes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.7.162 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See Grayfell's explanation at Talk:MonaVie. That a link is dead doesn't invalidate it as a source, provided the material being sourced is legitimate. Mogism (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

2010–11 S.L. Benfica season
I saw what you did there... BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed the capitalisation of "Portuguese", fixed an inadvertent "a a", and removed a stray line break? That's the only edit I've ever made in the entire history of that page, I'm not sure what you're accusing me of and whether it's supposed to be a good or a bad thing. Mogism (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Thanks for your clean-up to Bill Greiner, an article that I created. I appreciate it! Daniellagreen (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, glad to be of help. Mogism (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for spotting and sorting out my typos (wikipage on H.G.deW. Newman). Diakonias (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

Committee of Union and Progress
Would you be interested in joining a discussion about this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the talk page. Mogism (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
- Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Mogism. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Rivalnator (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks... although you do realise I've among the 200 most active editors on Wikipedia? Mogism (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts or suggestions for Chartis Wikipedia article?
Hi, I noticed your recent help on the Chartis Wikipedia article. I've been looking for help and/or suggestions to phase out this Wikipedia article. It confuses the reader on Google search and on Wikipedia. Chartis is no longer a subsidiary. Subsequently, its dissolution is appropriate as an event on the AIG Wikipedia article. What are your thoughts? Or, if you have any suggestions on who else I can discuss this with, please advise. I appreciate your suggestions.Hiland109 (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If all of Arbcom fell under buses and I were elected Emperor of Wikipedia, I'd make it into a paragraph of AIG rather than a stand-alone page, given that it has no significance other than as an initiative of AIG. I tend to agree with you that it's confusing to treat it as an independent entity, when it never really existed. I very much doubt that you'd ever get consensus to do it, unfortunately, as too many people would say "It received coverage in its own right so it warrants an independent article". There is a (British) precedent for treating the "abandoned proposal" as a subsection of the parent article at Consignia, and I'm sure there are others. In my experience, most coverage of present-day businesses on Wikipedia is awful, so you may struggle to find people with both the interest and the wherewithal to work on it. It might be a good idea to look at the relevant subsections of WP:Featured articles and WP:Good articles to see if there are any insurance or banking articles, and ask the editors of those for suggestions. Mogism (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have submitted the merge template on AIG. If you have an interest to post your support for the merge, I would appreciate it. It might be a challenge to get consensus on this idea, but I am willing to try and with your assistance we can probably work this out. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. The Chartis page belongs on the AIG heading. Thanks again for your reply. Hiland109 (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I feel this article is redundant and improperly filed. I would appreciate your assistance in merging Chartis to the AIG page. Do you, by any chance, know any other Wikipedia contributors who would support us or lend a hand in this venture? As always, your interest and cooperation is appreciated.Hiland109 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Driehaus Architecture Prize nomination for "In the News"
Hi! I nominated today's Driehaus Architecture Prize laureate Pier Carlo Bontempi to be featured on the start page of Wikipedia at "In the News". It'd be great for the whole discipline if you could support this nomination.

Please go there: In the news/Candidates and add Support or Strong Support. Thank you! All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It'd be also very helpful if you could also support this request (click!), so the Driehaus Prize would be considered to be included at "In the News" every year. Thank you, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry
Hi, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
 * Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with   with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
 * You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
 * We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
 * Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
 * Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
 * To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation!  D ip ta ns hu Talk 12:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into the local language

