User talk:Fat&Happy/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Rusted AutoParts 01:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:People made notable by their deaths

Hi. I notice that you've done some work adding some 9/11 victims to the Category:People made notable by their deaths category. I myself don't do a lot of category work on Wikipedia, but I do quite a bit of it on Wikimedia Commons, and I thought you might be interested to know that there are roughly 47 or so 9/11 victims with their own Wikipedia articles, in case you want to add all of them to that category. Of the list of 9/11 victims seen on this Commons category page, most of them have their own Wikipedia articles, so you can use that list to search for them on Wikipedia. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Originally I was looking for those on the Pennsylvania flight, more or less as a counterpoint to the hijackers. While adding those, I discovered the category for 9/11 victims, but was getting temporarily too tired by then to add everyone (especially since, to do it right, each article needs to be scanned to determine whether the subject would have met GNG otherwise) and took a break for a bit. Will probably go back if the new cat continues to develop. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

John Ehrlichman

He is not solely notable as a writer, so both categories apply. Please do not revert this again.Hoops gza (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:CAT, paying particular attention to WP:SUBCAT. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

You have been mentioned at the ongoing sockpuppet investigation - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Groupsuk for your recent edits to Bradley Coopers article page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

MLK Edits

I understand that the plagiarism edit is a controversial issue. That's why I made a section on the Talk page to discuss it and made no edits until I received no response. Instead of getting into a revert war, I would appreciate discussing the issue on the talk page. My edit that you undid was a direct quotation from the cited sources. The text that you reverted the page to does not appear anywhere in the sources that are cited. If I'm missing something, please point me to exactly where a cited source says that MLK was allowed to keep his diploma because he made "an intelligent contribution to scholarship", but right now, I don't see that in any of the sources. Idag (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in the Boston Globe source, which is not readily available (for free) online, but is quoted in the Snopes source. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I took a look at the Snopes source, and here's what it says about the plagiarism issue:

"As academic committee later found that over half of King's work was plagiarized, yet would not revoke his doctrine. King was dead by this time, and the committee ruled that revoking the title would serve no purpose."

So the Snopes source appears to support the New York Times' summary of the committee's findings. The Times (which is where I pulled the text for my edits from) says that the reason that the committee recommended not revoking the degree is that Dr. King was already dead and there would be no point to the revocation. I went through the other cited sources and did a Google Scholar search, and I don't see anything mentioned about the committee saying that he made "an intelligent contribution to scholarship." Again, I'm new to this article, so I could well be missing something, but I just don't see any sources stating that "an intelligent contribution to scholarship" was the reason the committee gave for not revoking Dr. King's degree. {{User:Idag|Idag]] (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Snopes, § 2) ["During the 1980s, archivists ..."]; 8th paragraph:

Westling also accepted the committee's statement that "no thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King's doctoral degree from Boston University" and the assertion that despite its flaws, the dissertation "makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship."

Fat&Happy (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - missed that. Since two reasons are given, how about we put them both down? Idag (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there F&H, long time no see. Hope all's well. I'm very happy that the gg p. has had only minor, often trivial, changes in months. Bravo to us. At some point, I want to submit it to "good article" or whatever the hell it is. Say hello on my talk p. and tell me in a sentence or two what you're working on in depth.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

John Ehrlichman

So you really think that a man with a White House position should only be categorized under "Writers from Tacoma" and not "People from Tacoma"?Hoops gza (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem understanding that it's not what I think, it's how Wikipedia categories work. "Writers" are a subset of "People"; inclusion in the subset means inclusion in the superset without cluttering up every article with unnecessary complete hierarchies. If it's that important to you, you might try creating and populating Category:White House aides from Tacoma, Washington and seeing how it does at WP:CFD. (Alternatively, if being a writer is so minor to his notability as to not be a defining characteristic, we could delete the "Writers" category and substitute "People".) Fat&Happy (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Elena Kagan

You might try READING and then FOLLOWING the edit summary next time. Or is that too much to ask? Too much work for you? WP:AGF applies to everyone, not just your buddies. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Articles Nommy-Nation

