User talk:Wiki-Pharaoh/Archive 1

Look Over Requests
I enjoy looking over articles and giving feedback on how they might be improved, Especially ones on Law or medicine as I have extended experience in both areas. It might benefit you to have someone to give you some views on your edit or writing. If you would like help with this please click New Section on the toolbar next to edit then make the subject: REVIEW. Please try and include any details about the article / text location and what specifics you would like me to check out!

Thank you !

(Olowe2011 (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC))

In response to your feedback
If you don't know how about the code, then you must see this.

Ivan530 Talk 03:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

&#160;


 * In response to Ivan530 Talk

Thanks a lot I will be sure to read it. My main issue is with working out advanced codes like tables and infoboxes!

(Olowe2011 (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Nominating an article for AfD
Hello, Olowe2011. I wanted to let you know that I've reverted two recent edits of yours. I understand that you want to nominate the article for deletion. You can nominate it by following the instructions located here, but before you do so please take into account that the article is referenced, and that it has been kept in three three previous nominations, so it seems to meet the criteria for inclusion. If you still want to nominate the article, please make a note on your rationale of why the result from the previous AfDs is no longer applicable. Feel free to ask if you have any doubts — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the nomination for you, feel free to replace my comments here with your own. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

-bThank you :) But I made it and As soon as I made it lol ... I saw your one haha
 * You're welcome. I recommend using WP:TWINKLE for Afd work, it makes it much easier. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks I will try WP:TWINKLE. The new nomination page I created is HERE. --Olowe2011 (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me know if you have any more questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Stapled trans-anal rectal resection
This operation developed from an operation for prolapsed hemorrhoids, but the operation with this name is used in rectal prolapse, internal intussusception, mucosal prolapse. Advise merger with hemorrhoid article inappropriate. If merger at all, should be to rectal prolapse article. tepi (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merger edited. --Olowe2011 (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ty for fast response. Alternatively, STARR could have its own small page. A number of the conditions I am studying atm use this operation. I don't want users to be directed to a specific condition when they type it in...I can develop this page in a sandbox at some point, or add later to this stub? tepi (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done a quick resources search for STARR and I can find plenty of good and reliable information on the internet that will help expand the article and give reliable sourcing. From what I can see this operation is known in the medical sense and would be a point of research for those having the operation or studying it, therefore making it good content. If you plan to expend the article (which would be good) It would be good for you to go all out in sandbox and update the current article when completed. If you can show that various conditions are treated / managed using this operation in the article it can benefit more than making it independent on the basis of one condition in which case it would be suggested to merge with the sole conditions own article. Once you have done be sure to tell me so I can give a look . --Olowe2011 (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

OK tepi (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Years in Denmark
Thank you for your interest in and support of the Years in Denmark articles. Any assistance filling content into them will be much appreciated.:)Ramblersen (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Hugh Davies (cricketer)
Not sure, having made just short of 29,000 edits, that I really need telling how to improve the article! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia is a place in which everyone can have their view and submit it. I was pointing out some improvements in which I viewed the article needed. This isn't a edit superiority contest and I just pointed out what I believed a general consensus would have been about the page in the format I viewed it in. --Olowe2011 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Music Blvd + Soapboxing
Hi Owen,

I didn't remove any tags as you indicated. If you go back and look at the thread, it was the other editor that was reviewing the page. I'd appreciate if you take those tags off my profile.