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation


 * I will do, although the "top 300" is deceptive. I have a large number of medical edits, but they're almost all minor copy-edits - what expertise I have is in very specific mining-related areas. Mogism (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Automonopoli
Hi, I'm Akifumii. Mogism, thanks for creating Automonopoli!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Great work on this article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Akifumii Talk 22:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and am removing the orphan tag, since it clearly doesn't meet the definition ("An article with no incoming links"). The only obvious incoming links are Monopoly and Automata UK, both of which link here. There is no policy that every article has to have a huge swathe of incoming links just for the sake of it. Mogism (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry about that. The information button told me that Orphan was a possible issue. Thanks for correcting me. Akifumii Talk 22:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't trust the page curation toolbar, which is a poorly coded piece of junk the WMF pushed through in a desperate effort to reduce the WP:NPP backlog, and is only useful for scanning articles by new users unfamiliar with Wikitext. In general, if the creator of a page has more than 100,000 edits to Wikipedia, it's probably safe to assume they're familiar with what is and isn't appropriate in the mainspace. Mogism (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Automonopoli
The article Automonopoli you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Automonopoli for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter-attack
I have noticed that you made changes to many articles, altering counter attack to counterattack as for example you did here (7 November 2013). I do not know what is standard advise in American specific dictionaries but the international OED says: ":ˈcounter-, prefix
 * In those compounds which we have taken from French or Italian, the consolidation of the word is usually greater than in those formed in English, and they are regularly written as single words, as counterbalance, counterfeit, countermand , countermarch , though sometimes with the hyphen. The stress is normally, in verbs and their derivatives, on the root, in nouns and their derivatives, on the prefix: cf. to underˈgo , ˈundertone . But there are exceptions, esp. where the noun stress is taken by a verb of the same form, as in to ˈcounterfeit . In words formed in English the two elements are in looser union, both accentually and in writing. In verbs the rhetorical or antithetical stress on the prefix may be equal to, or even for the nonce stronger than, that normally on the root, as in to plan and ˈcounter-ˈplan (ˈcounter-ˌplan ), and the two parts are properly hyphened. In nouns, when the counter- word is contrasted explicitly or implicitly with the simple word (as in 2b – 2d), the predominant stress of the prefix is strongly marked, as in ˈcounter-cheer , ˈcounter-aˌnnouncement . These are properly written with the hyphen (now rarely as a single word, but occasionally in two separate words). When such a contrast is not distinctly present (as in 2e, 2h), the predominance of the prefix is less marked, and the root-element may receive an equal or greater stress; in such case there is a growing tendency to write the prefix as a separate qualifying word, and in fact to treat it as an adjective. Thus counter-side , counter-truth , become counter side , counter truth : see counter adj.
 * All permanent compounds in counter-, with some of the more important of the looser combinations, are given in their alphabetical order; of the casual combinations (many of them nonce-words) of obvious meaning, examples here follow.
 * All permanent compounds in counter-, with some of the more important of the looser combinations, are given in their alphabetical order; of the casual combinations (many of them nonce-words) of obvious meaning, examples here follow.


 * [2]b.
 * (a) Done, directed, or acting against, in opposition to, as a rejoinder or reply to another thing of the same kind already made or in existence. (The stress is on the prefix; in long words there is a secondary stress on the accented syllable of the root-word.)
 * counter-attack n."
 * counter-attack n."
 * counter-attack n."

So I think based on the OED advise, you ought to alter your changes to to "counter-attack" probably for all pages but definitely for pages which use Commonwealth English.

-- PBS (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you're bringing this here now. I just checked my last 20000 edits trying to find what prompted this and what the "many articles" were, and there's not a single instance of me changing the hyphenation of "counter-attack". Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?


 * Wikipedia's policy on this is intentionally vague - "There is a clear trend to join both elements in all varieties of English (subsection, nonlinear), particularly in American English. British English tends to hyphenate when the letters brought into contact are the same (non-negotiable, sub-basement) or are vowels (pre-industrial), or where a word is uncommon (co-proposed, re-target) or may be misread (sub-era, not subera). American English reflects the same factors, but is more likely to close up without a hyphen. Consult a good dictionary, and see National varieties of English above.", but definitely leans towards the removal of hyphens.


