User talk:GZWDer/archive

Talkback

Hello, GZWDer. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Changing username.
Message added 21:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Article for Deletion versus Merge

You recently posted a Article for Deletion (AfD) request for several pages such as Ruitapu, however in the AfD you suggest merging not deleting. The AfD system is not intended for merger discussions. Instead you should follow the directions at Wikipedia:Merging, Help:Merging and Help:Merging_and_moving_pages to merge the pages. In short, the proces is something similar to:

1. Start a new discussion on the target articles talk page.
2. Tag the origin article with {{Merge from|<source page>|discuss=Talk:<merger discussion talk page section>|date=December 2013}}

1. Tag the destination article with {{Merge to|<destination page>|discuss=<merger discussion talk page section>|date=December 2013}}

1. Add a comment to the articles' main contributors talk pages
2. Wait for comments.
3. After a week or so has passed, follow through or abandon the merger as per the comments.

If you think the merge might be controversial (the ones you posted are not controversial) then use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers -- Rincewind42 (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Requests for adminship listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Requests for adminship. Since you had some involvement with the Requests for adminship redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ₆an⁶sh₆ 03:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your unprotection request

Re [1]. Can you explain a bit more why you think these should be unprotected? Are you saying that the protection is actually redundant? Or do you think that anyone at all should be permitted to create these edit notices? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

re

Assuming I already answered your first part of message in the Weriet TP (simply "there was not so many duck evidence" at the time), I agree with you 100% about the inter-project CU. I also agree that "a lot of users thinks that SPI is only RFCU, however everyone are welcome to send some evidences" but, as pointed by someone in the ANI thread, many times SPI investigations fail to achieve enough interest by the community, and in this case only the visibility of ANI allowed several different editors (I count 4) to share their cues/evidence and to put a serious case. As said in ANI by one admin with a previous strong innocence-propensity point of view, "there's almost no other way to explain Werieth's coincidential behavior to Beta with the new evidence given". About the "why just now?", note there is also a movement afoot accusing several mods to have covered the sock, but I tend to be skeptic towards any conspiracy theory, here and elsewhere (while it could be right to investigate also in this direction).

However, how do you explain your further evidence (Betacommand copying a Werieth code in his wikimedia-page a few hours before Werieth announcing "retirement")? I think this "link" between the two accounts that you discovered is a very interisting one, really. Especially considering the context, it's hard to find a rational explaination keeping the assumption the two acconts were unrelated. --Cavarrone 13:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

GZWDer I agree with you but sadly I'm kinda skeptic about a positive solution. If you take a look at the discussion here, it appears highly unlikely an interwiki-CU will be conceded (feel free to post a message there). And I'm also skeptic Beta will ever admit anything (while the idea to contact him is a good idea, anyway). --Cavarrone 07:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link, I had not noticed that request in November. However, outside the bizarre vote by Technical that votation has no sense, the proper venue to discuss the request is an arbitration request here and I doubt that in the current circumstances he would had any chance of success. In the remote case he was innocent, I'd like something like him posting a request favoring a voluntary CU between en.wiki and mediawiki, so skipping the privacy concerns. Not a SPI expert, so I don't know if that would be enough to make the CU bureaucratically possible (especially as this User:Billinghurst seems to have already took his final decision), but it could surely help: at this point of discussion, given the evidence, it is more Beta who have to prove his innocence than the opposite. --Cavarrone 10:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Rollback granted

You might also consider requesting global rollback on meta, sounds like you could use it. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 07:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The recent removal of templates you conducted

I saw what you did in commenting out certain templates on annother editor's page due to their status. You may also want to consider unsubscribing them from the various newsletters they get on their talk page as it appears they are never coming back. Hasteur (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User page

Why would you "clean up" a user page? I - as a reader - would like to see background of an author without having to dig in the history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Crywolf

I would like to contest the deletion. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Neutral so you get a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

change 'मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी TO मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी

mahdi khaje piri we made a page for this person in Hindi language but in the name of article we had mistake we made a page 'मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी BUT the correct one is मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी it means only one ' is the problem any way please repair this page https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80_%E0%A4%96%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80

and edith 'मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी TO मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhaaam (talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Elhaaam (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

You may be interested in this discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

How many men?