Thanks TrystanBurke  —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - My apologies I didn't read the history. I will try to review this as I said my apologies for that. --Olowe2011 (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: MusicBlvd
Hello Olowe2011. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of MusicBlvd, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''there is enough assertion of importance here to pass the low bar of WP:CSD. Let the AfD take care of it.''' Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about this. WP:CSD is deliberately set lower than "notability", and requires only a "credible claim of importance or significance". It does not even require sources. The idea is to save work at AfD by weeding out the obviously hopeless cases. What constitutes a credible claim is a matter of judgment, but in this case I thought that "the first music related and lyrics website in the world, with 80 million+ unique page views" was enough. If you are going to do New Page Patrol (which is a very good and useful thing to do) it is worth re-reading WP:CSD from time to time; and there is good advice for speedy taggers from a experienced admin at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Response - Thanks for the advice I will be sure to look over the new stuff! Again its much appreciated. --Olowe2011 (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: PN Link
Per your request I am responding here as well as my talk page. Here is what I said there: "I don't really care that much about the layout of the infobox. For what it's worth your changes seem fine to me. But I am concerned with your efforts to remove the group's URL. Are you saying that you know the website is unsafe (i.e. it contains malware, trojans, malicious scripts, etc) or are you just saying that because it's a troll site you imagine that it might be unsafe? Unless there's actually evidence then we'll have to restore it per WP:NOTCENSORED." -Thibbs (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored the website for now because I can see no signs that it is unsafe. If the website is actually unsafe then please revert my edit and let's discuss the matter in talk. -Thibbs (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Music Boulevard vs. MusicBlvd
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Olowe2011, I just noticed at the AfD that you suggested that I have a bias against your edits and I wanted to clear this up. I don't. I ran into your edits first in relation to the Patriotic Nigras article and then largely moved on after the AfD closed. When you improperly edited the page yesterday to remove the group's URL under the claim that it failed WP:SOAP because "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article." Then I thought it might pay to review your edits for similar errors on other pages. I can see that you're a new editor here and it's natural that you will make mistakes or misjudgments here and there. The contrary position I have adopted at the news AfD has to do with my sense that the deletion rationale for the underlying article is improper. I only weighed in because I'd seen you make a similar argument at a page I have been involved with, not because of some bias against you. I don't think you're correct that urls should be excluded based on someone's subjective determination of what makes an organization "major". If the article's topic is a website then 9/10 times it is acceptable to include links to that website in my view.
 * Anyway I have no bias against your edits generally, but I'll take moves to correct errors if I see them. Please don't take it personally. Although I know you are relatively new here, I believe that you are editing in good faith so I have no reason to have any bias against you. -Thibbs (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: RE: MusicBlvd
Per your request I am responding here as well as my talk page. Here is what I said there: "Before you go further, please note that I don't really care that much if you are mocking me. I'm generally thicker-skinned than that. If you're not mocking me then all the better, but either way I won't let it get in the way of us working constructively together. Regarding your new edits, I've proposed that your newly created Music Boulevard be merged into MusicBlvd for two reasons. First of all, having two articles with largely identical content like that existing simultaneously in articlespace is called content forking. It's bad practice here at Wikipedia. If you want to move an article, you need to follow the instructions listed at WP:MOVE. That's the Wikipedia way of renaming an article's title. But in this case I've requested that 'Music Boulecard' be merged into 'MusicBlvd' and this brings up my second point - The website seems to be called 'MusicBlvd,' not 'Music Boulevard.' Although full names are generally preferable to shorthand forms, official company names are preferable to alternative names, and here it looks like they refer to themselves as MusicBlvd. The third and final point to make here is that the new page lacks an edit history like the old page and in order to preserve the edit history it makes more sense to merge in the recent article into the older one and then simply perform a 'move' if need be. Regarding your suggestion that I should fix the MusicBlvd article up myself, I am actually rather busy right now. I may take a look at it if I have some time, but for now I can't promise anything. Feel free to try to improve it yourself, though. I can look over any edits you make at the page." -Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yeh I agree with the merge just with total restructure once the AfD debated has taken its course. Then if you don't mind we can work on the new creation together (I.e if the current page located MusicBlvd is deleted we work on the other page I created however if it is not deleted we can re structure using the current titled page if you would like to contribute it would be good.) Regards, --Olowe2011 (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Attacks
It looks to me from some of the things you've said that you're getting fed up with my disagreement of your actions. I want to stress to you as I did above (regarding your suggestion that I was biased against you) that I am not attacking you. It's very clear to me that you are editing in good faith. You are clearly concerned with SPAM and bias and you are taking bold steps to eradicate it. For that I commend you. I don't think you are applying WikiPolicy correctly at times and in those cases I have spoken up, but I recognize that your intentions are pure. I have dealt with many many bad editors in the past - people who are actively seeking to harm Wikipedia and whose lack of interest in collaborating have made them a liability to the project - but you are not one of these people. You're a good editor. And I am too. My disagreements with your edits aren't attacks or displays of bias. And although I have pointed out that you are relatively inexperienced here, I certainly don't want you to think that I hold this against you. My only reason for bringing it up was to explain that I didn't consider what I saw as your misinterpretations of the rules to be character flaws, but rather that they were linked to inexperience. I probably shouldn't have brought it up at all. Anyway I don't want you to feel attacked here. I do think you should proceed with more caution as you work to eliminate POV and SPAM, but it's as clear to me as I think it would be for anyone reviewing your edits that you are trying to help here at Wikipedia and I applaud you for your efforts. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * PS - One thing you might consider as you start out here is to join WikiProject Spam, an advertising-fighting group here at Wikipedia who are very familiar with the basics and the details about when it is appropriate to blank urls and to file AfDs. Even if you don't join, you can contact the WikiProject as a whole for guidance at its talk page and you can contact the members of the project for their particular insights. -Thibbs (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance Tags
... are exactly that. Simple information about a page as is. Please don't remove those tags until the outlying issues that are there are fixed.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You should not tag recently created pages until they have had a chance to actually edit the content.Olowe2011 (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not the case. Once a page is live, it's up for tagging, deletion, etc.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a reason that article construction tags exist on wikipedia. Olowe2011 (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you're free to add that to the article, which you didn't. In any sense, once an article goes live, it needs to meet Wikipedia standards. You may be best to being writing the article in you Namespace if you don't wish for others to tag it for maintenance or deletion. The tags that I added to the article do nothing but alert wikignomes and such that there's a need for certain things on the article and let's those familiar with the area add said needed things. Maintenance tags are much different than CSD tags. By the way, I went ahead and formatted the discussion here (so it doesn't look wonky). You can indent replies and such by adding : to the beginning of the sentence (you're able to see the way I did it when you hit "edit".  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks for making it look neater. Well In future I am going to use the sandbox before creating the actual article which I should have done in the first instance but never-mind, mistakes are made. Other than that I don't really disagree with you tagging it, hence why I blanked and G7. Olowe2011 (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Identifying yourself as
Hi,

