User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment/Archive 2019

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

Map zooms[edit]

Hi - Regarding the map of New Hampshire: I actually like the idea of having a zoom for the small New England states; I just want to be able to see the rest of the country as well. I started thinking of the pushpin maps of so many towns and cities that have a "#USA" modifier. Is there a way to have a hashtag that lets the reader toggle to a shaded map of New England? --Ken Gallager (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ken Gallager: Hello. I think there is a way, but I don’t know how. Isn’t it called "switch" or something? IWI (chat) 11:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re New York City[edit]

There was no such conclusion in any discussion at Talk:New York. I know. I was involved in every such naming discussion for the past four years and have read every single post. You are misrepresenting the discussions. Failure to cease will force me to take you to a notice board. So please stop. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknazevad: Correction on my part: I meant the discussion at Talk:New York City, where there was such conclusion. IWI (chat) 14:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing it there, either. Please link the section. PS, let's keep this discussion in one place. oknazevad (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Greater London. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. This is now the 3rd time that your edits have broken part of the page. please use WP:PREVIEW to check what you are doing. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Nothing in what I did broke any part of the page and I am unable to understand what you are talking about. I also don't appreciate these templates being left on my talk page. Unless you are required to do so by policy or I am a vandal, it is more useful to the person to leave a short message describing the exact problem. Explain what you mean please, the edit I did is how it was a few months ago. This is also an example of gross ignorance of the assume good faith guideline; I take it personally when being falsely accused of disruptive editing. I have never, and never will make a bad faith edit. IWI (chat) 20:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about what I have done violates AGF. I am actually assuming that what you did WAS in good faith, it just broke the page. If you had bothered to preview your edits you would have seen the issue, instead you are simply lashing out at a FAR more experienced editor. If you choose to do so, then be my guest. Your choice to take it personally is your issue my friend. Take care. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: Experience does not mean anything here, everyone is equal on Wikipedia. I am not lashing out, I would just appreciate a better explanation than that. IWI (chat) 20:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: I now see it broke the density parameter. I did preview but funnily enough I don't check things that I don't think will be affected when I edit. Can you please explain why this breaks the parameter? IWI (chat) 20:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grenfell Tower fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cladding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. IWI (chat) 16:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"New York City" vs "New York" to describe the city[edit]

Let's compromise here with this issue, IWI...I think if it's critical that the city proper (versus the metro area) be delineated, then we use "New York City." Otherwise, either one should be acceptable, but mixing it up a little bit removes some of the monotonous repetition. I hope you're agreeable with this! Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Largest city", so there will be no confusion Castncoot. I believe consensus determined "New York City" was repetitive. This is the second time you have edit warred without consensus (like you did at Los Angeles where I had to explain that "Los Angeles" has consensus). I highly suggest, for your own sake, that you do not undo again. IWI (chat) 03:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? I think this and this explain it all. You weren't successful with the Los Angeles page, and I don't think you will be successful at the United States page, either. Castncoot (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot:When something is left for a month and a half, it is considered consensus by silence, period. If you don’t agree with that, take it up at the talk page of WP:CONSENSUS. Bear in mind that despite the fact I changed my mind on the title on the Los Angeles page, I still left it because there was consensus for it. IWI (chat) 07:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I initially full-protected United States, thinking that it was a legitimate content dispute and you cannot possibly be held to an RfC that you aren't aware of. Then, I subsequently realized that you hosted the RfC in question. While an RfC is not automatically applicable to a different article, this particular RfC was hosted on the relevant parent article of the subject in question, so I find it hard to believe that you cannot even see it being potentially applicable. Even if you didn't, it would, at the very least, be a strong indicator that your edit would not be accepted by a consensus, if put to a new RfC, so edit warring over it is unacceptable. Samsara independently came to the same conclusion that I did, so I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, if you were actually familiar with the concept of WP:SILENCE, you would know that a "silent consensus" no longer exists the second a user attempts to challenge the status quo. It is quite straightforwardly impossible to edit war in order to enforce a "silent" consensus. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: What I meant was a change occurred that was not challenged for a month and a half, which counts as the community accepting it, bad choice of wording on my part. IWI (chat) 08:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ImprovedWikiImprovment (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

While I respect the viewpoint of why I was blocked, I believe there has been a misunderstanding here. I’ve given myself a few hours to cool off and my opinion hasn’t changed so I feel I must file this request. I didn’t ADD any content today, I reverted a change by the user Castncoot. It is my understanding that if someone reverts you when you remove something that has been there for a month and a half, a discussion should take place per BRD, which the named user ignored and proceeded to revert my revert. If anyone should be blocked here, it should either be him alone or both of us, not just me (I was quite surprised to see the named user wasn’t blocked for his edit warring). In relation to the RfC, the consensus, if you read it, was that both "New York City" and "New York" should be acceptable overall, but not on the New York (state) article due to the confusion. Therefore, that consensus cannot and does not apply to the United States article.

