User talk:TheFreeloader

Welcome to Wikipedia from Marek69
Hi,. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put  (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Irresistible force paradox has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Fastily (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi TheFreeloader, unfortunately no, you may not add Youtube as a source (see here), in the instance that you are citing it. I understand that you are new to Wikipedia, so as a part of the learning experience, don't worry about the warning. Regards, Fastily (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

re France
Please use Template:Editprotected. Cirt (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move problem
I agree that the closure of the requested move was improper. However, I do not see any way to contest the inappropriate conduct of the admin at WP:RM like a WP:DRV page. We should find another admin to review the discussion. Erik (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD A2
Hello! Please note that CSD A2 only applies to foreign language articles that exist on another Wikipedia (for example, an article written in Spanish that exists on the Spanish Wikipedia). You recently tagged Arthur Wybrands for deletion under that section, but I could not locate an article by that name on the French Wikipedia. In situations such as those, please place on the article and list it on WP:NOTENGLISH. Please be sure to read the official definitions of the CSD criteria before using them. Cheers, Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you  tom keene Tomkeenetomkeene (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Magical Blue Orchestra AfD
You somehow missed a couple of steps here -- did you close the TWINKLE window before it finished saving everything? I think I finished the missing steps for you, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I might have done that, although I thought I saw a check mark at all the steps. Thanks anyways for completing the missing steps.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

tom keene copyright
thx for note  i added the copyright as bloomberg does it  unsure if the all caps is your style  thats what we use  hope this helps  and greatly appreciate the value of copyright that you believe in tk

Tomkeenetomkeene (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks sorry but i'm lost    the photo is from our staff photographer dan acker   i thought i placed in the copyright correctly   you or someone else want "written" authorization. what does dan acker need to do on this i am on a plane next 24 hours  but will look in when i get back to ny   thx tom keene  thursday 10:00am london

Tomkeenetomkeene (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks will speak to dan acker tk

Tomkeenetomkeene (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So, show me
I look forward to you letting me know where I violated WP:CIVIL. Should you be able to do so, I will clearly retract any portion of my statement that was in violation. I'm watching here, so please keep the discussion together. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if you couldn't see it yourself, there probably isn't much point in me trying to point it out to you. But anyways, I think it is pretty rude to say to people that their position has no chance of getting implemented, especially in a situation where the policy says the opposite. Also the aggressive tone of your comments is kinda uncalled for in my opinion.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm always open to critique, when reasonably stated and valid. Based on the aggressiveness of the specific editor in trying to rename a country because (as per the beginning of the talkpage) he thinks using French on the English Wikipedia is repulsive, I felt that a very slight degree of aggressive "stop the disruption" was needed - warnings are clearly useful in situations like this.  I'm not sure where in policy that it says that it's ok to change the name of a country: perhaps that was a lesson in admin school that I skipped.  At no point was I uncivil; at no point did I post a personal attack.  I'm still failing to see where you have any belief that I was uncivil. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, where does it say you can't change the name of an article about a country. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that the title of an article should be most commonly used name for that subject. If the common name for a country changes, I see no reason why the name of the article about the country shouldn't change too.
 * When it comes to civility, I guess there is some degree of subjective judgment in determining that. Just like you made a subjective judgment in determining that the editor you were debating with was being disruptive.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Gold Standard
Don't know if it will help, but I've requested semi-protection for the article in hopes it will put our IP editor to make use of the talk page, rather than ignore the comments of everyone who is reverting them. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It might help, although the proper response to this problem probably would be to report him to wp:an/i for disruptive editing. I mean it isn't like there is a persistent stream of various IP editors vandalizing the article. It is just one person who is the problem, so it probably wouldn't be right to keep other IP editors from editing the article because of that person. I have thought about reporting him for a while, but I have hesitated as I hoped explaining wiki-policies would make him understand why his additions are not acceptable. It does not seem to have worked, and the time may have come for seeking to take action against him so as not waste any more people's time.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but I've had it at this point with his act. Next post that's got anything close to a personal attack will start the process of putting something on WP:WQA.  Hopefully that will generate some push on our IP editor to change his ways.  He had the same pattern on another page as well (2nd Amendment, if I remember correctly) - the voluminous posts, massive sarcasm, vieled and not-so-vieled attacks and an utter disregard for any opinion but his own.  Look at his reaction to your compromise post, which is quite literally everything he was wanting - a personal attack.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Côte d'Ivoire
Be careful. -- WikHead (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, what?TheFreeloader (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire national rugby union team
Freeloader, as you seemed to be the key player in the most recent Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast discussion, I felt I should inform you of a move proposal regarding the country's rugby team at Côte d'Ivoire national rugby union team D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  01:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

