User talk:Dalliance
Barnstar
[edit]The Working Man's Barnstar | ||
For tirelessly correcting incompatible dates of birth, I award thee the Working Man's Barnstar. It's tedious work but it needs to be done and you're doing an awesome job. Graymornings(talk) 09:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC) |
Joseph S. Iseman
[edit]Hello, you put in the date of birth for Joseph S. Iseman, which is an entry on my watchlist. The lack of same must have escaped me, but glad it's there now. I have also corrected the date of his death. In any case, thank you. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
22d SOPS
[edit]I'm going to change back the edit to make 22d SOPS to 22nd SOPS; I'm sure the edit was good intentioned, but the Air Force (while not always consistent) tries to stick with 2d or 3d with its unit designations.
- Ok, we'll play this way - I will contact the Air Force Historical Research Agency, order a copy (thru FOIA) of the 22 SOPS lineage and honors history, and use that as the reference of 22d instead of 22nd. From personal experience, usually the unit's lowest ranking person helps write the fact sheet - I wouldn't expect them to actually have read the AF regs on historical designations or have contacted the AFHRA for information. Change it back if you must, but be prepared for an edit when the info comes in. TDRSS (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- It may be a bit late, but I will apologize for my tone. As I'm sure you picked up this particular topic is a sensitive area and has been fought with countless folks who keep up with unit histories and lineages. I have argued with the 18-year old Senior Airman who "thinks" he knows how his unit should be identified, and the old WWII bomber pilot who claims to remember differently. On most, if not all, of the pages I edit, I give a good "authoritative" reference - this is one area that is lacking. But due to my argumentative tone, and your warranted response, I guess I will have to find the authoritative source to reference. Again, I am sorry for my tone and reply. TDRSS (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Better late then never - This link is to the AF Historical Research Agency's heraldry introduction. If you scroll down the page, under Figure 12, the paragraph describes the number "endings" authorized (i.e. "th", "st", and "d"). Again, sorry for the misunderstanding and negative tone. TDRSS (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- It may be a bit late, but I will apologize for my tone. As I'm sure you picked up this particular topic is a sensitive area and has been fought with countless folks who keep up with unit histories and lineages. I have argued with the 18-year old Senior Airman who "thinks" he knows how his unit should be identified, and the old WWII bomber pilot who claims to remember differently. On most, if not all, of the pages I edit, I give a good "authoritative" reference - this is one area that is lacking. But due to my argumentative tone, and your warranted response, I guess I will have to find the authoritative source to reference. Again, I am sorry for my tone and reply. TDRSS (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, we'll play this way - I will contact the Air Force Historical Research Agency, order a copy (thru FOIA) of the 22 SOPS lineage and honors history, and use that as the reference of 22d instead of 22nd. From personal experience, usually the unit's lowest ranking person helps write the fact sheet - I wouldn't expect them to actually have read the AF regs on historical designations or have contacted the AFHRA for information. Change it back if you must, but be prepared for an edit when the info comes in. TDRSS (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]Silver Barnstar | ||
For finishing in second place in the Total Corrections contest for Biographical pages with several incompatible dates of birth, I hereby award you this silver barnstar! Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
Hi and thanks for joining the new WikiProject Edinburgh. Great to have you aboard. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
[edit]Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
- Proposal to Close This RfC
- Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Renaldas Seibutis
[edit]Hello, first sorry for my bad english. You have change the date of birth of this play ( 23 july 1985 to 25 décember 1985 ). According some sources ([1] et [2], [3] et [4] ) even if the nba give second ([5]), it seems 23 july 1985 is the correct date. Best regards (d) 13 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.2.136.8 (talk)
Edinburgh Meetup - next Monday
[edit]A meetup will be held in Edinburgh next Monday, June 20th. Just an informal meet in a pub. With luck we will also have a geo-notice banner in time, although this process seems broken at the moment. Details here; please sign up if you are interested. All welcome. Sorry about the short notice. 20:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 25
[edit]Hi. When you recently edited Fairmilehead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Murray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You may have a point actually. I know we talk about people taking compulsory retirement, but I suppose to take something does suggest there's a choice in the matter, which he clearly wouldn't have had in that situation. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 26
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Hudson (American football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phaeton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 8
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Armitage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marsden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland
[edit]I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at the WP Scotland noticeboard. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Reviewer granted
[edit]Hi Dalliance, I just wanted to let you know that I have granted the reviewer userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, please contact me and I will remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
[edit]Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis
Talkback
[edit]Message added 22:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry!
