User talk:5 albert square/Archive22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello sir

Excuse me, please delete my wrong creation page Draft:Roozbeh Azar. You have my best wishes and thank you so much my dear. Mahdi Mousavi (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news

Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News

Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days.

Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated!

End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress.

January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words).

February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A little help

Hey, as you previously blocked User:User321a for sockpuppetry, I'm coming to you for some help. I'm concerned about their edits, which seem to be in good faith, but some are starting to appear disruptive. First there's the additions of unsourced info (a recent example), which I have given advice about on their talk page and mine. This has now led to User321a going slightly overboard with the sources in some cases: [18], [19], [20]. On the opposite end of the scale, they have removed sourced content without offering much of an explanation: [21], [22]. Then there is the almost weekly changes to table formats or table headings on soap opera cast lists. No discussion, no edit summary: 13 January, 21 January, 8 February, 13 February,14 February,15 February.

And this was the unexplained edit that totally threw me when I first saw it the other day: [23]. They are three separate characters with their own storylines, with only one having any development info, and they were merged together. At least three other editors have had to warn or advise User321a about their edits, and I believe this now needs admin intervention. Have a look at the above diffs and please let me know your thoughts. – JuneGloom07 Talk 04:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I am only trying to help. I don't mean to be disruptive. I have actually reverted disruptive edits. Please tell me how to use the sandbox as I don't know how, thus why I haven't been using it. Once I know how, I'll use it. I promise. Please give me one more chance. User talk:User321a 16 February 2018, 06:36am

hi again 321a,could you please explain your edits? The one to Josh Hemmings you provided 4 references and no need for that many. The sandbox you should be able to edit it. 5 albert square (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@User321a: any response? 5 albert square (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added edit summaries. (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You haven't though? In the example of Josh Hemmings, you have added another source to support him leaving. However, there was already one there. All you have said is you are adding another reference. But why add another when a perfectly good one was there?
In this instance, again for Josh Hemmings, you have added a 4th reference to support him leaving. Why would it need 4 references?

Sorry. I honestly didn't realise that he didn't need that many. I understand that you encourage references, and that is why I did it. It wasn't meant to be disruptive, I honestly thought I was doing the right thing by adding references. User talk:User321a 17:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm completely confused by this edit.
Finally, what is it that you don't understand about the sandbox? 5 albert square (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how to access it. User talk:User321a 13:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@User321a:? 5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Any response? 5 albert square (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

connected contributor

Hey there, I just wanted to let you know that after I saw the {{connected contributor}} template on Talk:Apple Inc., I also saw that you had added the template with similar rationales on Talk:Samsung, Talk:Sony Xperia, and Talk:E.ON. (I think there might have been some other pages you added it to as well, but those are the ones that I remember directly.) I went ahead and boldly removed the templates from Apple Inc., Samsung, and Sony Xperia, but not E.ON since you are currently working there. I just saw you reverted my removal on the Apple talk page. Clearly, we disagree on the threshold of connection (and editing impact) required to include the connected contributor template. After some further review and research, I don't think there are clear guidelines for when it is appropriate for the template to be used in the first place. I'm not going to re-revert you, but I think we should start a dialog on Template talk:Connected contributor to try to come up with some better guidelines for when this template should be used. Do you think that is reasonable? Thanks, - PaulT+/C 18:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will also revert Samsung and Sony Xperia. I am still connected with them. 5 albert square (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Here is a link to the discussion. Also note, you may want to add these parameters to the template when you add them back to those other articles: User1=5 albert square|U1-declared=yes|U1-EH=yes|U1-otherlinks=<diff where you declared your potential coi>. I added this to the Apple template already. - PaulT+/C 18:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually, I just made the change for you. You also may want to consider adding {{userboxCOI}} with {{UserboxCOI|1=Apple Inc.|2=Samsung|3=Sony Xperia|4=E.ON}} and any other COI articles to your user page. - PaulT+/C 19:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not being self promotional though. I am still connected with them but I can't say any more than that. Otherwise I would have removed the template. 5 albert square (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Without any context, you can see how it might be interpreted that way though, right? - PaulT+/C 19:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

19:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)