Dear F&H - I placed the required request (I think) for GAN at Bank War and Texas Annexation, two of the articles for which I've performed "makeovers". Can you tell if the requests have been properly registered? I don't expect to have them reviewed any time soon, but should I expect to receive an electronic notice from the reviewing staff that I've made the request? Share your wisdom, would you please? 36hourblock (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never done – or for that matter participated in – a Good Article nomination, but it didn't look like it had "taken". I changed the nominating template to the format: {{Subst:GAN|subtopic=World history}} (rather than the original: {{tlsx|GAN|2=subtopic=World history}}), which I hope is correct, then re-edited it to replace my user-id with yours as the nominator (leaving today, not the date of your original edit, as the associated timestamp). I'll check OK, I just checked at Wikipedia:GAN#World history, and it looks like they both got added to the list correctly. Hopefully all is now in order. Good luck. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My sincere thanks. I suspected that the applications should have appeared at GAN, as you noted. I'm keeping a cup of quarters handy in case of emergencies. 36hourblock (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Date format

I understand you wishing to bring uniformity to the MLK article. However, there is no such thing as one "correct date format", as both are acceptable and commonly used.Hoops gza (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

For that article, based on both WP:STRONGNAT and WP:DATERET, mdy is the correct format. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your reasoning for the MLK edit. However, there is still no such thing as one "correct date format". Both are acceptable within the U.S. and wherever the English language is spoken. I was just informing you in hopes that this does not lead to similar changes on other articles.Hoops gza (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

your user name

your user name has no meaning and it is not good for an encyclopedia.--۝ ۝ (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Daryl Hannah deletion

I feel that my addition to the lede could have been amended, rather than deleted. What about 'She is also an environmental campaigner, who has been arrested for protests against developments that she believes threaten sustainability.'? Her political activities do occupy about half the article, and the lede ought to reflect this. Unless, of course, you feel that there is too much about her politics, in which case it is this material that would need editing-down. Valetude (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the subject belongs in the lede in a modified form; I just wasn't completely happy with the first variation that came to mind – which was pretty much identical to your suggestion above – so i took the cheap & easy way out by passing the buck, assuming someone would re-add a better version. My only objection to the phrasing we both came up with is that it may tilt a bit too much the other way; she is not the only one who sees the projects as "threatening sustainability" (a bit jargon-y), but I didn't have a non-weasel-worded, not overly verbose way of saying projects viewed that way by a variety of environmental groups and activists. Not to insist on the perfect to the detriment of the good, I suppose your suggested change should be used to start and see if anyone else makes a further improvement. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Reverted, hopefully to your standards of non-POV. As a professional writer, I too loathe the word 'sustainability', but it has unfortunately become the standard code for the green issue, as used repeatedly by Ms Hannah herself. Valetude (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Change ur username

plz change ur user name and use ur real name.--۝ ۝ (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"It is used here because" and WP:LQ

The issue of whether WP:LQ should include the statement "It is used here because it is deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change" has been raised on the MoS talk page. Your contribution would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Peter Thiel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --IIIraute (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Missed the double vandalism

Thanks for picking up the vandalism to Sons of Confederate veterans. I had reverted a vandalism; there were additional vandalisms; then I reverted it again. I was fooled, however, by the fact that two IP addresses were involved. So I reverted one vandalism to another. I compared the two and they were apart by only a capital versus small letter. Anyway, I am usually more careful about multiple vandalisms. In this case, I owe you thanks for catching it. I am watching that article right now because it appears the vandal is becoming persistent. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that's what happened. (And I didn't even notice it was two different IPs.) I've seen even Cluebot miss things that way, so often when there's a bunch of vandal-revert-vandal-revert changes in a cycle, I'll just do a full compare to yesterday or some earlier known good version to specifically check for misses. I've been mulling whether it's time to stop by RFPP on this one yet. Thanks for the message, tho. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of edit on Soros article

I see you objected to the change I made to the Soros article. If you had read the article you would have found the source. It is also common knowledge that the money was made by a short sale of the pound. I will add a reference.Zedshort (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Eden

Thanks for being vigilant. Someone keeps restoring the Twitter/Facebook nonsense. Yours, Quis separabit? 06:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For kindly pointing me in the right direction on numerous occasions, I salute you. 36hourblock (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. You seem to be doing pretty well with most things on your own now, though. I think if I ever feel like nominating a GA or FA, I'll need to come to you for advice with all the experience you're getting. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