 * Ah, really, thanks a lot Lawrence.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Gold Standard
WP:V requires that any statement likely to be challenged should be sourced. If what you said is the case, then each of these references should coincide with those statements directly to make the point clear.--  Novus    Orator     07:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That might be nice if we are talking about a topic that has broad consensus, but on contentious issues, every statement that makes a claim needs a reference.--  Novus    Orator     07:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless, all statements need citations per WP:V. Whether that means a certain view or perspective must predominate is beside the point. Upholding neutrality is what Wikipedia stands for.--  Novus    Orator     07:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is good to hear, but the point is, that needs to be the case on all statements if they can be allowed to be included. If the references exist, then make sure that they clearly support the statements in the article.--  Novus    Orator     07:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, that is fine, but any statement likely to be challenged must be referenced per WP:V. Context does not need to be compromised when sourcing. Sourcing just needs to exist with that context.--  Novus    Orator     07:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On contentious subjects, Any statement likely to be challenged must be sourced. The references in question now clearly cite those statements so I have no objection to that material. Part of building a quality encyclopedia is ensuring that the encyclopedic standard is upheld and that no original research is allowed to pass. My removal of that material was perfectly warranted under WP:V until those errors were corrected.--   Novus    Orator     06:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okapi Article
Thank you for the notation on minor edits - the minor edit was meant for my tiny little spelling changes that I did to help support the pop culture section. I did not add nor write that section, I merely helped reword it for a more neutral tone and fixed some errors. Which I see you decided to DELETE again even though the discussion going on was to keep the section and streamline it - while finding another course for the record - which is being done, but you come and wipe a whole section again. PLEASE stop doing that. Wiping an entire section that several people contributed to is not kosher. Notability has been established and agreement that the section ads to the Okjapi article has been established. You can't wipe an entire section because YOU don't think Douglas Adams or the other two references are notable. Yet you did.. again, without discussion. Simply unacceptable. ManofThoth (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Spark
From your comments you seem like you know a fair bit about science. I was hoping you'd be able to help out in addressing IvoryMeerkat's concerns over at Talk:Spark_(fire). If you can help out it would be much appreciated. Thanks so much!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't know that much about science, but I'd be happy to participate anyways.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. Hopefully the users who stubbornly seem to still insist that all sparks are fire will soon be convinced, but regardless it looks like a consensus is emerging for Spark (particle).--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think it will be completely inappropriate to start an RM for that name soon.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should begin the RM? All of the outside comments seem to at least prefer the switch, although some may not be in 100% support from it. The only exception to this seems to be with Pablo X, although he gave no reason for opposing the move and seemed to back away after given the reasoning behind it. Colonel Warden and Dream Focus don't seem to be able to understand why the logic behind their argument is flawed, and I doubt that's going to change.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We might as well. I don't think a better alternative than 'Spark (particle)' is gonna come along, and in that case we can just as well decide the merits of 'Spark (particle)' in the RM as in the RfC. Also, the sooner the RM gets started the sooner it will be over.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've added it. If you think of a better wording for how I wrote that out please go ahead; any improvement would be great.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so we still have Kkmurray giving his reasoning, although his main issue seems to be that this article should also include electrical sparks, which is rather unrelated. Colonel Warden, however, still seems to be just as insistent despite not having giving any real reason for opposing the change.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, alright. I thought for a moment the RM was gonna get aborted, that's why I didn't participate. But if it is still going ahead then I'll post my opinion there.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was gonna give up on it, but then I reasoned that it would not make sense to finish a discussion on the topic and then have to reopen the topic in order to request the merge.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Tag
If you feel other aspects of the topic are not sufficiently covered than you would tag those sections with the "expand" template. What you describe is not a neutrality issue. Thus removed this template. What would be best is if you add the info you feel in missing. Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a neutrality issue, as the description of the side effects of binge drinking is given a much more prominent role throughout the article compared to in other articles on recreational drug use(like Smoking, drug injection and cannabis smoking). It is not enough to just expand certain section, the whole article needs to be reorganized and refocused. Describing the phenomenon needs to come first, criticism of it may then follow.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pac-Man Championship Edition DX
Was wondering if you wanted to participate in making it a GA. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know if I am the best person to ask there. I have never really worked that much on large improvements to video game articles. I have no idea where one would even start.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you'd like to, it'd definitely be good experience. Either way, good job on making the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