Per WP:SOCK, can you please state on User:Olowe2011 that is an alternative account of yours? This is important (a) so that other editors can be confident the accounts aren't being used inappropriately and (b) to establish that account is actually yourself and not just somebody impersonating you.

—me_and 10:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure if it helps --Olowe2011 (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Mail
-— TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the User WPMed template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter
 Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery



This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress


 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short


 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives


 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Security Bureau (Japan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits here
You are completely forgetting if not going against WP:GF. I live in the United Kingdom so the time is 14:17 and the block said it expired at 13:50 or around that time. I didn't realize the block time was in UTC not GMT. But thanks for pointing out the issue. Please do not threaten me in future - thanks. olowe2011 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * UTC is effectively the same as GMT; if you find it difficult, you can change the preferences to enable Comments in Local Time.  Your contribution summary shows you that you are still blocked.  Your recent record stretches the assumption of good faith, but you will be judged by your future conduct.  I was not threatening you, but merely warning you of the possible consequences of your actions. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * UTC Universally coordinated is clearly different to GMT, London. There is no reason for you to suspect that I had edited that out in bad faith. It doesn't stretch beyond good faith and you're not in a position to assume the what and wherefores of why I removed the block notice. Thanks for revert and notifying but I would strongly appreciate it if you would assume good faith. If you're unable to do this you should refer to someone who has a demonstrated WP:NPOV. And thank's for the advice about changing the comment time - I will be sure to do that. With regard to the display for blocking notice - I assumed that it was still in place because I needed to remove the notice in order to get unblocked due to the fact I was working under the assumption that the block was made according to my local time-zone. And yes, it was an implied threat. I'd appreciate it that if you have a problem in future that requires you to make a controversial contribution (even if it's simply edit summaries) that you either ask me for the reason first, subject the issue to consensus or refer to a person with a demonstrated WP:NPOV thanks! :) olowe2011 (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your second link shows the local time in London, currently British Summer Time], not GMT. The links which I provided explain what UTC and GMT are. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert in time-zones and I don't intend to be. Not sure that it really relates to the issue at hand but thanks for the links. olowe2011 (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As a small note, the block notice placed on your talk page is not the actual reason for the block. It is simply a bunch of text informing you that there is a block in place. Removing the text does absolutely nothing other than make the user look like they have something to hide. The actual block is done in the backend and will be removed automatically when the appropriate time is reached. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I have seen that now thanks for the information, I appreciate it. Being under the assumption that the block should have expired I tried to do everything that could fix what I saw as a technical problem. Then I realized it was made in UTC and not in my local time. olowe2011 (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

When your block expires
After the expiration of your block, though not tomorrow, 5 August, because I am busy and offline all or most of the day, I am happy to offer you such guidance as you feel able to accept towards enjoying your Wikipedia hobby. If you would prefer a different editor to guide you, please approach Co-op where some very pleasant folk will offer their services.

