User talk:Achromatic
You appear to have been basing your comments on a faulty diff provided by another user, resulting in your incorrect assertion that I deleted most of the article. I'm sure you'd want to correct that mistake. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whilst there may have been intervening edits, as discussed in the AfD, I believe the argument made has merit. In particular, one revision prior to the article being blanked, it contained 780 words. Your revision, immediately following this blanking, contained 191 words. By your very own edit summary, you remarked you "stubbified" the article. I'm not really convinced that "stubbifying" an article has any real practical difference from "deleting a large swathe of it", and as such I'll carry on with my dissenting opinion on the matter of whether or not you deleted most of the article. Achromatic (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are effectively making me responsible for the edits of another editor, accusing me of deleting material because I didn't restore 100% of the material deleted by an editor claiming to be the subject. If you think the material belongs then you can add it back yourself. The article hasn't been changed, except for reverting vandalism, in a year. It doesn't show any signs of being improved and so should be deleted. If you'd like to approve it then I don't object to keeping it. But no one is going to improve it then I don't see why there is an encyclopedic need to have an article about Erica Hardwick. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
GWH
[edit]Thank you very much for your comments (dressing down?) GWH on AN. Sometimes I find that admins believe themselves to be on some pedestal for us to admire. Might you consider reviewing and commenting on Wikipedia:OMBUDSMEN Bstone (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland Arbcomm case
[edit]You said "I believe several things need to be done here both for justice to be done, whatever that outcome may be, and for the perception of justice being done. Per SarcasticIdealist, I would also suggest that Morven recuse. I am not in support of allowing WordBomb to participate - whilst his treatment may have been unfair in the sense of (assuming the findings are upheld) the proxy war, his other actions have struck down his ability to be able to freely participate here.". I'm not sure if the third sentence was intended as a response to what I said, but coming on the heels of the second, I got the impression that it might be, so I thought I'd better clarify: I don't support unblocking WordBomb generally, and I think that his conduct has been so abominable that I don't think he should ever be a user in good standing again. I just believe that his participation in this particular case would be helpful to this case. Just wanted to make sure that you weren't misinterpreting me. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies if that was the interpretation, will clarify. Thanks for the note :) Achromatic (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
My RfB
[edit]I wanted to personally thank you, Achromatic, for your participation in my recent RfB. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:DW20052x04GirlFireplace-0230.jpg)
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:DW20052x04GirlFireplace-0230.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Force pushes collide.JPG)
[edit] Thanks for uploading Image:Force pushes collide.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
CU OS elections
[edit]I just responded to your post on this about arbcom involvement. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my section in the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3
[edit]RE: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3#Moved_from_the_main_page
Thanks for supporting my section, I moved that section to the talk page, along with your endorse, because the creator of the RfC, AbD advised me that it is not a good idea to focus on personal attacks in this RfC. Ikip (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback
[edit] |
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you!
[edit]It's always good to get nice feedback. :) Katharineamy (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I recall that there's a little template for AfDs that says something like, "If you're here because someone asked you to come here..." but I couldn't find it so I made up my own text. Since the AfD doesn't appear to be close the admins closes it probably won't have to give much thought about how to count opinions, so it was unnecessary after all. If it bothers you I can strike it out. Will Beback talk 00:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
[edit]This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
[edit]This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll
[edit]You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Achromatic. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
File:MG 4949wp.jpg listed for discussion
[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MG 4949wp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