 * This is in direct opposition to the OED as regards the "counter" prefix, but as with much of the OED, take their rules with an extreme pinch of salt - they have a famously loose relationship to standard English of the type actually written anywhere in the world, to the extent that Oxford English has its own language tag (en-GB-oed) to differentiate it from British English. British style guides don't agree with each other; the Guardian is firmly in the single non-hyphenated word camp, the Economist firmly in the "hyphenate" camp, and the Times is mute on the matter. All major US guides (as far as I can see) oppose the hyphen, including the CMOS hyphenation guide which the overwhelming majority of North American sources follow.


 * If you disagree with the hyphenation rules being included in the general fixes (and I wouldn't argue), you want to take this up at WT:AWB/T as regards automated fixing and WT:MOS as regards general policy, not here, since this is an artifact of the wiki software, not of my personal preferences. As does everyone else (AFAIK), I only alter hyphenation when I'm also correcting a batch of typos in the article in question, never as a stand-alone edit. "Anyone can edit" applies to the software just as much as it applies anywhere else here, and feel free to remove any rule with which you disagree from the source regex which drives the automated typo fixing. Mogism (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (adding) Pinging, who added the "counter-" rule back in 2012 and may know if it was discussed anywhere. Mogism (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a tightly limited rule that removes the space or hyphen from only counter-attack, counter-part and counter-point. (I wouldn't think the last two are at all controversial.) "Counterattack" corresponds to the spelling used in the WP article of that name. I don't think there was any discussion on the subject - it was accepted as uncontroversial. But a key characteristic of these rules is that they should only be making changes that are considered uncontroversial so by all means raise the question at WT:AWB/T. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for troubling you Mogism, I have not bothered to look who had been making the changes until the highlighted edit and assumed that you had rolled your own a AWB regular expression to do this, and not that it was a rule added to AWB, so  I'll do as CC suggests and raise it at WT:AWB/T . -- PBS (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Automonopoli
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2nd suggestion
OK, I've amended my suggestion from next year to 2040. Can I interest you in Bloomsday for dates across the top of OTD on June 20th, centennial or not? ☺ Dick Kimball (talk)


 * I'm not the best one to ask. In my opinion, WP:OTD and WP:ITN shouldn't exist at all. I think they clutter the main page, serve very little useful purpose, and (because of the insanely complicated rules about what can be included, particularly the "nothing with any kind of maintenance tag" rule) give a very distorted view to the public of what Wikipedia's priorities are. If a martian observer were to read any given Wikipedia main page, they'd conclude that the human race wasn't interested in anything other than people being killed. (Of the six anniversaries listed today, we have two battles, two terrorist groups, an aircraft crashing and a protestor shot by police; yesterday we had a massacre, an execution and a death in combat.)


 * "Anyone can edit" applies to OTD just as much as anywhere else - if you think something ought to be there, head over to Selected anniversaries/June 20 and add it. Be prepared to justify your change if someone disagrees, though. Mogism (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Draycott Hotel
Dear Mogism - re your message to me about reverting the above - that's exactly what I wanted to do and should have done but I somehow ended up doing an awkward muddle-job (I was actually doing something else entirely - having my tea - but just couldn't leave such a pile of PR toss be. Anyway, I  do agree with you as to its marginal notability but expect any challenge will fail as it'll scrape through on the same subjective interpretation of WP:N of so many in the same category. All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sarab, East Azerbaijan
In the Sarab, East Azerbaijan article, it is not a "fireplace"; it is a place where a sacred fire burned, a "fire place". --Bejnar (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Muslim conquests
Hey, Mogism, I was wondering whether you could possibly offer your input on the recent changes - and reverts of those changes - on the Muslim conquests article. Thank you very much for your time. Torontas (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your help requested
Thank you for your suggestions on Military production during World War II. Today Bender235 deleted over 3 months and 300 hours of my work and that of others, 40,000 characters of edits, and hundreds of constructive additions to the page. I am in the midst of uploading an enormous amount of PRIMARY SOURCE DATA and he deleted everything done so far as "wikipedia can not be a source for itself". I am enraged. There was not one comment, warning, question, request, or suggestion from this "editor". Can you please help me reverse all the deletions and keep this guy off the page. There are ongoing constructive edits from several other individuals watching this site. Please help resolve this. --Brukner (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Brukner, I would (quite strongly) recommend raising the matter at WT:MILHIST. The Military History project is probably the best organised on the whole of Wikipedia, and will have a large number of knowledgeable people better placed than me to advise. Mogism (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Mogism Thank you! I have done so on their discussion page. I just do not understand this action. It is so retrograde and harmful to the Wikipedia community. If you would like to chirp in at WT:MILHIST or Military production during World War II please do so. yours --Brukner (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  cleanup