There are many things here that require not just expertise but also experience. We can and will guide you in the directions you need to go in order to work here in the best and most enjoyable manner. Almost every Wikipedian who has gone on to become a great editor here has made mistakes or fallen foul of policies early in their career here. Fiddle  Faddle  20:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. Regardless of the block for edit warring it doesn't mean I am going to agree with you that I should be denied access to tools on Wikipedia because of a few users opinions about my level of experience. Thank's for being open to helping further my knowledge on Wikipedia but this situation has driven me further in being able to make Wikipedia a friendlier place for new users by opening up tools to them based on actual potential and experience rather than judging by edits alone. I have a problem with treating Wikipedia like its a secret organization that has a cartel on the free creation of articles that embody knowledge and thereon display it to a reader. Knowledge is by no means a monopoly and shouldn't be treated like one, I absolutely believe that Wikipedia Editors should be taken on the value of their contributions or ability to provide contributions rather than being denied based on the lack of number. By all accounts from what I have seen so far it appears the age old quality over quantity idea has been completely overlooked. I appreciate and endorse the need for high quality editorial members of the community and in fact given the drop in Wikipedia editors and administrators this requirement is all the more prevalent however, by effectively subjugating new users seems to really provide a disappointing fuel to the fire in Wikipedian Editors who simply can't be bothered to contribute due to negative community responses. In order to innovate it's not wise to cut off new thinkers or even completely disregard potential talent simply because of the quantity of material that person has contributed. I hope you understand my point of view on this matter and will give it due thought. In the meantime I will be on a Wiki-Crusade to bring about some positive changes based around the above mentioned ideals if the community is prepared to accept it by consensus. I'd suppose iv learnt bulldozing my way in and simply refusing to budge on an issue will simply render my editing privileges useless so it's perhaps, not the wisest option. Thanks again for your offer to help me. olowe2011 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you wish to seek to change consensus on policies you are most welcome to make a reasoned case for that in relevant areas. You will, I hope, recognise that we submit to and are bound by consensus simply by editing here at all, and also that forming a consensus is not the same as running a ballot. Sheer weight of numbers only wins the day by coincidence here.
 * I do not mind whether you agree with me or not. I have often worked very successfully with those whose views and mine are diametrically opposed. I have not changed their views, nor sought to do so, and they have not changed mine, though some have sought to do so.
 * If you wish to change the policies/guidelines/methods of working of, for example WP:AFC, please select the most appropriate of its talk pages and start your discussion there when you are technically able to do so at block expiry. If you will accept some advice, please do not make this about yourself. Instead please make a proposal about how that project may draw a better line in the sand that is understood by all people. Consider the advantages and disadvantages and present those clearly. The moment it becomes about you the case is lost. Since you say that you are a lawyer I am sure you will understand this.
 * Other projects have their own criteria. As with AFC these are stated with clarity. To argue there you must use their talk pages
 * On matters of general policy you must start at WP:VPP
 * I suggest you work within Wikipedia's processes to seek the change you wish for. A maverick has little success here. It would be a shame if you became a maverick since I think and hope you have far more to offer than the potential for disruption. To seek to change something you must first have a good understanding of the thing you wish to change and why it is as it is today. Fiddle   Faddle  21:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may add a further suggestion, your single paragraph, above, was hard to read. May I counsel you to use short paragraphs, with each containing but a single idea. Wikipedians have been known to disregard long paragraphs, something I am sure you would find upsetting. This is a part of learning how the site works
 * Wikipedia is imperfect. It will always be imperfect. If you can make an area less imperfect, good for you. You simply have to carry consensus with you. It takes time. Fiddle   Faddle  21:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am proud to be a free and independent thinker and strongly believe it's freethinkers who bring new and innovative ideas therefore providing illumination on issues that otherwise would have continued to extend further and further into darkness until ultimately insignificance. I agree with you that this isn't in anyway about me and as NPOV goes I think that I have no interest in denying the facts for my own goals. It is my intention to get a good grip at what I am getting into then work from there. Thank you for pointing me in the direction of good read articles - I will be sure to give them respect and time to read therefore reaching a well informed choice on the matters in hand. Furthermore, I am perfectly happy to engage in community discussion however wish to refrain from embodying the principles that I don't support. In this case I feel that the community in some areas has created this sense of do onto mutual benefit for other editors based on similar ideologies while overlooking their responsibility to keep Wikipedia a trustworthy source of knowledge for it's readers based on factual representation of an issue in question. This isn't a war-zone and I don't believe a ritual needs to be undertaken on the internet in order to attain the right to make positive contributions of knowledge to the Wikipedia. Similarly, I respect due process and the community that has established itself but I do not want to be fearful of making bold edits or suggestions based on the limited scope of a community which might simply be trying to retain control and oversight over it's participants in a hope to drive better user contributions. By no means am I disillusioned and retain the understanding that Wikipedia is de facto an Encyclopaedia not a local social club. I'd suggest that social elements probably bring affirmation and support to users looking to make consolidated efforts in producing quality materials but I don't believe it does the general user-base of Wikipedia any good for these communities to start taking control over editorial process to an extent a useful contributor finds themselves prevented from providing towards the community. The superiority complex seemingly implied by certain editors on Wikipedia is also deeply concerning given the fact we are all Editors and personal views should not come president to providing the community with quality contributions that readers may ultimately gain a better knowledge on a subject area based entirely on well sourced information. I respect experience however do not find this a ground to start making Wikipedia into an aristocratically operated service. olowe2011 (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In answer to that (still far too long a paragraph by the way) you probably have a firm basis for making a start. The problem is that you need to play the game as it is to change the game to be the way you wish it to be.
 * Those who try to act outside the set of agreed processes have always failed, however good their ideas are. We have the Wikipedia we deserve. It may not be the Wikipedia we would like. Fiddle   Faddle  22:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I just don't seem to hold the same baseline view towards Wikipedia that would inspire me to see it as something that I need to "win the hearts and minds" of those on here. I see it as an Encyclopaedia whereby users may collaborate to make contributions based on good references and solid subject coverage. It's not so much a debate as to changing policy as it's to reminding people about the spirit of what they are using. But I agree in the sense that if I want to make a positive change it would be wise to understand and engage in pre existing customs.olowe2011 (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for walking a few metres towards me in understanding. In time I hope we can walk side by side, whether we agree or not.
 * Please act with wisdom and restraint tomorrow. I probably have no need to request this. Spend time in learning, in watching and in thought. Edit with pleasure, but use the things you have learned in your edits.
 * I will be back on 6th August. I am in the UK, which gives you an idea of my timezone. Fiddle   Faddle  22:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your time. I am sure we are already walking side by side just on the other side of the road. I think you can provide good counsel on issues here you seem well acquainted. Thanks for your guidance so far. I hope you have a good day. olowe2011 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just came online very briefly to check email. I thought of you and dropped by to see if you were ok. It looks like you have tripped over a few things again. No time to study that, but I have a request for you. Please do not get yourself blocked again, at least until we have had the chance to work together for a while. Please, today at least, play in this park within the rules. I shall not be able to reply to you today, but feel free to respond  Fiddle   Faddle  16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, yes that would be good. In fact there is something you could do for me in your spare time. I noticed that you have an archiving system on your talk page and it looks great :) Would you mind setting this up for me in any spare time you have to offer, thank you. olowe2011 (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added two blocks of code at the top of this talk page. They are topped and tailed with comments only visible in edit mode. Everything should become automatic. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for the instructions I followed. You may want to migrate your initial archive, mentioned in your page header, to the page the automatic scheme creates (let it create it first, which it will, automatically, when the bot gets to your page, which may take a day or so). I have chosen not to fiddle with your page header scheme. Some things are too personal to play with  Fiddle   Faddle  22:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow, let's work out what you want to achieve here, in bite sized chunks, and how you might best be able to achieve it. I'll give you my best advice, even if I disagree with what you want to achieve. I may advise you not to go down 'that route', or 'in that manner', and give reasons, but you will do or not do things on your own responsibility.
 * What might be useful is to have a set of things in your mind, and that we work on them in priority order. Fiddle   Faddle  22:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds great and I would welcome the opportunity. Thank you for implementing the archive machine it might take some time to sink my teeth into it but I will get there. Have a great day. olowe2011 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the archive bot is running. It archived my talk page early this morning. I also know it seems to take a day or two for to to gather new candidates for archival into its processing list. It seems to run in alpha order of user name, but it has its own ways! So we ignore that aspect completely until the weekend and just watch what happens. We know it is set up correctly because it mirrors my own, working installation, so we wait for time to pass. Fiddle   Faddle  07:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Onwards and upwards
What are the key things you would like to achieve here? Start, if you like, with a brain dump, and then start to order it into "Most important item first"