GG

Hi there my friend, sorry I didn't get back sooner. I've been directing a play, all-consuming, and haven't even visited the GG p. or even been logged in. So didn't get your message. As for your question, the answer is directing a play! No work at all on WK. Though huge new biography of Barbara Stanwyck may bring me back to what is now a very blah p. I'm pleasantly surprised that no one's edited anything on the GG p. But unsurprised because it's a good, thorough article. What more is there to say? But I expected something irrelevant to show up. Will check MdA now. What's occupying you?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bank of America may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | [[Brian T. Moynihan]] (President and Chief Executive Officer)]] || style="text-align:right;"| 595,740

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Quotation marks

I assume we're using American standards because the article is about an American. [1] [2]. Enigma^msg 23:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we're using the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which calls for consistent treatment of quotes regardless of English variation used. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Jadran Mimica

The link Jadran Mimica leads nowhere, so it's not rational to continue trying to revert a correction (that works and gives useful information) to a dead link (which leads nowhere). MaynardClark (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Christie

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting my edit on Chris Christie, I had a misunderstanding about the use of plural in "attorneys general." Darren1988c (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

Why did you change the link I added to the Supreme Court decision? The previous link did not go to the decision, and the new one you replaced mine with goes to a website that antivirus programs block as a potentially dangerous website (and the case citation you wrote is incomplete). Also, why didn't you give an explanation for your change? - Embram (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edit broke a couple of MoS guidelines. Rather than try to turn the Bloomberg link into a proper ref in an unnecessary attempt to reinvent the wheel, I restored the standard template originally used in the article and generally used, with its generated citations, for Supreme Court cases (hence the name, {{ussc}} while correcting the invocation parameters according to the template documentation. Justia.com and Findlaw.com are both widely used for legal references throughout Wikipedia (and elsewhere); a random false positive is not a reason to stop. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Kingdom of God"

Good day!

It is okay for me if that's how you want it, no problem with me. But may I know what is the rule that is used in capitalizing/shortcase of the word? Thanks!

GOD Bless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbrain1907 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the phrase I used in creating a section head above. The general guidelines are at MOS:CAPS, particularly the section MOS:CAPS#Religion. But that's sometimes ambiguous. In this case, since it was part of a direct quotation, I conformed to the cited source for the quote, John 3:3 in the New International Version. Rechecking just now, it seems that the New Living Translation (both original and second edition) and the World English Bible translations capitalize Kingdom. Eleven other versions I checked, including King James Version (original and "New"), New American Bible (Roman Catholic), and New Revised Standard Version, use lower case, at least in the softcopy "printings" that I have. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Scott Disik: Lordship

Hi, Fat&Happy, the edit does not contain 'original research'. It is referenced info, given on the Lord of the manor. Scott Disik is neither royalty nor nobility as the page claimed previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotakeit (talk • contribs) 08:45, 8 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Please review WP:TALKNEW, WP:SIGNHERE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:WPNOTRS, WP:NPOV, and WP:CLAIM, all of which I would have thought would be familiar to an editor after more than eight years registered on the site. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Non-Aligned Movement may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Know Nothing

Can you please explain what's going on so we can resolve the problem appropriately? --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Know Nothing

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Know Nothing. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have also already mega cool pension like VSmith ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vsmith

Geologist - MS, 1975, The University of Arizona. Currently a (retired) "torturer of teenagers" (high school science teacher) and a dabbler in almost anything scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.57.208 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Checking in

Hello brother F&H, just checking in to say hello, hope life is treating you well.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Scott Disick

Hi, seeing as another user, albeit an anonymous one, has brought up the issue of the 'Lordship' section on the Scott Disick page, I thought maybe the edits I made, whilst clearly not fulfilling numerous WP guidelines, may be needed to some degree? I've posted a reply to the anonymous poster on the talk page of the article if you'd like to give your opinion? Sotakeit (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Bank War vandalism

