User talk:Oashi

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Oashi! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 02:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message

Hi Oashi, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 10:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting empty talk pages

Hi,

There isn't normally any need to start talk pages before there is anything to discuss, as you did with Template talk:Infobox building/doc‎. In addition, documentation pages usually don't have their own discussion pages - most of the discussion goes on in the parent template's talk page. For now, I have redirected the talk page you created there. If you have any questions then feel free to contact me. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now on history of the doc page (Let's start the discussion...) Thanks for the redirect, looks much better now! ;) Oashi (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer

Hi. Autoreviewer isn't a proposal; as such I've reverted your addition of Category:Wikipedia proposals. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, do I understand it well, that the name for the page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer is nonsence too? I mean: Request for what, as these are auto granted? ;) Franta Oashi (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's delete the page! :) Franta Oashi (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand. That category is for proposed policies and processes; autoreviewer is already implemented. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I ment the "proposal" as a offering of some rights to a user... But nevermind, I still do not understand "wiki rights" much:

...as the page name mixes up "Requests for permissions" (a user asks for such rights himself, AFAIK) with the "Autoreviewer" rights. But such are granted automatically... So, why does the page/discussion exist there?? That's the point I do not see... And why I would still delete the page. Where am I arong?? Franta Oashi (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not granted automatically. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You surprise me: AFAIK, it is granted automatically, after 75 OK edits (redirects not counted). Might we could search that statement out... Hm, no flame: I can be wrong. Franta Oashi (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After 75 new articles, not new edits. NW (Talk) 22:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noticed that too. :) The last thing: The rights are granted then automatically, or by request? ...however, that is rather theoretical now. ;) Thanks! (I had enjoyed the while I had it granted. ;) Franta Oashi (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories

You seem to have created the following categories as duplicates with slightly different spellings:

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noticed that too: I am working on it... Franta Oashi (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, both the other categories are marked as to be deleted. Thanks for your assistance. Franta Oashi (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category Generation

Hi Oashi, Can I suggest you take a short break from your generation of new Categories which you believe are required and appear to bear some relationship to the subject of Evolution. Apart from the new categories themselves the relationships you are creating to Evolutionism for example is innapropriate. Take a look at the article on Evolutionism and you will see why this is the case. There is already a well-thought out hierachy of categories in this discipline and merely adding new categories add ing categories to other categories and attaching your new categories to existing articles is not constructive editing and will be reverted by other editors. I suggest instead you first take your ideas to the appropriate Project page(s) to discuss with the editors with an interest in this subject for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology Tmol42 (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, reverting of my categorisation?! It scares me, huh... Even more, to be constructive also for the future: Tell me, please, your objections to the Categorized groups of Evolution, Evolutionism and Evolutionists. I really need to know your objections: teach me. OK, I will take a break. ;) However, I still do not see I made any mistake... Please, show me, and let's discuss the categorisation (adition/revertion). I still believe, that the categorisations I performed are appropriate. Franta Oashi (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category creation for such a well established subject as Evolution etc where there are a lot of experienced and well versed experts as well as concientious editors needs to be done with the involvement of the community and by explaining the logic and need for adding new categories. As these editors have been working on these articles for several years has it not struck you as strange why these categories have not already been developed and populated. They may be valid I am not per se against them ( although I think you have duplicated categorisations within the same category) its just you need to take things a bit slower and give others a chance to comment. You have not done this to my knowledge nor have you added any summary explanation for your new categories on the category pages in question which is normal. I have other things to do now but my final suggestion for the moment is for you to read the article on Evolutionism as suggested above and see despite its similarity to the word Evolution it relates to a particular movement which the vast majority of Evolutionists would not generally sign up to. Btw reverting edits is not scary its just one facet of how the Wp develops. Hope this helps :)Tmol42 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for these thoughts! OK, I am quick, may be too much... But the categorisation schemas are so similar over all WP, portable between topics... Categorisation is always about overlapping: one sees the field top-down, others left-right or front-back. I believe, that rising quantity of categories for a page does not mean a mistake. Sure I do not add parent category, once a relevant child is already assigned... :)

But still, let me argue against You, using your own words: "Evolutionism as suggested above and see despite its similarity to the word Evolution it relates to a particular movement which the vast majority of Evolutionists would not generally sign up to." So, you say, that the term Evolutionism is realy not the same as Evolutionists, or in other words, fans of Evolutuinism are only a subset of all the Evolutionists... Do I understand you well? I would agree that too. But notice, that WP says something very differents, all the years: There is a redirect "Evolutionism, (Redirected from Evolutionists)".