stop editwarring
the correct procedure is to discuss things - you have discussed nothing that i am aware of.

Please follow our policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewedwardjudd (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I do not see how I am editwarring. I can't find any of my recent edits which have been contested. And Wikipedia does have principles such as WP:BOLD and WP:BRD which state that not everything one does on Wikipedia has to be discussed before doing it. Sometimes it's better just to do it. Ofcourse if there are any of my edits you are unhappy with, I will be glad to discuss the matter. But you will have to be more specific.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you and the others working so hard to prevent central banking information from showing the FRB page is inaccurate and misleading?
the article clearly supports a model and you and the others are doing all you can to ensure that model is presented as fact with no regard whatsover for NPOV. This bias is embedded into the text from the first words.

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd


 * I can just say that the way things work on Wikipedia, the consensus views within a scientific community are stated as the facts and are mentioned first in articles on general topics. Minority views are explained later, and only in detail in their own separate articles. As an example you could look the Formation section in the Petroleum article, which states as a fact that petroleum is a fossil fuel made of fossilized organic material, while only explaining the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis briefly afterwards, with the more detailed explanation in the article dedicated to the hypothesis. What I and others are just trying to do is to apply these same standards to articles on economic matters.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You will not allow the feds own documents to be sited to show the existing text about the feds practices is wrong. and almost no text can be added to the main article so that citations can be added.
 * The central bankers are saying the relending model is totally wrong.
 * Citations are being deleted simply because they are too threatening to peoples opinions.
 * If you control what is scientific then you can build any consensus you want and the public knows no different.
 * Even the mediation cabal invitations were written with abusive bias against me.

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * You created the mediation cabal case, Andrewedwardjudd, and framed it carefully. Abusive bias, indeed. bobrayner (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to all the text about wonderful people you three received, compared to what i had to endure. I thought i was inviting a mediator to help me with a problem i was having. So of course i carefully thought about how to describe the problem i was having. I did not realise i was inviting the people i had a problem with to come along and create problems for me.  The comment you just made is abusive and unnecessary.    You for example have had no discussion with me about banking at all.   The best you could offer was that i come to your talk and have a fruitless discussion with you.  And true to your word i did and you just deleted it without comment.  Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * As a very outside person here, WP:CONSENSUS overrides WP:TRUTH every time. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bwilkins that is an unnecessarily abusive and underhand comment linking me to wp:truth. I have produced pages of high quality citations to show other editors are confused and lacking knowledgeAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * ...and I will remind you of our civility policy, and also that of no personal attacks. We comment on edits, not editors.  My statement that WP:CONSENSUS rules still stands.  If you need a third opinion or an WP:RFC, then do so.  Any further statements that any user "lacks judgement" will lead to an immediate block. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * you just linked me to wptruth which is clearly abusive because there is no evidence at all that i am stating an opinion without citations. And yet you want to make that association to my good name and character.  Stop making threats also. It is against policy here. I have done nothing to deserve this from you or anybody else. If you want to be civil please apologise for linking me to wptruth rather than focusing as you just did on wpconsensus Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * You miss the point: it's not a threat, it's a warning - validly given, and one you should pay attention to. We have dozens of those warnings at our fingertips, and when used correctly (as I am now) can help avoid behaviours such as the ones you're clearly displaying ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 00:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative easing discussion
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Quantitative easing on a topic you have discussed before. You are invited to participate. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict
That was not intentional. If we could all calm ourselves and edit other articles (myself included), this would not have happened. Sorry. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

