Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whydah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nathaniel Clark Smith, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wichita and Eddie Cole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
now that most people are in agreement, can you or someone else remove the phrase "Putin's government has been described as a "mafia state" by several western media and analysts" in the Vladimir Putin intro, note that it is mentioned twice in the article first in the intro and then in the Assessments section so it could reworded there 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. That'll help you more than I can. A formal closure may not be necessary, but I'd suggest giving the discussion a few days to settle before an involved editor close happens. Best. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eat you. I am also unwatching. Not worth the time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I made the same decision a while back. It make me sad that that article will never be any good any long as it's held captive by that troll, but I've got enough sources of aggravation in real life. I hope to join you back there someday when things improve. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation
User diagreement and nesting discussion
I would appreciate it if you direct your comments to the user who wanted the discussion to remain in user space. What I said really can be considered shaming the other user, so I fully agree with the other user, it should be in user space. Also I think you should reconsider your habit (?) of interfering with other user's disagreements and immediately taking someone's side, without being asked to do so.
Concerning your discussion wishes: For how long do you want it to remain open now? As I have said above and you probably read in the discussion you unarchived, the other user felt shamed that this was dragged out in the open. So, in the real world that would mean, you should set your discussion time wishes to as short a period as possible. Let's consider a different solution: The comment you were trying to save was about nesting. Would you settle for archiving the user disagreement discussion and have a new section that we title 'abolish nesting' so it clearly reflects what it is about?
And could you please clean up after yourself and archive the vital articles talk page? You accidentally unarchived everything back to April. Thank you. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Melody, I'm just trying to improve the project--same as you. So we're on the same side. My strategy to improve the project is to follow the strong norm in wikipedia for discussion, even lengthy inefficient discussion, to try and produce agreement. Now for some specifics: 1. The reason I went to your talk page rather than the page discussing content is because of WP:TPYES, particularly "Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page." The quick close was not the topic of discussion, so I dealt with it in an appropriate setting. If you do not want it on your talk page, please delete/archive it--that's your right and everyone is fine with that. 2. There was no significant "personal disagreement" and I didn't weigh into the small personal disagreement that existed, except to remind everyone to Assume good faith: I weighed into a content disagreement on a forum I follow. 3. I'm not sure who feels shamed or why they would. Everyone exchanged ideas and expressed opinions: that's how good talk pages work. One of the reasons I follow the Vital Articles Talk page is because it is some of the best minds on Wikipedia debating with each other. At worst, if someone made a mistake--oh well, no shame in that. 4. Closing time. The norm on WP:RFC is to close after at least 30 days, the norm on Vital Articles is at least 14 days for uncontroversial subjects. The WP:CLOSING guidelines suggests discussions allow an uninvolved editor to close if there is consensus or policy guidance after at least a week. The discussion had been closed after three days--which is fine to do but should require very clear consensus to do so. Such consensus was lacking in this case. 5. I'm fine if we decide to split up the topics, but for me there are two topics: A. Should these articles be included automatically or procedurally? and B. Is nesting an inherent logic of the VA project? The first was opened on the 2nd of July and should stay open at least a week (probably two to maximize chance of discussion) to allow any Americans on vacation to contribute to that discussion. The second has not yet been opened for discussion. Either way we should wait to do so. Also: this issue is an example of issues that should not be decided on a User's Talk page, but on the specific talk page in the Vital Articles project. 6. I of course always clean up my messes. I, however, move at a more methodical and slow rate than you or I would like (I once deleted an entire wikipedia project on accident--and don't intend to be stupid like that again). Which means that I double and triple check that the topic was closed appropriately and the topic added to the VA list. In the future I will try to speed up my attention to such issues, but I work at my own pace--and while the pages would have been archived later today as I was plodding through, DaGizza swept in like the superhero that he/she is and did it. Thank you for your comments. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Having been puzzled by many of the comments made, I investigated and found a User Talk page that I do not follow, had no link in the discussion, and did not look at before any of this posting. I see now the iceberg beneath the surface of my small comments. I have no interest in going back and forth on any of these issues now that I've seen the fuller discussion. Please bracket the entire comments above: I do not think there was consensus to close the discussion (such consensus should be discerned on the VA project talk page), I do not think the articles should be automatically added. Those are the only issues I have commented on and are my only stances on the issue. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 24 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Massina Empire page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
I hope you don't mind that I edited your post at the vital articles talk to include a link to the FAQ being discussed to shorten what people needed to do to go check the current wording. RJFJR (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)