Thank you for your tireless watch for quality in spelling, a few hundred spelling errors a day, and for sensible advice, such as, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 572nd recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, - and your advice is good today as then, see same page now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the thought, although I do do other things as well as typo fixing! Mogism (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Longford
That whole piece from the paper needs editing, one of my targets for when the laptop is on at home. Massive tidy then copy re-paste. --Dave Rave (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, on looking more closely. I just came did it as part of a mass cleanup of articles (a deliberately off-beat mix of railway infrastructure, monster movies, cricketers and English geography - I do it this way deliberately, to avoid focusing too much on a single area at once and irritating people when my name pops up fifteen times in their watchlist at once). When I get the chance I'll have a look over it more closely, although from south-west England I'm not sure how useful I'll be. (Longford Railway Bridge is the article in question, if any of the "history of engineering" people still watching my talk from when I was writing Bal maiden want to have a look.) Mogism (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hammersmith Hospital
Hi. I'm not going to revert your edit at Hammersmith Hospital, as I don't mind you switching from useable to usable. However, I feel I should point out that it was not a "typo" as described in your edit summary. In British English the spellings "usable" and "useable" are entirely interchangeable (see the Oxford English Dictionary for clarification), and as Hammersmith Hospital is located in Great Britain, WP:ENGVAR means that the original spelling was correct, and not a typo. I know that American English is different, and favours "usable".  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  20:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The OED entry for "usable" (there is no entry for "useable") reads in full as:
 * usable, adj.
 *  Brit. /ˈjuːzəbl/, U.S. /ˈjuzəb(ə)l/
 * Forms: ME vsable, ME 16 vseable, 15 vsuable, 16– usable, 18– useable.
 * Etymology: Either < Middle French usable (1254 in Old French; < user use v. + -able -able suffix), or < use v. + -able suffix. Compare Old Occitan uzable, Catalan usable (14th cent.), Spanish usable (c1250), Italian usabile (1729).
 * That can be used; that can be readily put to practical use.
 * It has no 'clarification' of any sort, so I don't know what you mean by that - "useable" only crops up at the tail-end of the list of historic variants, after "vsable", "vsuable" etc. Since it is a recognised variant spelling, it's certainly not something I'd lose sleep over if you want to change it back. (Yes, I know this is technically a copyright violation, but I'm sure the OED aren't going to sue over a 1-sentence entry.) Mogism (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Visionary heads (William Blake illustration)
I noticed your edit here on the Visionary Heads article where you corrected the misspelled Connecticut. I have been searching high and low for the place called Stainford which is part of the file description containing "Conneticut" with no success. Do you know if there is a Stainford or whether, perhaps, it should be Stamford, which certainly is a city in Connecticut. I'm also sending a note to Dmitrismirnov who I just discovered uploaded the pic concerned. Jodosma (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect it's going to be Stamford. That's a wealthy town, and home to the University of Connecticut - thus just the sort of place one would expect to find private art collections. Mogism (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC
You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC) well u need to edit more

Square kilometers and square miles
Hi, you changed sq km to km2, but left sq mi unchanged. Did you miss the square miles, or should they be written that way? --PM3 (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is km2, cm3 etc for SI units, but sq mi, cu ft and so on for imperial units (the chapter-and-verse is "The abbreviations sq and cu may be used for US customary and imperial units but not for SI units"). I have no idea why this is how it's done but assume somebody has a reason. Mogism (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --PM3 (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Typo fixing
Thanks for your contributions.

