User talk:Mizike

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a very belated welcome to Wikipedia, Mizike. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! gobonobo ⁺ ^c 06:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mizike (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Mizike!

Happy New Year!

Mizike,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

June 2016

Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipelli: Hello! I'm afraid if the edit you reverted was inappropriate, I'm going to want to go and self revert several more. After looking at the MOS for novels, I saw that Translations are not included -- which seems appropriate because they appear to be no more than trivia. If the number of languages into which a novel has been translated is notable, it can be mentioned in the publication history. But a list of translated titles appears to be no more than a catalog. Before I made the removal, I checked for past discussions regarding translation sections and I found this: [1]. From my reading there was consensus that translations, if notable, do not merit their own section. So I thought I'd be Bold and start cleaning up some articles that looked rather silly with this trivial section. But if I'm wrong, let me know and I'll revert a handful of other such translation removals I've made. Mizike (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries.. Looking at your edits, I see that they are not unconstructive and I assume good faith and you can go right ahead and edit ... My mistake. Cheers! Wikipelli ^Talk 01:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation sections

Hi, Mizike, I'm here because I've noticed that you're removing sections from articles that list translations of English books into other languages. I read through the debate at the link you gave above, and it did not seem to me that a real consensus was reached about whether or not these sections should exist. I think you should hold off with these removals until there is a clearer guideline developed. Maybe we need a RFC?

Anyway, at first I was upset at your removing these sections. Part of that was because some of them have been built up over years by various editors (at least in the articles on my watchlist), and part was a negative reaction to the word "trivial" in your edit summary. It sounded judgmental and somewhat arrogant to me. Now I know (reading your reply above) that's not what you meant at all. But, if you do go on with these edits, I suggest rewording your edit summary to something milder.

I tried to find guidance somewhere on Wikipedia on this issue, but had no luck whatsoever. I would like to get a real, project-wide consensus on this issue. I mentioned an RFC earlier, but there may be better venues or methods. Any ideas? — Gorthian (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorthian: Hello! After getting reverted a few times, I agree about holding off. And thanks for understanding that by trivial, I just mean that it feels like trivia more so than an encyclopedia article. I had initially thought to include a bit in my edit summary that if the number of translations is notable it can be incorporated into the publication history, but I worried that it was too long for a brief edit summary.

I searched through the archives of the WP:Novels general forum and I could not find any other obvious discussion about this topic, but I think an RFC would be great -- I'm not really knowledgeable on how to start such a thing though, so I'd appreciate it if you could either get it going or give pointers. Mizike (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For chasing down those bad edits and removing them, thank you. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks. Thanks! Mizike (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mizike. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mizike. 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)[reply]

Hello!

Hello Mizike!

Thanks for welcoming me. I appreciate all the useful links and info you left on my page.

I am aware of the conflict of interest, and I tried my best to stay as neutral as possible. Last week, I indicated on the World Gospel Mission talk page that I was affiliated with the organization (am an employee) and thus would in a way get paid to edit the page, as Wikipedia requires.

In response to your suggestion about making a draft first, I had already gone live with the major updates before I saw your message to me (just a few minutes ago). However, I trust that you (or anyone else who looks at it) will find that the updates were necessary. The page was in a really bad state, and in total I think that I cut out a lot of biased and unsupported information. Everything that I added has the proper references, too, I believe.

If you see that anything should be changed or flagged, then that is totally fine--I just wanted to be transparent.

Thank you!

(edit: also, yes this is a personal account, not a corporate one; thanks for checking on that!)

Alexgergely (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]