Hi GZWDer. I came to the "How many men?" page to act on a WP:G1 speedy deletion tag. However I determined it was not nonsense and declined the speedy. The redirect apparently lost it's meaning when text was removed from the target page in September 2012. I have now restored and rewritten the content and included a reliable reference. (Apparently lack of RS was the original reason for removal.) Does this change your submission to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7#How many men?? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

RfDs based on WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTFAQ

You may wish to hold off on nominating further articles with the rationale you've used recently, pending the result of the RfC located at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects?. ~ Rob^Talk 00:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

RfD nominations

When nominating related redirects for RfD, please ensure to group them under one section heading for the ease of other users, e.g., if more than one redirect you have nominated has a similar rationale. That way, we do not need to copy-paste the same thing over and over again. Thank you for your understanding. --- TheChampionMan1234 04:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Your revision on my talk page

Yes, I was 90% sure that was a J. sock. Thanks! Jeh (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Tobias

I'm not familiar with the history on wikidata, but can you take a look at this? I came across it as I'd protected Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)‎ and now after that protection expired I saw two accounts that appear to match this. Too early for diff comparison on en.wiki but maybe you can take a look. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

China National Highway 228 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China National Highway 228. Since you had some involvement with the China National Highway 228 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GZWDer. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of islands by name.
Message added 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Errors in your nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

TC

I've applied two temporary soft blocks on the IP range used by Tobias Conradi, as per your request. However, it seems he keeps trolling on iawiki. Since you have requested his global ban, I think you may have more information about this LTA. Could you keep an eye on it? Please, report any problem. Thanks. RadiX∞ 04:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing tags on Restrictions on geographic data in China

Hi ! Some times ago you had added original research, ref improve and unreliable sources tags (within multiple issues) to the Restrictions on geographic data in China article. It seems that these issues have been fixed, in their great majority at least. I suggest we remove the tags. OK with you ?--Farialima (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GZWDer. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, GZWDer. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, GZWDer. 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)

Cross-wiki article soft redirects

Cross-wiki article soft redirects are invitations to those who are able to make translations. Otherwise there are just red red links. Peter Horn User talk 19:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Jihan Wu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jihan Wu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihan Wu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Treasure Houses of Britain (1985 TV series) at Wikidata

What was the need for establishing a new Wikidata item for Treasure Houses of Britain when there was already one in place? Dhtwiki (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Your UTRS Account

Right now you do not have wiki email enabled on your onwiki account, and therefore we are unable to verify you are who you say you are. To prevent duplicate notices to your talkpage about this, the account has been deleted and you will need to reregister. -- DQB (owner / report) 22:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained edit

Hi GZWDer — can you explain what you were doing here? (And please remember to use an edit summary, especially for removals.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Mary Jane Peabody

Hello, GZWDer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mary Jane Peabody".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"15 October 1582" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 15 October 1582. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#15 October 1582 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Lacking very basic sense

Permanent link

Forget about your failure to grasp that "advanced permissions" relates to those rights on the left side (like the sysop flag), not the rights on the right (like "rollbacker") — how do you even end up making such a tone-death request at the day that her death is announced? And would you not expect the multiple admins around to already be on top of anything necessary, to begin with? And what sort of damage do you even think an account by a deceased editor (forget that they are globally locked, anyway, so as to render to whole thing moot) is likely to do with rollbacker enabled?

Your request is just so utterly bizarre to me, I'm really struggling to comprehend your reasoning there. Well, it's obviously quite poor reasoning, at any event. To that: you should probably stay away from anything remotely tragic in the future, because the highly insensitive nature of your request, to me, demonstrates that on an important level, you lack very basic sense.

And all of that is with WP:AGF stretched to its very limits. Please do better. El_C 11:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I am requesting it as there're a number of similar previous cases, e.g. 1 (@Primefac:), 2, 3. Probably we need a RfC for this in general.--GZWDer (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

What are you going on about? Who even cares about any of that? What possible utility does that have, in any possible sense? El_C 11:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Before this edit (where I did not find a discussion), WP:DWG explicitly including "rollbacker" as a right to be removed from deceased user (then it is still not a common practice to global lock the accounts). In my opinion when a user is deceased, we should remove all user rights, to reduce maintanence burden. I have previously successfully request it three times.--GZWDer (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

What "maintanence burden" can there possibly be? Totally besides the point, anyway. Your timing was just awful. How are you still not getting that? Please avoid from now on having anything to do with the procedures involved in the maintenance of accounts belonging to deceased editors. Because, to me, you are very obviously not equipped to do so. So just don't. El_C 11:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If I might butt in here GZWDer - I believe you are trying to do the right thing here, but a lot of people are extremely upset by the announcement of Flyer's death, and the suggestion of removing rollback is perhaps particularly sensitive (but there's no reason you would be aware of that). I am in complete agreement with El C that removing the perm would serve no purpose - there's no maintenance necessary in allowing it to remain, and it poses no risk to the project. I think it would be best just to leave this where it is. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C and Girth Summit: I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).--GZWDer (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I don't understand — no reason [they] would be aware of that. In what sense? They are a human being, so they should have a grasp of the loss and mourning associated with death, should they not? No, this softly-softly approach is a mistake here. A sobering reality check is what's called for. GZWDer, did I not just tell you to avoid the topic? What do you not understand about that? Go.Do.Something.Else. El_C 11:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

To prevent flaming of the issue I will not comment further.--GZWDer (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I would think... Because I'm just about ready to block you for disruption. El_C 11:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)