RFAR on Abortion
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/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/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 05:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Gold standard 2011
I warned the IP, so I also need to caution you. Please be careful of breaching 3RR on Gold standard. I've warned the IP on the talk page in no uncertain terms what will happen if he reverts one more time which should calm that down. He's getting direct comments from us about what needs to happen. If needed, I'll post on AN3, let them block, then revert a final time back to something stable. But, still gotta be fair. Thanks! Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay - I'm chuckling a bit here. Seems we went through something similar almost a year ago - scroll up to the other section named Gold Standard here! Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, while it might look the same, it isn't quite. That situation was about an editor removing all sentences in the Disadvantages section which were not immediately followed by a reference, even though the reference for statements in all instances were at the end of the one of following sentences. The editor in question would not admit that removing statements in that sort of way is not acceptable, so it turned into a rather long discussion. That's also why the reason why all periods in that section is now followed by a reference.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true - just had to laugh when I happened to see the section from last year. Looks like EdJohnston semi'd the page, which makes a lot of sense.  No reason to block and forces discussion.  Let's see what happens ... Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP editor has been blocked anyways though (before the semi)Special:Contributions/71.184.188.254. I am a bit concerned with the length of the semi protect, three months or so, a lot of good contributions come from unregistered users.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment
Based on your contributions at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner/Archive_2, you may be interested in commenting at. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed
An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * All articles related to the subject of Abortion:
 * shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
 * shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
 * are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:
 * 1) Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
 * 2) Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
 * 3) User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
 * 4) User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
 * 5) User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows: Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
 * Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

Abortion amendment request
Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 04:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification
Hey TheFreeloader. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  22:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Binge drinking
Hi, I see that you have re-flagged the article for being rewritten. I initially removed the bannerafter seeking advice on WikiProjectMed. I was wondering if you saw this discussion?Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine Perhaps you could join the conversation on Wiki Project Medicine?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just FYI: You are using the wrong tag for your complaint.  Cleanup-rewrite is for wikification, spelling, grammar, typographical errors, tone, and sourcing.  If you think that the balance is wrong, then that's an issue of WP:UNDUE weight, and you either need to WP:SOFIXIT yourself, or tag it with POV (do read the directions on that tag).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually used that tag when I initially tagged the article, but I was told I was using the wrong tag back then too. I just picked the rewrite tag instead then, because it seemed like a useful catch-all for major work needing to be done. But if you indeed think that the POV tag is the more appropriate tag to use, I will use that instead. Although I do think the rewrite tag has the advantage that the reason for the tag can be added right in the tag, which might be useful in a relatively unusual situation like this one.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire
There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Tom Keene.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tom Keene.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Elon Musk
I appreciate your work in removing the inappropriate section of quotations. If there are attempts to add it back that cause difficulties, let me know on my talk page. If you see similar elsewhere, please do similarly, and I'll help you there too as necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks mate. I appreciate it.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