If the list looks very serious and heavyweight, consider that this is a hobby, and, as with all hobbies, the world does not end if we cannot achieve perfection even if we want to achieve it for personal satisfaction. Hobbies, though, are fun. Enjoyable things should be high on your list. Also, things that are easy to achieve should be high on your list. Fiddle  Faddle  07:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to make Wikipedia a place that can develop with new generations by adapting or creating principles that would drive in new and innovative thinkers who have ample knowledge to offer the readers of Wikipedia. I believe a key to increasing the number of contributors is further refining and structuring how Wikipedia editors interact with each other and create a streamlined process to resolve conflicts so that more time may be spent actually informing readers and less time spent engaging in warfare with other editors. olowe2011 (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is laudable. What steps do you feel need to be taken? It's not a very bite sized chunk yet, by the way! Bit in eats an elephant one mouthful at a time. Fiddle   Faddle  20:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A good place to start with getting an overall grasp of my driving principles is by having a read of my WP:INFORM essay. I would hope that by encouraging editors to focus on resolving disputes with each other in ways that don't scare off new editors it will make this place a less hostile environment for a new generation of contributors. I get the feeling that many long standing contributors feel very protective and make exceptional effort to "guard the fort" and "ward off potential invaders." However, I think it's imperative that it is kept in mind that most people don't intend to invade and actually wish to make positive contributions based on facts which ultimately result in providing well sourced information to readers. I think it's about brining innovation and positive change through engagement with the existing community which brings them around to the idea that new doesn't automatically constitute a threat. --olowe2011 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will read it, but not tonight. Tonight I am tired
 * I suggest in the next several days what you do is to make ordinary main namespace edits to start to bolt your "citizenry credentials" into place. Those are something you will need as you start to seek to influence change. Wikipedia was formed by editors who seem to have taken it upon themselves to create an enormously complex bureaucracy. As a social experiment it has shown that we like to control others and be controlled by others.
 * I find this a source of never ending amusement. Others find it important. Still others find it objectionable. I wonder which is the best of those perspectives? Fiddle   Faddle  21:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Our beloved archive machine seems to have taken a turn for the worse. Do you have any idea what's wrong with the poor thing? olowe2011 (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do. I misconfigured it. It ran in the early hours of this morning and did its job to perfection. Fiddle   Faddle  08:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just noticed that it's got itself into order. It's wonderful thanks so much I appreciate it. olowe2011 (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The archive scheme has foibles. One is that it will, I think, only archive signed posts.
 * The parameters are all modifiable, but use care when modifying that you understand the effects before you make the change. Fiddle   Faddle  11:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have now read the Inform essay. Setting the content on one side for a moment, it suffers from being too 'dense' in terms of text and language to make easy reading. My suggestion is that you look at it as a reader and work out how to let light in, both into the paragraphs and into the words.

