User talk:Rybec/Archive 3

Ongoing armed conflicts map
Greetings, Can you please update the map to include Armenia and Azerbaijan in yellow as well as Egypt shaded in red? Egypt is now in major conflicts (>1000 deaths) and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was included in the list, both per talk. Also, thank you for reverting to the original version. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've coloured Armenia and Azerbaijan, but left Egypt as it was because the claim in Islamist unrests in Egypt (2013–present) of 1,300 killed is not supported by the sources given there. I found http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/15/egypt-violence/2658671/ and http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/20138141715620312.html which give lesser figures (less than 1,000). I posted to that article's talk page about it . &mdash; rybec   13:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Casualties of the overall crisis would still definitely exceed 1000 deaths because the death toll from August 2013 Cairo sit-ins dispersal alone ranges between 600-900 killed. You can check the casualties section at the bottom of the Islamist unrest article for more information. And add those to the 800+ and 300+ of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 and the following military transition period respectively along with many more clashes that occurred in Egypt, including the 500+ killed in the Sinai insurgency. That's what was agreed on in the talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I hadn't looked at Islamist_unrests_in_Egypt_(2013–present). The dark red is supposed to be for where at least 1,000 people per year have been killed, but 2011 and 2013 are different years. &mdash; rybec   14:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there were lots of casualties in 2012 as well (maybe not 1000+ though), but i think Greyshark09 would have a better opinion than mine on this issue. Because if so, it should be relocated to the minor conflicts list and kept in orange like you said. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Last year there were more than 1,000 casualties, so it should be red. If until the end of this year there would be less than 1,000 (i hope so), then it would become a minor conflict. Now it is a major conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 17:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

How to write Simple English articles listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to write Simple English articles. Since you had some involvement with the How to write Simple English articles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Petebutt (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

morning277?
Is the first-edit-perfectly-formatted-recreation-of-a-morning277-article sufficient evidence for SPI? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Emad Rahim
 * Articles for deletion/Emad Rahim
 * Articles for deletion/Emad Rahim

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Interview request
Hi Rybec,

I'm a journalist from Australia, currently doing an investigation into sockpuppeting.

I understand this is an area you known quite a bit about, and I was hoping I might be able to speak with you, either by phone or email.

Thanks, Jack Jckkrr (talk) 23:58, 22 October 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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Main page test listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Main page test. Since you had some involvement with the Main page test redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Gorthian (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Main Page Test listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Main Page Test. Since you had some involvement with the Main Page Test redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Olidog (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/College Drinking


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/College Drinking requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"deprecated sandbox"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PoetVeches (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

"Iron man 3" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Iron man 3. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 23 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

""Bernard M. Kahn"" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect & and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 24 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Clyde!Franklin! 01:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Crocodile (train protection system" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crocodile_(train_protection_system&redirect=no Crocodile (train protection system] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"Twin Peaks (restaurant chain" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twin_Peaks_(restaurant_chain&redirect=no Twin Peaks (restaurant chain] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)