Dear F & H -

A edit dispute regarding GAR has led to some vandalism at the Bank War article. Would it be too much trouble to intervene to correct the abuses and get the article back up? My thanks in advance. 36hourblock (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism, though there was a wikimarkup typo that ate part of the page, that could easily have been fixed, instead of throwing around accusations. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear F & G - This Cuerden character is the source of the vandalism. Check his posts, would you? 36hourblock (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Will you kindly stop lying about me? There was a typo in the wikimarkup, nothing more. That is not vandalism, it is a typo. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Scott Disick - errors

It would appear you were involved in the article on Scott Disick. At present, there are a number of glaring inaccuracies in the article. I can assure you that there are some wholly unsound sections that need fixing in order to force if only a little credibility into the article. Could you please visit the talk page there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_Disick Thank you,
An Englishman.
86.174.199.169 (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

GG, Stanwyck, etc.

I'm copying this from my talk p. in case you don't watch it. Do you?

hi again. Class reunion--Cool!. College? High School? Pre-K? Shifting from scholarship to directing is liberating, as evidenced by the two years I spent on Garbo and later, MdA (more important contribution). Obviously no motivation for scholarship that will gain me full professorship and no merit raises. Who cares. You only live once and briefly at that. Super motivated to direct. Next campus production is a farce by Moliere and this summer I'll try to line up semi-professional gigs in town. Happy for your small edit to MdA p. Yeah, not interested in another round of arguing against separate page for filmography. Who cares, really. Thanks for link to good/featured articles! Will keep you posted.

on Stanwyck. I was fascinated by her for about 2 years, like GG. Saw all of her pictures at least once. One of a kind, like all the A level stars. And incredibly versatile. Problem is I've moved on and would have to read the new 1000 pp. bio and keep re-reading parts or all. So, maybe some day if I get re-interested.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What class reunion? How old are you? I'm 60. Bet you didn't guess that! Directing wonderful. So glad you remembered. Or did I write it in my last message to you. Show was a huge hit. I'm a natural theatre artist but slog along with scholarship. So glad you wrote back. I really miss you!@--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW. It's really cool that the GG p. has been so stable for so long. Just minor stuff, which should be very gratifying to us both. This summer I was thinking about submitting it as a "good article." What is that? What are your thoughts (you can do my talk p.)?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tell me which state you live in and which you grew up in--if you don't mind. Don't worry, I won't track you down. Interesting perceptions and facts about your reunion. Must seem kind of surreal. Spending as much time in academe, just not researching and writing. My new obsession is Michelle Dockery who plays Lady Mary in Downton Abbey. Absolutely brilliant actress and a true original. One of a kind. She's electric, the core energy in, and protagonist of,the show. I've spent the last year studying in depth all her scenes in all 4 of the seasons of the program. I predict she will be identified in the future as having giving one of greatest performances in the early 21st C. I study great acting deeply but not broadly.

But I'm so weird and eccentric in my interests!Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Re:Gilliam

Hello, Fat&Happy. You have new messages at Gilliam's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Gilliam (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey brother F&H!

Well hello there my pal! How the hell are you? I've been busy directing plays and teaching. I regularly check the GG p. and am extremely pleased that nothing significant has been added or edited for the last 2 years. We did one hell of a job. Hate the photo of her at the top of the p. but too lazy to change it and can't remember how to do it anyway. what Wiki articles are you working on? Or whatever.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear from you!

OK, so if you're not groovin' with WP much, what are you doing that is fun and interesting? Like for me, directing. What about you? Have a happy t-giving.--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Missing Wikipedians

Saw you had lots of contributions, but haven't edited since for several months. I have therefore added you to the linked page above. Remember to remove your name from the list if you ever return. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 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) 14:08, 24 November 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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Nomination for deletion of Template:Reflistp

Template:Reflistp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. : Noyster (talk), 21:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Fat&Happy/Userbox/CSA ancestry

User:Fat&Happy/Userbox/CSA ancestry, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fat&Happy/Userbox/CSA ancestry and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Fat&Happy/Userbox/CSA ancestry during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi F&H!!!

Hey there my friend, this is your old pal classicfilmbuff who just saw that perhaps you are active on Wikipedia once again? Just saw your name when I checked my watchlist but want to make sure it's you before writing much here. I'm basically inactive for the time-being but so pleased the Garbo article has essentially retained its structure and content for the last almost 10 years since we put in all the work. Let me know if you're still out and about. My best, CFB Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)