User talk:Timelezz

[ redacted ]

 * Abusive posting by block-evading harasser removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making me aware. So far, I think DrChrissy's contributation are quite all right. But it does indeed worry me that s/he adds clarification templates without adding a comment on why so. I've pointed this out to her/him and hopefully s/he will include this on adding the template. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Timelezz. Please immediately delete this entire thread.  It is entitely inappropriate to post OR host thread headings on your Talk page which contain an editor's name.  The editor that posted this is an IP hopper who has been blocked several times before and has been extremely disruptive.  I strongly suggest you do not engage in conversation with this IP as they will almost certainly start making false accusations against you - avoid feeding the Troll.  I will now explain my clarification template on the article Talk page.  All the best. __DrChrissy (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

''Another posting removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)''
 * Hello, just let you know that there is an original research case of DrChrissy on the notice board.
 * Have a nice day!124.149.69.224 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timelezz. I am repeating my request for you to immediately delete this entire thread from your talk page. I am allowed to delete this myself under No personal attacks, however, in the intrests of acting co-operatively, I would do this very reluctantly. Could I suggest that for each minute you leave this thread on your talk page, you are tacitly supporting this personal attack. This will not be looked upon favourably should you or I raise a dispute.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that you do not like what is written about you. On that point I sympathize. But at this moment I do not consider the above as a true personal attack on you which would allow the removal of text. And not a bit the removal of the whole thread, as most is within the boundaries of normal conversation. I agree, it is a gray area. So perhaps I'll change my mind. Optionally, you can request a moderator to make a decision. I would be fine with that. Lastly, I hope you can see the difference between refraining from censorship and support of the content. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Timelezz. It seems pretty clear to me that one editor accusing another editor on a third editor's talk page of "lies" is a personal attack. I also urge you to remove this personal attack from your talk page.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Email as source
Before reinserting your cite to the email, please discus the matter on Talk:Marius (giraffe), where I have posted my reasons for removing it. DES (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice
Hello again, Timelezz,

Please be aware of this language in our guideline about user pages which says "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so—such content is only permitted with the consent of the community." In my opinion, it is inadvisable to keep material on your talk page accusing another editor of being a liar. Your failure to remove these personal attacks on another editor from your talk page may be reasonably construed by other editors as an endorsement of these charges. That would be unfortunate. I encourage you to investigate the credibility of the IP hopping editor with a grudge who is making these charges. Please do the right thing, and remove these attacks as soon as possible.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Timelezz, I have again removed the offending postings. Please note that if you should insist on restoring them, per WP:BAN, you can only do so if you are willing to completely endorse their content, and be held responsible for everything in them as if you yourself had authored it. In that case, however, since the postings were part of a pattern of attacks and harassment against the other editor, you would be considered to be yourself the attacker and harasser, so I would block you for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've requested for a moderator to judge whether it is really considered a personal attack. I assume you are a moderator and I notice the debate that was going on. I think that is appropriate way to deal with it (other than other users moderating my Talk page). So I'm perfectly fine with this resolution. And I applaud that you only removed the sections that were refering to words as 'lie', and did not remove a reference to "an original research case", which I agree, can not be considered as a personal attack. Inded, it would be inappropriate to remove the whole thread, as DrChrissy requested me coercively. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * [User talk:Timelezz#top|talk]] are you accusing me of original research? Please make a clear statement.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Spelling
Please don't change the spelling in an article unless there is a valid reason. Read WP:Retain for some guidelines. The Wood Duck article was originally written in British English so it must stay that way. Dger (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I was defending exactly the same guideline. Please, next time add an edit summary to motivate your edit. Not many non-natives are experts in Canadian-English. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanitising your Talk page
I noticed that you edited your Talk page to delete an issue regarding your editing. It is generally considered inappropriate to make such edits, even on your own Talk page. I suggest you re-insert the messages you deleted to give other editors a complete and transparent view of your editing history.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed an automatically posted notice by a bot. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference whether the notice was automatically generated or manual. You are removing links and history of your editing activities which other editors should be able to see and access for openess and transparency.  Please re-instate the deletions.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please ask at WP:HELPDESK before offering opinions on what other editors should do, particularly on their talk page. Even if the assertion were correct (it's not), making such an accusation ("Sanitising your Talk page") is not helpful particularly on a page where there was an earlier disagreement. Time to move on. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Seth Andrews for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seth Andrews 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/Seth Andrews 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. Yoninah (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction in force on Gender controversy related topics

 * Timelezz, this is just an FYI but you should be aware that controversial topics related to gender are under special scrutiny on wikipedia. Your repeated reverts on Feminism and creation of a pointy disambiguation link are disruptive. Please read the policy and the ruling before repeating these behaviour or you may find yourself sanctioned for breaching these special enforcement measures. Furthermore please note the topic of Men's rights (which seems to be substance of your edits to feminism as evidenced by your comments on its talk page) is itself under probation, a notification of this is below-- Cailil  talk 13:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for leaving a note. I've stopped editing, since there seems to be a controversy. I'm engaging in the discussion. Timelezz (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Nirmukta page restoration
Hi timelezz, several wikipedia links to nirmukta are broken because the page has been deleted. I would like to restore it, I've checked the reasons for deletion. I've added several more citations from independent news sources which mention the work done by nirmukta. These include all major indian news sources including Times of India,The Hindu, DNA india and The New Indian Express. And also international news sites like global post and wall street journal(blogs). I've also fixed some broken links, some of those links are slow but not broken, if you find any of them broken, please tell me and I'll fix them as well. I hope this fulfils the notability criteria. Please tell me what else shall I do to get the page restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latheist (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Latheist, that is great news. I did some minor improvements in the mean time. One of the big questions is whether Nirmukta is really an organization, what kind of organization (are they registrated), or are they just a website? Do they have members, and are those paying members? What is the total size of the organization, e.g. total number of members. Also the significant contributions of this group should stand out more. And if there are international organisations that worked together with Nirmukta, that could give notability to Nirmukta as well. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 16:04, 7 May 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) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)