So, I still think, there is much to line up! ;) (...and the Categories are fine for that) I agree, that every person on WP and worldwide understand the term "Evolutionism" differently, and some discussion should be open here, on WP. My point was to connect the related topics, let the isolated groups of people can meet finally. I wanted to push such discussion deeper into the structure of categories, to beat the problem in to smaller parts, to solve these separately. But I did not expect such inconsistency on so high level... So, what is the Evolution-project here? Or who is its "manager"? ;) ...I could paste this our discussion there.

I.e. I was told that Evolutionism has no relation to Creationism, argued that it is related to religion: So, mine cetegorisations were reverted... I do not agree this. For an example, you can see these two very different UserBoxes: {{User:Oashi/Userboxes/Evolutionist}}{{User:Crazysane/Userboxes/Evolution}}. I mean, that for some people, these are very related, because negating: in juction with strong atheism. ;) I am glad I also found an example even for economy: I really see Mr. Ken Wilber to be an Evolutionist. Etc...

Thus, I would like discuss every revert of my categorisations. Franta Oashi (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My last word on the topic. I'm not going to wade through your various points above as its probably not going to take us anywhere fruitful save to say your declared belief in Evolutionism on your User page seems at odds with your comments. Anyway as you will have seen several editors have done some tidying up reverting your spate of category editing (i.e. your creating new adding, removal and swapping of categories etc) for which they have assumed good faith on your behalf. Everyone learns from participating so take note of any comments here or elsewhere. Can I suggest you take some time out from Category work. If you want to understand how categories are used in Wp start by taking a look at Wikipedia:Categorization. Its a good idea to start on a subject or discipline you know or have developed a good working knowledge of through editing if you are going to add categories. Evolutionary biology is not only complex but is nuanced with contoversies so is perhaps not the best place to hone your Wp technique. Happy editing. Tmol42 (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not Biology, but Evolution: especially the Evolution (disambiguation) seems to be chaotic and uncomplete, to me... So, I prepare categorized "material" to sort it up there. Franta Oashi (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this point is lost on me. If it is so chaotic methinks the editors involved would have sorted it by now. But if you have some ideas suggest strongly you explain these first on the relevant Project page. WP works best through concensusTmol42 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm puzzled in particular by your addition of the category "Evolutionists" to biographical articles that do not describe their subjects as "evolutionists". What source are you using for this classification? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - we keep editor categories separate from article categories. Guettarda (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what do you mean? "editor categories", "article categories"? Franta Oashi (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in evolutionary psychology categorises Wikipedia editors. Category:Evolutionary psychology categorises actual articles. We don't make the latter subcategories of the former. Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

From one QA person to another, welcome to Wikipedia. Chris (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From another software tester, stop making things up as you have done on the Software testing article. You're making up terms and concepts. If you don't stop, I'll consider your un-sourced edits as vandalism and report you. For instance, not a single book in my library mentions "Optimistic testing". It sounds like you're defining positive and negative testing. Nothing else. You're giving them elaborate terms, one of which conflicts with another term. Your elaborations on destructive testing, which has a Wikipedia article, are incorrect. Please stop necessarily elaborating on the terms. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you delete a few of my sentence. I understand this one your objection, OK, the term of "Optimistic testing" may be not general.

However, why didd you delete all the sentences? If you have objections, then correct the terms, or replace them with better ones. But immediate deletition I see unconstructive. See the philosophy of Incrementalism: Step by step, the the article shall get better and better.

So, I will rewrite the terms to to pass & to fail: I hope, this will satisfy you better. I try to be open to every objections, so let's continue to discuss them more. Kindly Franta Oashi (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be carried-on on the talk page of the article. I have copied it there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Franta Oashi (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Spectrum

Actually, I had already discussed this issue on the talk page. My point is not that the pronunciation is wrong, rather that there is no justification for prescribing a specific pronunciation in this article. Letdorf (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Usurped ja:User:Oashi

Hello, Oashi! I am a Bureaucrat at Japanese Wikipedia. I usurped ja:User:Oashi as per your request. I'm sorry we have kept you waiting so long. --Kanjy (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done: ja:Wikipedia:利用者名変更依頼#Oashi --Franta Oashi (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

Would you correct the errors in the article Extremaduran language, In my opinion that article has many unnecesaries citations needed. --El estremeñu (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I copied your request to the Portal:Language discussion page, see the asked help there: Hopefully, they will help you better than me. --Franta Oashi (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Categories can not be moved. Your move seems reasonable enough, but you simply have to recreate the new category and move everything yourself. See WP:CFD. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For later context: Category_talk:Uncategorised_Germany_articles. --Franta Oashi (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even better: diff. --Franta Oashi (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:"

Template:" has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estirabot

Hello,

Thanks for your message, I don't know what caused the error with the interwikis, but I updated the pywikipedia files, so it should work correctly by now. --Meldor (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Some time already passed, so I do not remember the case. I can only assume, that you mean something about your bot: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Estirabot, User:Estirabot. But you did not put here any back-link to my original comment, so I cannot say anything now... Just good luck. --Franta Oashi (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nontheism

See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nontheism.