[edit]Hi. I'm afraid that I thoughtlessly struck through a few words in your recent Reference Desk answer on Referendum Costs. I didn't know the convention that contributors leave other contributors' comments untouched, but have now been schooled in this matter by one of our colleagues. My apologies for my mistake. RomanSpa (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Dalliance (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Precious
[edit]keeping an eye on Edinburgh articles
Thank you for adding categories and persondata, for link repair and "copyedit and removed unreferenced, unsubstantiated material", for "keeping an eye on Edinburgh articles", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
A year ago, you were the 931st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Five years ago, you were recipient no. 931 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Interview for The Signpost
[edit]- This message is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Scotland
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Scotland for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 16:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 30
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edinburgh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greenhill. 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) 09:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Eichmann and Goring mix up
[edit]Thanks for fixing my mistake on Eichmann. I was thinking of how Goring committed suicide before his hanging.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
WMGM-TV
[edit]Thank you for reverting the edit of User:5.254.114.200 I was just getting really frustrated over their crap and didn't want to get into an editing war with them so I'm just ignoring them now. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
[edit]Your recent editing history at Plantagenet Alliance shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You should be aware that your first removal of text today constitutes your first revert for 3RR. One more revert will be your fourth and it goes to WP:AN3. Take it Talk and don't revert. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 31 October
[edit]Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Raghunath Anant Mashelkar page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
TAFI
[edit]If you want to, take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 9 November 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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Robert Jenrick
[edit]I would like to amend the Robert Jenrick site to make my personal addresses less visible online. I hope you will understand this is perfectly reasonable: I would like to protect my wife and three young children. Like other MPs I have received abusive and threatening contacts on occasion. It is highly unusual for an MP to have his address clearly identifiable on Wikipedia and Police advice is to protect the identity of ones home if possible. I understand a Mail on Sunday article, regrettably, lists my addresses, but that does not mean that it should be available far more prominently and permanently on Wikipedia. The details were clearly added for partisan reasons at the time of my election. That was the prerogative of the individual concerned. However in the present climate, I would like to protect the security of my family and Wikipedia is presently compromising that.
Please email me at jenrickr@parliament.uk so we can continue this conversation off-line in an appropriate manner.
Regards Robert Jenrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.29 (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I would prefer to conduct any discussion on Wikipedia where a record is available for other editors.
- The information about your properties is included as it was an issue in your election campaign and was reported in the national press. With regard to your concerns about security, a Google search for 'Robert Jenrick' brings up a number of results where mention of your Eye Manor property was either at your instigation or clearly with your agreement. I've listed a few below.
- http://www.hereford.anglican.org/Content/CHUCH%20FETE%202015.pdf - advert for a fete at Eye Manor by 'kind permission' of yourself.
- http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/13615886.display/ - the same fete publicised in the Hereford Times.
- http://cloversignsblog.com/2008/04/country-estate-signs/ - a blog comment by yourself requesting information on signs for Eye Manor.
- You can see that information about your property is available online in many places other than Wikipedia, all accessible to any one who searches for your name. In these circumstances, I do not see 'security' as a valid reason to remove the information from Wikipedia.
