Howdy Risker. Would you have a talk with User:Therequiembellishere, concerning his/her persistant edits on American political infoboxes & successions? He doesn't seem to want to wait until the new Senators, Representatives, Governors, Lieutenant Governors take their respective offices, before making updates. I've contacted him many times about this, but he's basically ignored me by continuing his updates & not responding to 'anyone' on his talkpage. He/she does this every Nov-Jan cycle. GoodDay ( talk) 07:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Risker, you are mistaken about the average time it takes to approve a change in the German Wikipedia: the average waiting time is 14 h 51 min, with a median of 1 h 32 min. [1] The 8 d 9 h refers to pages with unreviewed changes only and measures how old the oldest unreviewed change is on such pages, on average; there are currently about 8,000 pages in the German Wikipedia with unreviewed changes: [2] That is well below 0.5% (the German Wikipedia contains 1.7 million articles in total).
Also note that there is a key difference between the pending changes implementations on the Russian and German Wikipedias: in the Russian Wikipedia, changes are shown to all readers immediately by default. Approving them only means that they become part of an "approved" article version. In the German Wikipedia, the default is that non-logged-in readers are not shown the changes at all until they are approved: the changes are only visible to logged-in readers viewing the draft version of the article.
This explains why approving changes takes so much longer in the Russian Wikipedia: since it doesn't change the default appearance of the article, it's seen as a lesser priority by editors. Best, Andreas JN 466 09:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather ( talk) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia notification system is nice; one can see random references to one's self even if one hardly logs in.
Just wanted to say I agree with your reasoning here. The distinction between arbitrators, CUs, etc. and other Wikipedians (who may be pseudonyms only for the purpose of keeping a private IP), is precisely why I revealed the connection in my ArbCom candidate statement. Random private Wikipedians shouldn't need to care about pseudonyms elsewhere. Cool Hand Luke 23:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if you have any insight. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nate_Moore_(actor)&oldid=642189564 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pariah_(1998_film)&oldid=642188518 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Desert_Blue&oldid=642356573
And now we are
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pariah_(1998_film) And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Desert_Blue
I'm confused by this behavior. Can you please advise me on whether this is WP:COATRACK as a way to subvert the Consensus of the Three AFDs? It's confusing to me how this isn't a Blatant attempt to ignire the consensus simply to make a WP:POINT...I attempted to revert as it seemed to violate the BLP issues previously discussed, and it seems like he's trying to insert the material just for spite, but i was warned for 3rr. I thought that BLP exception would apply but not everyone sees it that way... I just don't see how if both parties were found to be not notable and if even the event was not notable, and if the consensus was that it was all poorly sourced and had BLP concerns, why this discussion is now being held a 4th and 5th time. At some point doesnt someone hafta drop the stick? Any advice is appreciated07:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)đ
Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women only ( cisgender or transgender, lesbian or straight).
It is a place where women can go and be sure they'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's advice, criticism, and explanations. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.â
Cirt (
talk)
17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you closed a section I had created on the 4Chan talk page due to "BLP reasons." Now I understand that there is some sensitivity regarding this topic, and I know for a fact that I can be incredibly dense at times, but I'm just wondering if you could elaborate on the specific BLP reasons so I might not repeat this error in the future. From what I found in my research, the fact that allegations were made against Ms. Quinn has been covered in more than 15 articles from highly reliable sources -- top tier news organizations like The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, and the BBC. The fact that allegations were made is not gossip or a fringe theory, and basic details of the allegations were included in nearly every article I reviewed. My research was about as far from "unsourced or poorly sourced" as a talk page comment can possibly get. I believe there is an important discussion to be had regarding the proper use of the sources in that article space. I'm not interested in the veracity of the allegations, only in striking a more dispassionate, disinterested tone. I'm concerned that the sources are not being properly reflected in the article space at present, and I would like to have the ability to discuss them without being immediately shut down for unspecified "BLP reasons." ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 09:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was sexist immediately. Best wishes. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Calling out bias |
For calling out systemic sexism and instances of personal bias. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
I think it might have been better to wait and see what HJM had to say; he may have a better idea of history etc. I would say uninvolved admins were leaning towards that resolution but there was no need for immediate action?... Georgewilliamherbert ( talk)
Do I understand it correctly that you say at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas that there are several sockfarms active on pageants?
Broadly spoken, a sockfarm around
And some meatpuppets and genuine interested editors to make it difficult? The Banner talk 12:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I notice you recently added a "A CheckUser has declined a request for CheckUser" notice to the top of the report, but I am confused because I don't think I was requesting a CheckUser review. Is that just standard procedure for all IP-related SPIs? - Thibbs ( talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Based on this edit [3], you may be interested in an ArbCom Clarification Request and/or the discussion at WT:BLP. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Diffs
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aergas
I put some diffs inside the paragraph. Do you want me to organize them differently or add more, etc.? Alon12 ( talk) 02:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious. Why do you not believe the various User:Maxcrcâ pages don't meet CSD U5? He's using them as reference web sources for his own external webpage [4]. I see no attempt by the user to incorporate this material into Wikipedia articles. That seems like webhosting to me. Not sure why you think these should have to go through MFD. Meters ( talk) 23:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any thoughts on this one? He was spamming - I think - but pretty vanilla and clumsy. Do you think we can/should do anything about his exposed IP address? (I'm going offline now.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk ¡ contribs ¡ email) 15:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You've got mail. -- Diannaa ( talk) 23:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laura Muntz Lyall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radford. 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) 09:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for accepting my suggestion to protect the page from vandalism, as you can see since my request a few hours ago there have been dozens of deletions of information and vandalism on this page by users who I suspect are sockpuppts. At the time of your protection the page had been significantly vandalized again after my request, could you please restore the page to its status at the time of request of protection?, where it looked quite informative and full of useful referenced information? The organisation concerned works with ambassadors and governments and is clearly of note but is being attacked on its wikipage, its got some pretty notable people involved too: the status of the page at the time of the request was at 00:38, 15 March 2015â Orbitalwatcher (talk | contribs)â . . (13,168 bytes) (+11,458)â . . (Undid vandalism by known vandal user: redpenofdoom) users theredpenofdoom, mcmatter,maproom, Andy dingley, jospeh2302 I suspect these users are acting in concert to vandalise and from the history have been doing so a few months ago on the page, if not actually to be a one person sock. The vandalising users claim there are no valid sources, but they are infact clearly malicioulsy deleting the sources on the page citing Government sources referencing the organisation and replacing with personal attacks. Given the circumstances and the sustained nature of vicious attacks on the page by the same users, who seem to have taken ownership of the page (that has exsisted for some years in its mre detailed unvandalised form, but has been wrecked over the last few months by these users perhaps this page should be repaired and fully protected? What do you think? Thanks Orbitalwatcher 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) â Preceding Orbitalwatcher comment added by Orbitalwatcher ( talk ⢠contribs)
Don't worry, I'm very aware of the problems. But it was a good idea to make the point. Dougweller ( talk) 12:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Risker,
The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)