Have you made your own module/script for AWB? You have fixed a lot more typos and tricky spelling errors than others do.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I'm using the vanilla version. I dislike using nonstandard or custom software, as it means not knowing what other users are experiencing. I spend a fair amount of time warning people for being sloppy with AWB – generally users who machine-gun the "save" button to try to boost their edit count, without noting that the "typos" they're fixing are either false positives or insignificant changes which it's not appropriate to 'fix', or users who don't bother to actually read the diff window to see the context of the fix and fail to notice that they're "correcting" the spelling of a piece of obvious vandalism.
 * When I'm telling someone off for misusing AWB, it's important I know that the error they're making is a competence issue, and not a result of a problem with the software – AWB has a lot of oddities which result in people in absolute good faith making edits that are of no benefit to the project, annoy the article writers, and clog watchlists unnecessarily. (Changing "etc" to "etc." is a particular pet peeve, and just because one user unilaterally inserted American rules for punctuation into the MOS even though every UK style guide I've ever seen says "etc" should never be punctuated in Br Eng, even traditionally conservative ones like the Guardian and Observer Style Guide, and nobody wants the argument that would ensue from reverting it, doesn't mean I think it's appropriate that users use AWB to mass-change articles from British to American punctuation. The supposed "fix" of removing double-spaces, as here for example, is also one that causes a lot of bad blood, as a number of editors intentionally use double-spacing within the wikitext for ease of editing.) Mogism (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So just to let you know, this is an example of a false positive. Since you're the second AWB user to have done that, would you consider that a software issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't consider that a software issue. The overwhelming majority of occurrences of "were were" without a separating comma are going to be genuine typos (or very obvious false positives like "the monsters were were-wolves"), as it's a very frequently-made typo and without the comma (that is, "those who were were" as opposed to "those who were, were") is a very uncommon form in British, American, Canadian and Australian English, which account for the overwhelming majority of en-wikipedia articles. I do check every instance before I click save (and skip more than I save), but this particular article is something of a perfect storm, in that the "typo" breaks across lines in AWB (see image), so isn't immediately apparent. If you wrap Not a typo around the sentence, it will prevent AWB (and bots) from making any changes to that sentence. I try to avoid the template where possible, as it makes the edit window more confusing for inexperienced editors to include a template that explicitly has no visible effect on the appearance of the article (as opposed to sic, which does affect the output), but on a relatively low-traffic page like this that shouldn't be an issue. Mogism (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"On board" vs. "onboard"
Hello! Regarding on the Linux article, please have a look at a dictionary entry for "onboard". Thus, it should be "radios onboard a ship" and "on-board flash memory", right? However, it isn't a big deal – could be more interesting than actually important. :) &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

External image
Hello there! I've a favor to ask. I just noticed that the Sophie Hunter page has an external image which is outdated. The photo from IMDB was from 2011 but there's a newly uploaded photo that is more suitable, taken just this month. This one http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1259206656/tt2084970. I hope you can help in changing it (or removing it altogether as I don't think it's necessary at all). Thank you very much!41.203.187.145 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

How walkovers are counted in women's tennis
I see that you reverted my edits of Andrea Petkovic, and I appreciate the fact that you explained your reverts. I thought that I understood how walkovers are counted in Wikipedia, but I haven't (a) done an exhaustive systematic study of this, nor (b) found a discussion (or a policy enunciated) about how walkovers are to be counted in Wikipedia. If you know of the latter (a discussion or policy), please let me know. Otherwise, I'll try to do item (a), and discuss further with you, if appropriate. Thanks Free2brag (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have written this to the editor who reverted my edit. Not to you. Free2brag (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