Having studied the content, I can see where yo are coming from. Let me see if that is correct by trying to summarise: What have I missed? Fiddle  Faddle  10:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) All editors are equal
 * 2) We start not knowing the manifold rules, regulations, policies, guidelines, consensus verdicts etc
 * 3) We ought not to need to know these to contribute successfully
 * 4) When we are ignorant of, but in transgression of something, we should be guided with tact and diplomacy
 * I have made some important edits to the essay WP:INFORM and was wondering if you'd like to have a little look in your spare time if you will. This will give you a better grasp at what sort of views I have so you can give me further advice on it if you want. Thanks a bunch olowe2011 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Busy day. I shall look tomorrow. Fiddle   Faddle  20:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I promise I have not forgotten. What I had forgotten is just how busy these few days were to be for me. I am just now going to take a more detailed look. I may then choose an action which will give your thoughts greater coverage in the community with a view to their shaping our future destiny if it be the will of the community. Fiddle   Faddle  15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now taken that action. When you examine Wikipedia talk:Inform for guidance you will see that I have set up a Request for Comment. I have done this because I think the essay is at the stage when it needs the community to discuss it with a view to forming a consensus upon it. The possible outcomes are manifold, but may be summarised as:
 * We like it, all of it, and will implement it, or
 * We like parts of it, dislike other parts and will implement those parts we like, or
 * We like none of it. Thank you for writing it, but no, thank you.
 * The real outcomes will be somewhere along that line, probably in a grey shaded area, and may surprise you and surprise me. To be fair, though, since I have no idea how folk will react, I will not be at all surprised.
 * If I might offer you advice for the discussion, one I hope will be lively, I would suggest that you stand back from it for a while, and let folk discuss topics without your input, only giving input after considerable thought. My experience here tells me that 'fighting one's corner' leads, almost inevitably, to licking one's wounds in a lost cause. Showing some willingness to bend in the breeze usually means that one can take many, perhaps all, key issues forwards.
 * You are entitled to invite folk to join in and comment yourself even though the process invites many WIkipedians as a matter of course. Please be very aware that this invitation must be neutral and should be even handed, to those you hope and expect to support your thoughts and to those whom you believe will be against them. The best way is along the lines of "Please may I invite you to give an opinion in a request for comment here, on an essay whose contents I feel will interest you."
 * As usual you are at total liberty to ignore my advice. Fiddle   Faddle  15:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

North American Man/Boy Love Association GOCE request "on hold"
Hi, I've put your request for a copy-edit to the above article at the GOCE Requests page on hold here. The article seems to be undergoing active development that may quickly wipe out a copy-edit. Please see my comments at the Requests talk page; and feel free to comment there when your block expires. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken the request off hold; it appears to have settled down now. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

test
test ~ Olowe2011 Talk 18:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just wanted to let you know that animated signatures are not allowed, as they may pose a disruption to other users and potentially cause a server slowdown due to the added load. Colours, shadows, and highlights are acceptable, but images and animation are not. For more information, feel free to check out WP:SIGAPP. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The next time you communicate with me on Wikipedia I will report you for harassment. I've asked you out of respect to stop communicating with me on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with something either report it or get someone with a NPOV to address me. Please see WP:HOUNDING warning for the course of action. You can post on someone's talk if you want them to communicate the problem or simply report to administrators. Otherwise please don't communicate with me. All further comments from you will be ignored, thank you. ~ Olowe2011 Talk 18:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pacman Animated gif.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pacman Animated gif.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Huon (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Test
test   Olowe2011  Talk 05:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

test   Olowe2011  Talk 05:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

test test test test   Olowe2011  Talk 05:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

test test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test test   Olowe2011  Talk 05:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC) test test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test testtest test test test    Olowe2011  Talk 05:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you'll need to remove the PacMan image from your signature. There's a few issues at play - firstly, our policy and guideline on signatures disallows the use of an image in your signature, per Signatures. The File:Original PacMan.png image in particular will need to be manually removed as it's used under Fair Use and isn't permitted outwith article namespace. Thanks for your co-operation. Nick (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright Pacman must end the calamity. It's gone. While you're here i'd greatly appreciate it if you could offer your opinion on this stalemated AfD discussion. Thanks :) Pictogram voting comment.svg   Olowe2011  Talk 12:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