OVERLINKING
Did you check previous years linked from 2018 FIFA World Cup? The nation is not as important as you think. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It also looks to me like you may have had a hand in removing those links too. To me it seems quite useful for readers to have the option at that point in the article to click through and read more about the host country, even if they already know of the country in general. It seems particularly useful in the case of the 2018 World Cup, given that most of what is known about that event at current time is its host country. Although that doesn't mean I don't think the leads for the articles about the other World Cups should also have a link to the articles about their host countries, because I do, they are useful links, and I think it is an overzealous application of a clause taken out of context from the OVERLINKING guideline to remove them.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2013 (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) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Plot summaries
Sorry, you misread the guideline. WP:TVPLOT states that "summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words" - these are not episode articles, these are episode summaries in the episode table of the main article. So we want it "in a basic prose section that gives season story arcs and main plot points and/or a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, as articles using episode list should not exceed 200 words in accordance with the instructions for that template)." Episode 3 come in at 282 words; far over the limit. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. I still think the tags should be removed though. Not every tag that can be used on Wikipedia articles should be. Sometimes discretion should be applied. In this case, I don't think the tags are helping the situation, instead they are making it worse, as they are making the sections even bigger, especially since there are so many of them. I think it would be better to remove the tags and make a note of the problem on the talk page instead, so people don't forget about it.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The visual size of the summaries doesn't matter; it's the length of them that does. The episode articles already exist, the great detail can be listed there. The sooner the summaries are trimmed, the sooner the tags can be removed, yes? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you might not think it matters, but I do. It makes the article look cluttered and less clear. I, on the other hand, do not find the word count length of a plot summary to be all that important, as long as the summary content is not overly detailed, but remains at an overview level. Applying strict word count limits to plot summaries does not seem like something editors should be too concerned about. The guidelines on these things should be taken as rough guides, not as hard rules. I think in particular the tags for this problem should only be used in very egregious cases, as otherwise they do more harm than good. TheFreeloader (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion has been noted. However, to implement the idea that the length of summaries is not important, you will need to start a discussion to change the consensus formed by the WikiProject Television; these guidelines aren't applied strictly, as you've stated, as we don't typically tag anything that is only a few words over 200. A long summary means that the episode summary is overly detailed; that's why they are tagged. As I said: the sooner the episode summaries are trimmed, the sooner the tags can be removed. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think a description being overly detailed is something you can necessarily quantify with a specific word count limit. It all depends on what it is describing. One might argue that since television episode plot descriptions all generally seek to describe the same thing, that is one hour long or less of pieces of television, you can use a specific standard of length for summaries to obtain a specific level of detail. But I don't think this is true. Some shows have a lot happening in them in each episode, others do not. And some episodes, like pilots or season finales, might have more happening in them than others. This is why word the count limits should be interpreted very loosely. And the guideline says as much, so there isn't really anything in the guideline that needs to be changed. What I think should be changed is how you choose to apply these guidelines. You have decided that these guidelines need to be adhered to very strictly, and they should be enforced through large amounts of tags. I don't agree with that. And my stance on this is not outside Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines. You are allowed to loosely enforce the episode summary length guidelines, and you are allowed to use discretion in when you use tags.TheFreeloader (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, some series are a lot more detailed than others. For example, Westworld is extremely detailed. However, that's what the individual episode articles exist for, they're a place to add that specific detail. You don't need two places to do this - the episode article is enough, and then a brief summary is all that's required for the episode table. I'm not applying them strictly at all. Both a guideline and template documentation state a maximum of 200 words - if it was only a dozen or less over, I'd be fine with it; however, again, Episode 3 comes in at 282 words, with is far too detailed for an episode table, and I'm not the only editor to think so. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I just have to say, I don't think you can put a specific word count on being too detailed. Being too detailed is about content not quantity. To show that these descriptions are too detailed, you would have to point to details in the descriptions you think could be left out without a significant loss to understanding of the episode's plot. And if you do find such superfluous details, then I am sure nobody would mind if you just removed them, rather than tag the summary.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, look at that. They're no longer needed. Cheers all round. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

please add reference to Cerrejón
you changed the lede of Cerrejón after I had inserted the owners, which strangely were lacking. PLease provide a reference for your change. also, the lede should reflect the body so you should insert this there primarily.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * https://www.glencore.com/media-and-insights/news/glencore-completes-acquisition-of-cerrejon TheFreeloader (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)