CINELERRA
Hello I made an attempt to bring a first-person account to the story of CINELERRA (mine) and you chose to remove everything I did. Can you please explain ? The whole page needs considerable assistance and is a very poor reflection of the project. do you have any attachment or interest to the project in any form or fashion? I am very willing to open a conversation with anyone who has an interest in this page. I am here for accuracy alone. sincerely michael collins michael.collins@cinelerra.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinelerra (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Cinelerra, the only edit I have ever made to Cinelerra is this minor edit, which corrected a mis-spelling of "initial". If you're talking about this edit, it had nothing to do with me, although I wholeheartedly endorse it - the material removed was blatantly non-neutral promotional material. You should probably read Wikipedia's guidelines on editing by people with a conflict of interest before you make any further changes to this article - Wikipedia isn't a web host, and has very strict guidelines on what can and can't be included. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Filmmaking task force is a dedicated discussion page for people working o articles about film-making techniques, and the people there may be better placed than me to advise on how to progress on this particular article. Mogism (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello...well, I appreciate your comment and we can agree to disagree on the level of promotional content ...it was written in a literary style and not as any purpose for commercialization since we have released the software for free to hundreds of thousands of people for over a decade .. so, were not exactly the greedy Steve Jobs or people of his ilk...

.my passage is actually a reflection of what happened...perhaps, I need to reflect on the language and re-submit... But, I still want to figure out who removed it...is there any way to uncover that information... now, in regards to promotional material on the site, their is already promotional material on the site, particularly in reference to LUMIERA which has no relation to Cinelerra or its story...I will follow up with your suggestions. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinelerra (talk • contribs) 19:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding who did it, I already linked it above: it was removed by IP (anonymous) editor 66.30.1.134. I would VERY strongly advise not re-adding it. Wikipedia articles are obliged to only use material which has already been published in reliable sources - there is no original content on Wikipedia - thus personal recollections are by definition not accepted unless they've already been published in a reliable source. The removed material was full of obvious promotional material ("amazing performances", "far ahead of its time", "Cinelerra meant and means a lot", "they would not fully grasp how important this was"), as well as written in the first person ("we did this, we did that"). Look at articles on similar topics in Featured articles, which are those articles which have been verified as meeting Wikipedia's quality standards, for an idea of what Wikipedia is looking for. Mogism (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Turla (malware)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Turla (malware), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. MartinThoma (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

 * Thank you, and the same to you. Mogism (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yuliana Malkhasyants
✅ First, I would like to thank you for giving me heads up on what was wrong. I removed the fabrications and I will assure you I will try to do a better job. To be honest, I just misread the source and such thing I think could happen with many users who have many themes to cover. As you probably aware of I have written many articles for this project most if not all of them were BLP related and didn't contained any POV, copy vios (only 2) and fabrications (this article is the first and only one). I do would like to apologize for any difficulty this might cause. I do as well understand that I am not a new editor and yes I do have many edits behind my belt, but that doesn't mean that I am perfect (I am human after all). I hope on that note we understand each other. :)--Mishae (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Please take a look at the article Carolina Neurath. Any help is welcomed. :) Merry Christmas to you.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

History of Lebanon, Fath-Ali Shah Qajar and Boeotia
On these pages, I had to remove the changes that were made by a banned user (Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam/Archive 94.210.203.230). You can do your error fixes again if you want to. Oh and Happy New Year! Bladesmulti (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for letting me know. I do make an effort to clean up grammar on high-traffic Middle East pages, since so many of even the most knowledgeable writers have Arabic, French, Turkish or Hebrew as their first language (Hafez al-Assad is still my most-edited page of all time), and to do AWB sweeps on the category every so often. Mogism (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Indian miniature artist
The Indian miniature artist article is being considered for deletion, and is very likely to be deleted for several reasons. Please feel free to comment on the deletion proposal, but you should know that improvements are probably pointless.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I periodically run the AWB spellchecker over AFD - a lot of things are deleted because they "look sloppy" rather than that they're actually unsuitable - but this is clearly one that needs to be deleted and rebuilt from scratch. Mogism (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