North American Man/Boy Love Association
Thanks! It looks a lot better than it did before and provides a much clearer picture on the topic. Cheers.  Olowe2011  Talk 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

discussion
Please don't revert and then discuss - see the talk page and Join in - just revert warring is not working for me - ta Govindaharihari (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yea, pack it in, stop revert warring Govindaharihari (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Jeremy Corbyn in 2015.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jeremy Corbyn in 2015.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you.  ℕ  ℱ  01:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Jeremy Corbyn in 2015.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jeremy Corbyn in 2015.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk pages
Hi Olowe. FYI Primefac is perfectly within their rights to remove messages on their talk page per WP:UTP. Sam Walton (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Samwalton9 Yes, I just noted that. Thank you. I have created my owner userspace with a log for my own records. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 18:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At first I did not realize if this was in fact the case given that a warning can't usually be removed from articles. I then looked at the WP:BLANKING and noted talk pages as an exemption. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 18:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
I've asked a question on your OTRS application over on m:OTRS/Volunteering. samtar (msg) 10:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Basketball
Division I men's college basketball gets tons of interest, and while I suppose some teams' individual seasons might not be notable, speedy-deleting them is preposterous: when most members of a series can easily be demonstrated to be notable, nothing in the series should be deleted without an AFD discussion. Have you considered print sourcing? News media coverage is almost always a primary source, whether we're talking Internet publications or print publications, but for someone in the city where a university is located, it will be easy to find secondary-source coverage of the events of a university's sports teams — maybe not for minor teams like fencing or triathlon, but definitely for a major sport such as basketball. Anyone familiar with American sports will understand this, and anyone not familiar with American sports who's paying attention will not revert the admin who's simply going through CAT:CSD unless they're paying no attention whatsoever or they're editing in bad faith. Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Nyttend I think we both know I am not editing in bad faith ... come on but please look at your talk page. I have opened up an interesting discussion there which I hope we can turn into a learning experience on my part. Thanks so far. Pictogram voting comment.svg  Olowe2011  Talk 11:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Basketball deletion
As part of a continued expansion to the college basketball wikiproject, a lot of schools are adding yearly pages. All the information is sourced so I do not see how it is any different than adding a page for the current year. This adds a lot of valuable information to wikipedia and speedy deletion of hundreds of pages is absolutely ridiculous, especially when your reasoning is that you don't see why it's relevant in an encyclopedia, when my source is an encyclopedia. Mjs32193 (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The appropriateness of User:Olowe2011/DODGY
Hello Olowe2011. I do not think the template you have made is appropriate for tagging articles. It's vague, saying there are issues without identifying them. If you find a *specific* issue with a page, use a template message to identify it. If you feel a page should be deleted, use speedy deletion, proposed deletion, or articles for deletion. Also, your tag has a couple errors related to Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria. The G7 criteria is "Author requests deletion", and no speedy deletion criteria is "lack of notability". Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Howicus its updated thanks for your input its helping. :) Olowe2011  Talk 20:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If what you're doing is making a request for a second opinion, try using a template message like Template:Notability along with a talk page message. Either way, *please* do not make your tag look like a speedy deletion tag.  Also, A7 is no claim of significance, not lack of notability. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Howicus I have corrected the mistakes. Thank you for the information. Olowe2011  Talk 20:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment by User:JewishEducation
You deleted my page LAVI. It was deleted before I even knew it had a speedy deletion nomination tag. I had no opportunity to contest the deletion and now the page is gone. I was told to contact you to retrieve the deleted material for future reference and improvements. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JewishEducation (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am currently engrossed with editing Da Dong Roast Duck Restaurant. Please hold on and I will get back to reviewing this as soon as possible. Olowe2011  Talk 21:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. Can I ask who told you to come to me regarding this? Olowe2011  Talk 22:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they came to you because you tagged their article for deletion. Some new users don't realize that the user who tagged the page and the one who deleted it are rarely the same user. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

CSD of Sheila Cameron (artist)
Hello, I just wanted to let you know I have removed your CSD tag because there is enough of a claim of significance to not meet the requirements of CSD A7. At this point I would suggest to just let the AFD run it's course.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Mcmatter It is no problem. I am going to deal with this another way thanks for your help. Olowe2011  Talk 23:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