Decline reason:

Please see WP:NOTTHEM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ImprovedWikiImprovment (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I withdraw my comment about another editor, but that was NOT my basis for unblock and does not reassure me that you have read my explanation of the huge misunderstanding here.

Decline reason:

Regardless of any misunderstanding, you were blocked for edit warring, and this request does not indicate that you understand that nor state what steps you will take to avoid that behavior in the future. I must decline your request. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • I’m not sure what your basis for an unblock is here. You didn’t add anything, you just reverted? Not exactly a strong argument for an unblock. You’re actually not in the wrong from a content perspective? That’s certainly not going to do it. We’re just misinterpreting the RfC? I think the RfC is pretty straightforward, trying to claim uninvolved admins can’t read the consensus but you can explain it to us is not a good look. None of this is helping your case. If you would like to know what you can say that will help you get unblocked, see WP:GAB. ~Swarm~ {talk} 17:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: If you really think I am a threat to this project, then I don’t see your basis. I’m willing to discuss this with the users in a calm manner (which I currently can’t), I don’t see that this block has achieved anything. I do have a clue, I've been here for nearly 5 years. And with all due respect, you (and the closer) have read the consensus wrong. Just because you are an admin, doesn’t mean that you can’t be wrong and a non-admin right. IWI (chat) 19:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not that serious. No one's saying you're a threat to the project or that you don't have clue. It's a standard 24h block for edit warring. Of course admins can be wrong, but we're not wrong about there being an edit war, and we do not let edit wars continue. We're also not wrong about the context of this edit war being an aggravating factor. You're edit warring over this, in the immediate context of this. It's not some nuanced issue, it's very straightforwardly questionable at best, bad faith at worst. We're honestly pretty reasonable about unblocking in these situations, and we don't try to give users a hard time if we don't have to. But if you would rather serve out the full 24 hour block than entertain the notion that you may have been in the wrong, that's your prerogative. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: Of course I was in the wrong for edit warring in terms of policy, but my basis here is firstly that I don’t truly understand why I was more in the wrong than Castncoot. The revision I was reverting to had been long-standing enough to count as consensus. That RfC did not count anywhere but that article due to rule creep, in fact, there was unanimous opposition to the RfC applying anywhere else. Therefore, there has been a misunderstanding that has lead to what would appear to be a justified block. The block isn’t the major issue for me but the misunderstanding itself. IWI (chat) 23:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin McInnes[edit]

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again[edit]

Given that you have immediately continued the edit war on United States, as well as New York City, and have concurrently engaged in an edit war at Gavin McInnes, you have been reblocked. However, due to the fact that you have completely rejected previous explanations, attempts to get through to you, as well as the fundamental premise of the previous block, and seem to have absolutely no hesitation to edit war right after being blocked for it, I do not think that another standard, escalating block for edit warring will be effective, and thus, I have not set an expiry on the block. It will instead be on you to provide an acceptable statement in an unblock request, that can convince us that you understand the problem and will resolve it.

This indefinite block is not intended to be permanent, nor long-term. It can be as short as you want it to be. However, competence to understand why you were blocked, what you need to do to resolve the problem, and not immediately repeat the problem, is required. You may not simply reject the premise of a block that four admins agree with, and immediately continue doing the same thing. You need to provide us with a resolution before you will be allowed to continue editing. For instructions on how to do this, and what we will be looking for in an unblock request, see the Guide to appealing blocks. Please also note that continued obtuseness and deflecting blame to others will not be tolerated indefinitely, and your talk page access is subject to revocation. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me be clear: I don't want to hear anything about why you're "right" and your opponent is "wrong". We're not gonna debate that. You need to talk about what changes you are going to make. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: I just got annoyed because of the misunderstanding, and I apologise for my actions as a result. Edit warring is never helpful in any situation, and only creates incivility and conflict. I attempted to discuss this issue with multiple people, but nobody (but me) is interested and this is a minor issue in the grand scheme, so I will drop the stick. IWI (chat) 03:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ImprovedWikiImprovment (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I could say what you simply want to hear to get myself unblocked, but I’m just going to drop the stick on this matter entirely and effectively topic ban myself from this matter permanently if unblocked, which is something I would do. Regardless of my opinion, this is not worth getting blocked permanently over.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Just to be clear, the "topic" you intend to move on from the "disambiguation of place names", or did you have something else in mind? ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: Yes, or just "disambiguation of New York City". IWI (chat) 11:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: This is a small bump in the road in an overall good editor’s history. IWI (chat) 15:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I declined because Swarm had cited CIR in his block rationale and had already explained that you need to be able to explain the principles and reasoning behind your block. Indef blocks are given when it is thought that there are no other means of controlling the disruption to the project, and when CIR is cited, it typically means the issues have the potential to expand beyond the specific incident that was the proximate cause of the block. Swarm can speak for himself, and I'm not going to review again, but you need to explain to us how you're going to change in the future and that you understand what you did was disruptive. Not just say "I'll just remove myself from that area." TonyBallioni (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