William H. Mounsey
Thank you for the correction. It was a slip of the pen (misspelling)Romeinsekeizer (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Melaleuca ctenoides thanks
Hello Mogism,

Thanks for your corrections to Melaleuca ctenoides. On the point of dashes between page numbers - I don't get the option of inserting the right kind of dash when using the referencing template. Do you know any way around the problem (other than changing to the correct dash later)? It is nice tho' to know that someone actually looks at my work on obscure plant species! All the best to you.

Gderrin (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)\


 * To add the en-dash, rather than using the hyphen key on your keyboard type alt-0150 (PC) or alt-dash (Mac). I wouldn't lose the slightest sleep over it, since I can guarantee no reader cares. I change hyphens to match the WP:MOSDASH instructions when I'm changing something else in the article (and I remember to) just for the sake of consistency, but realistically it makes no real difference for readers. (I think it has something to do with the numbers being processed correctly when Wikipedia data is processed by other software such as Google.


 * Obscure is good—people who want to know about daffodils can look the stuff up just as well on Britannica, but nobody else has our range of coverage. You'd be surprised how much you can expand even the most obscure topic. (Bal maiden springs to mind.) Mogism (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Thank you - I don't lose sleep but botanist types are sometimes perfectionists. Thanks for the comment about "obscure". (I like obscure - don't get many arguments!) Good luck to you. Gderrin (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

William H. Mounsey
Sorry, Slip of the pen. Of course I am not a simular! ThanksRomeinsekeizer (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for correcting the missing apostrophe in "Women's" on the National Historic Events page. Relying almost entirely on the official online list, I copied and pasted most official titles, and this one did not include the apostrophe: Young Womens Christian Association (YWCA) National Historic Event http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=1847 Yoho2001 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Nic Cramer page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658861372 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F658861372%7CNic Cramer%5D%5D Ask for help])

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * For the third time now, although it is recommended Wikipedia does not and never has had a requirement for inline citations, provided the links are there at the end of the article. Ten seconds WP:BEFORE work will show that this is a significant company. "I don't think the article is long enough" is not and never has been a deletion criterion. Mogism (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I researched all the links on the page and none of them are reliable sources. I also did a Google search which came up empty. There is literally no indication this company even exists except for it's own website and a bunch of social networking websites. Not having references inline and not having any sources at all are two totally different things, and this article has none. I'm guessing the section about the CEO, Jing Xinhai, should just be removed so that the article is no longer a BLP and he doesn't seem specifically notable either. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

B-24
re: B-24 page the AAFAC designations were not hypenated. See Maurer, Craven & Cate, AF HISTORICAL STUDY ON AAFAC and actual letterhead. therefore the organizations and role was properly Antisubmarince, at least as it pertains to the AAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b025:bc0f:2dfc:d223:3617:858e (talk)


 * Assuming you mean Consolidated B-24 Liberator, I've made a total of three edits, all minor, in its entire history. The only recent one fixed the misspellings "transfered" and "Britian". The others were two and a half years ago correcting "more then 2 years" to "more than two years", and three years ago correcting the misspelling "northen" and cleaning up some malformatted dates. At no point have I ever altered the hyphenation anywhere in it. Mogism (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Radar imaging
An article that you have been involved in editing, Radar imaging, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft: SHINE Medical Technologies
Good Afternoon,

I noticed on Phoenix Nuclear Labs wiki page you were quite helpful. My article has been rejected 4 times, after conflicting advice, I'm ready to start over. I mirrored the page after several including PNL. Can you please take a look and tell me specifically how I am making it sound like an advertisement?

Thank you, PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Mogism


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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 00:54, 1 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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into the local language

Thanks again :) -- Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror
Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 01:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Automonopoli.png
Thanks for uploading File:Automonopoli.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)