Greetings, I see that you have chosen to conspicuously identify as a "Nontheistic Wikipedian" Me too! Currently there is a proposal to delete the article Nontheism or merge and redirect it to Atheism. Greg Bard (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Czech journalists

The article List of Czech journalists has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Abandoned list consisting only of redlinks.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect move

You recently moved Queued Telecommunications Access Method to Queued Telecommunication Access Method; the original spelling was correct. Please see, e.g., IBM System/360 Operating System Queued Telecommunications Access Method-Message Processing Program Services. IBM. C30-2003. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not! The Queued Telecommunication Access Method already was a redirect and it still remains to be a redirect, still the same target: I did not change its target. --Franta Oashi (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the name is incorrect, you can request a {{move}}, so to the redirecting direction. --Franta Oashi (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal Productivity Executive

Hi Oashi, I have restored the above article as a contested PROD. Happy editing. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I did not expect this. Wow! :) Thanks! --Franta Oashi (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You've done a good job rewriting the article. If you ever need anything else, my talk page is a click away. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, though, you may have a better chance at getting your requests noticed at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging pages

Hi Oashi. I noticed you recently proposed a merge of Kolache + Kołacz + Kalach (food). However, you didn't start a discussion anywhere. The guideline at Wikipedia:Merging suggests to have one centralised merge discussion. I would image a place like the talk page of the Food and drink WikiProject would be a good place to start. With this in mind I have initiated a discussion there. Regards - Cloudz 679 20:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks. --Franta Oashi (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Electrical engineering

Hi fellow editor,
You are invited to join the WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of electrical engineering. If you'd like to join, add also your name to the member list.
Thanks for reading! SchreyP ^(messages) 19:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --Franta Oashi (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Oashi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Czech help needed

Hello Oashi, I'm contacting you because we need some Czech translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on cs.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Czech Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notification - M-DISC, Millenniata

Hi. I have noticed some Notification from you, from 10-05. It states:

"Hobart thanked you for [No page] on [[:[No page] ]]."

What was your intention? What's up? --Franta Oashi (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thanking you for your early 2012 work on M-DISC, which I ended up considerably rewriting from its previous layout :-) —Hobart (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, but before there were much more data, as I see the given comparison / older version... Did you move/copypaste these textual fragments to another article? Or weer these data deleted completely, thrown out and forgotten? --Franta Oashi (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally, per WP:SOAP, removed a lot of non-encyclopedic information (which had been contributed by the company's marketing department) - the rewritten version omits fluff biographical background information on the founders and the company, both of which I felt were non-notable. I initially went looking for information myself when I bought a disc burner with the strange logo (which looked like 'MODISC'), and there was little straightforward information on what that was/meant. Please WP:BOLDly re-add any elided data you feel contributes to the article's primary subject :-) —Hobart (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:City University Network

Category:City University Network, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stay neutral about this. Thanks. --Franta Oashi (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oblast

I disagree with your decision to unilaterally move some of the Kirovohrad Oblast-related articles to Kirovohrad oblast with a lowercase. There is a WikiProject Ukraine which is supported by some active editors and it has been established by consensus in the past that the format for naming such articles is with an uppercase "O." Going around and changing everything right off the bat without consensus isn't helpful. If you wish, please bring that up on the relevant Ukraine notification boards, where we can all decide on the future of the naming. But for now, I suggest moving them back to their established names. § DDima 15:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Language-population update project

Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.

A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.

Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).

Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.

Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the {{sigfig}} template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)

Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.

If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.

The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.

Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!

— kwami (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian cross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Slavic. 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) 09:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Poles in the United States

Given your high fluency in Polish, I am reaching out to you in regards to the History of the Poles in the United States article. It has no Polish equivalent, and any time you can spend towards translating in any capacity would be much-appreciated. I would be more than happy to help any way that I can.

Thank you! Pola.mola (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Processes has been nominated for discussion

Category:Processes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

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. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Oashi. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Oashi. 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]

Select Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_80q8onB5GB3oz5j&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DFSMS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect DFSMS. Since you had some involvement with the DFSMS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Oashi. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Skeleton Crew (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sleuth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:18, 9 September 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Simatic

Hello, Oashi

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Polyamorph and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Simatic, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion. The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

Edit the page
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Polyamorph}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Polyamorph (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Definition of Ready" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Definition of Ready has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § Definition of Ready until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quotation collectors has been nominated for deletion

Category:Quotation collectors has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]