ImprovedWikiImprovment (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Clearly, my actions were disruptive. Edit warring only leads to incivility and conflict and isn’t acceptable. My actions essentially came from a (perceived) misunderstanding. I will not edit war in the future; if I get annoyed again I will just take a break. I have an overall good understanding of policies and my recent actions are NOT a result of a lack thereof. As Walter White said, "I am awake". I fully understand why (edit warring repeatedly) I was blocked, and why that was inappropriate. I acted based on my anger, and in future, I won’t act on my anger. I also apologise to Castncoot, Swarm and the community on the whole for the way I have behaved over the last two days. IWI (chat) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Good enough for me. You seem to be taking As a gesture of good faith, I won't be logging this as formal unblock conditions, as I normally would. I am willing to trust that you will be true to your word, and do not need logged editing sanctions hanging over your head. Though I would strongly recommend that you move on from "disambiguation of place names", not just the "New York City" dispute. If you must seek to engage in such editing, you should pre-empt any disputes by holding an RfC, in a centralized location, such as the relevant WikiProject, and gain a formal consensus that applies to all impacted articles. That way, there can be no continued confusion over RfCs applying to one page but not an other. It's obviously a contentious area and unilateral editing leads to heated disputes. It's not worth it. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding, Swarm, and you have my word. IWI (chat) 01:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Grenfell Tower fire[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grenfell Tower fire you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Grenfell Tower fire[edit]

The article Grenfell Tower fire you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Grenfell Tower fire for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Grenfell Tower fire[edit]

The article Grenfell Tower fire you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Grenfell Tower fire for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

As a gay teen, I thank you for removing that bad person Devon Erickson was rumored to be gay, if he truly is, it doesn't matter, he's only a murderer. Thank you again. --LLcentury (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LLcentury: Exactly; it’s irrelevant information. IWI (chat) 19:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, last time I bother you, but should this be included? 'All these Christians who hate gays, yet in the Bible, it says in Deuteronomy 17:12-13, if someone doesn't do what their priest tells them to do, they are supposed to die," . Thank you again, and sorry. --LLcentury (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LLcentury: Yes, that could be included if you want to add it in the "suspects" section. IWI (chat) 20:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine memorial[edit]

Hey, I see you know a lot about the Columbine shooting, I created the Columbine Memorial page, as I feel and a few others feel it deserves its own page. If you could help us expand it and by adding categories, references and more, we'd really appreciate it! Thank you! Columbine Memorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by AceAlen (talk • contribs) 3:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AceAlen. Firstly, can I remind you to sign your comments with four tildes at the end (like this: ~~~~ ). Yes, I would be happy to help with that article and will do so at some point, thank you for bringing it to my attention. IWI (chat) 12:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2019 Signpost is out![edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Callus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weightlifting (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) 07:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilante Diaries[edit]

I feel in part responsible for their last edit. I saw what they were trying to do but using IMDB and Twitter to support their change. I had reverted their edit earlier because of that but then searched and found a Hollywood Reporter review that seemed to support their change so provided them the information. I am not sure of the "correct" answer here but certainly discussion is required. S0091 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091:I don't think you are responsible. Technically they have broken WP:3RR to some degree but I can see this editor is confused so I neglected a report. A discussion is needed and I could not accept the edit, despite the new reference as it was against policy for that edit to stand. The way forward is a discussion, if they fail to see that, they will have to be blocked unfortunately. IWI (chat) 23:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They have been trying to add this since May based on their edit history (perhaps before) so agree with slow edit warring. Hopefully they will follow advice now that things have been explained. If not, we both know the outcome. S0091 (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091: Really they should have been blocked already looking at their editing history but the purpose of a block is to protect our project. If they take our advice a block would be redundant so we will see. Regards, IWI (chat) 23:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to From the Muddy Banks of the Wishkah, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and/or verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Robvanvee 13:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robvanvee: Nirvana are an alternative rock band, that is not subjective. I will add sources but the existing genre was also unsourced. IWI (chat) 14:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is unsourced and you dispute it, remove it. That it is unsourced is not the go-ahead to add more unsourced genre's. And everything is subjective, especially genre's and editors opinions so regardless of what you think of their music, only a reliable source will suffice.

@Robvanvee: And this edit does not go against the manual of style (which is only a guideline anyway), it actually is in line with it. Please see MOS:BOLDAVOID. IWI (chat) 14:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right about that edit, my apologies. Robvanvee 15:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robvanvee: It’s ok. I should have linked it in the edit summary. IWI (chat) 16:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

The Signpost: 29 November 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday![edit]

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much CAPTAIN RAJU. IWI (chat) 15:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment/Archive_2019&oldid=1184170812"