My OTRS 'inquisition'
Hi, thank you for my civil and detailed reply to my extensive questioning on the OTRS wiki - I understand I asked a lot of you and your answers have ultimately led me to personally endorse you. I thought it best to reply to any specific questions you may have to my statements here as the OTRS volunteering page is cluttered enough without my addition of twenty questions. In relation to your numbered responses, I'd like to say the following:


 * 1) You've done nothing wrong! I was only interested in knowing more - I think it's a great idea for an editor with a (what appears to be) very tough approach to certain topics to have a personal essay giving expectations.
 * 2) I wouldn't say I have an issue with your approach to non-notable articles - I do suppose I prefer to hand-hold a little with new editors, sometimes their new article's subject could be notable with some hard work.
 * 3) People learn from mistakes, and I honestly believe you have. I only rarely hold previous actions against editors and in general the Wikipedia community is very forgiving.
 * 4) The mention of the admin noticeboard was a mistake, and you defended yourself very well.

All in all, I guess my reasoning to question you as I did was because I saw an editor with a degree of experience who has clashed with people a couple of times, but with the ambition and attitude to become a great member of the community and a hard but fair OTRS agent. I hope you don't take this personally, and I look forward to seeing you around on Wiki. samtar (msg) 23:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Samtar Thank you for showing your appreciation. I look forward to working with you around Wikipedia :) Olowe2011  Talk 00:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your Alternate Account
Thanks for your input at DRN recently. Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of your alternate account? --JustBerry (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see here :). Thank you for your interest Olowe2011  Talk 00:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Continuing the discussion from here, would you mind elaborating how your alternate account abides by the Wikimedia policy? The connection does not seem clear. How does "helping dispute resolution" fit into "Legitimate uses" here? --JustBerry (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am simply going to bring the issue up with Arbcom with this included. If you want to do anything further please do it but in the meantime I will be working on justice apu. Olowe2011  Talk 00:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, there does not appear to be a need to go to ArbCom. I think the question was pretty straightforward. --JustBerry (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen and certain administrator behaviour (including your own not as an administrator) I believe that it would be right. I feel that I my complaint was unjustly shunned on bias. Olowe2011  Talk 01:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to place the blame on anyone particularly, but it might be best to let it go and come back to the issue after some time. Please skim through this. --JustBerry (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To note, answering the alternate account concern posed by myself is not obligatory. --JustBerry (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are engaging in a personal attack against me or that you genuinely are acting in good faith but either way that will be decided by people other than you or I. It's a shame that we could not resolve our differences in a civil way but I hope this doesn't prevent constructive edits in the future. I have reported the issue appropriately and would ask you out of pure respect to understand that whatever your ideas about me are they are probably (more than likely) misguided that you can treat me with good faith in mind. Right now I am absolutely dismayed by some recent edits and comments made but from this moment I would say the best course would be to avoid each other. Olowe2011  Talk 01:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Also, I have assumed WP:AGF throughout the ANI report and this discussion. --JustBerry (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Article of Pauline Suij
Good morning,

thanks for your help. But I'm sad, because I have no picture of her. Perhaps, the future will show.

Yours

Hirschfeldt (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Da Dong Roast Duck Restaurant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bucket list. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Unwanted interaction
Drmies asked you to stop pinging him and you've referred him to the arbitration committee for possible sanction; in that context this is entirely inappropriate and has been removed. NE Ent 19:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The guy helped with one of my pages so I thanked him. I thank anyone who preforms constructive edits around me Olowe2011  Talk 19:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your statement at WP:ARC
Hi, Olowe2011. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Arbitration/Requests/Case&. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 15:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also highly recommend (but not on behalf of the Committee) that you suggest a better name for this case. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 15:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. Its great that you help people through this process. I have changed the case name - would this better fit within the standard? If it does not can you please give me some pointers. Thank you Olowe2011  Talk 15:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Olowe, all requests on that page are requests for ArbCom judgement. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 15:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Would Olowe2011 V  be appropriate? Olowe2011  Talk 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind – I've emailed clerks-l; we'll take it from here. Remember to trim your statement, please. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 15:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The visible part of your statement is still 689 words. Please trim or refactor, or it may be trimmed or collapsed by an arbitration clerk. Thank you. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 13:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Worst Request for Arbitration
We haven't yet decided what the time interval is in which this is the worst request for arbitration. As to the comment that I don't understand the issue of harassment by Primefac and subsequent administrator abuse, that is true, because those alleged offenses haven't been stated clearly.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
The Arbitration Committee has declined the Request for Arbitration Committee judgement arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

for new Indian film artticles...
As Google news does not crawl and index Indian newspaper articles properly, I recommend WP:INDAFD for searches in your WP:BEFORE for newer article on Indian film topics. Cheers.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:40, 29 September 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) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)