- Regards. Dalliance (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please can you explain why you think that Sean Crighton article comes anywhere close to passing WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. If you agree it does not, then removing the proposed deletion tag as you did today is a complete waste of everyone's time that will now have participate in a deletion discussion the outcome of which is already certain. --ℕ ℱ 14:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response on my talkpage. I do however find the reasoning fairly tenuous. The creator of the page was notified when I added the BLP PROD tag so gives exactly the same opportunity for them to object as the XFD process. The tag was entirely the right one to use for an unsourced BLP which also completely fails to meet any notability guideline. Removing that tag might have merit if there was a greater than zero chance of the article being kept, as it is, there is no reasonable argument based on policy that would prevent deletion. The WP:NSPORT guidelines are very clear and well established as regards the lower league footballers. There is already a great deal of pressure on the XFD process and a lack of general participation. This is not aided by deprodding non-notable articles imho. --ℕ ℱ 13:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)'
Nicaragua
[edit]You reverted the edit that indicates that Nicaragua was supported by Soviet Union. You claim that this is not so and that the edit is POV. On what basis? Are you saying the Nicaragua was not allied with Soviet Union? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatei (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
[edit]Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]Hello, Dalliance. 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)
I recently created this article of a person born in Edinburgh. There has always been a question IF (big "if") he had any medical training in Edinburgh = France perhaps instead!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Suzanne Pilley entry
[edit]Re,the recent edit by Dalliance in footnote 40 I have just registered to try and reach you. I am a relative of David Gilroy. I would like to see a simple addition referencing our family web site www.gilroyfamily.info. I think that would be proportionate as there was no body, no forensic evidence and no witness to the alleged crime. As a family we continue to support his endeavours to clear his name and prove his innocence but this will be difficult to achieve. Most of the constituent parts of the Scotish justice system have much to be embarrassed about. I think I am right in saying that this case is second in expense next to the Megrahi case in the history of Scottish Criminal Justice. . This included £320k alone for the 6 searches in the Argyll Forest? It was certainly the third most expensive a few years ago. I do not see there being any kudos in this and only mention it because it is a big barrier to us getting a voice to point to what is wrong with the case against David. We have some 35 unanswered and reasonable questions post the SCCRC review mentioned in footnote 40 which we will be pursuing. Am happy to give further information if Dalliance or someone would be prepared to add a link to the web site perhaps with a simple descriptor 'David's family continue to support his attempts to clear his name and prove his innocence' That by the way will be no mean feat. Without a witnessed alibi for the 5 minute period during which the crime was supposed to have been committed how do you prove a negative? And yet that seems to be the standard of proof we are now faced with despite having pointed to dozens of errors in the evidence many of which the SCCRC have simply ignored calling demonstrable facts 'speculation'.
edit withou messing things up and would appreciate your help.
Nemomeil (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Folkwang
[edit]Please see my talk: Agnes Giebel studied before the pompous present name was invented. She should have a short (and less misleading) Folkwangschule alumni. Can you make a redirect and use that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Dalliance. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
[edit]Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
[edit]Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
[edit]Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
June 2018
[edit]Hello. Your recent edit to Appleton West High School appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Morningside
[edit]I see the Morningside, Edinburgh article has some pesky bus information on it. Best to get over there ASAP and nip it in the bud, bud. Together by yourself, you can fight this menace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.83.76.80 (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Mayors
[edit]Thanks for the catch at Kenora. Just so you know, what happened is that Ontario had its municipal elections on Monday, so some cities (including Kenora) elected new mayors — but the new mayors aren't taking office until December 1, so the outgoing ones are still the current incumbents as of today and you were accordingly right to revert the IP.
Unfortunately, however, after such elections we always, always get a huge onslaught of anonymous IPs jumping the gun to change the mayors' names right away, so we have a rule in place that we add the new mayor-elect as a second line after the current mayor for the duration of the transition period. So if you come across any other examples of someone changing the mayor's name in a city in Ontario (or British Columbia, which also had its municipal elections a few days earlier), then do a quick Google check to see if the new name verifies as the election winner — if it does, then you should definitely restore the outgoing mayor's name, but still leave the new one as a second line with the "(elect)" designation after their name. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Dalliance. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Dalliance. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit]ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit]Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
[edit]Hello Dalliance! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit]ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Always precious
[edit]Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)