User talk:Helvetica

Archives[edit]

2010–2011 Pro-democracy protests[edit]

Hi, please do not copy the contents of the above article to other titles. This causes instability, and nothing will be agreed on this way. Instead, please discuss the article name at Talk:2010–2011 Pro-democracy protests. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 - clearly you are confused. I made clear in my edit summary that I wasn't taking any side as to the title, but that I was making a necessary change so the article would be readable. When I found it it was a redirect loop - with each title redirecting to the other and the content not viewable at all. -Helvetica (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Female Genital Cutting[edit]

Hello. You altered within the Wikipedia Article of Female Genital Cutting every word and shortcut from Mutilation to Cutting. May i ask why you totaly disagree with the word mutilation? Please do not use the argumentation that "Cutting" is a more neutral word than "mutilation". If someone kills your younger cousin, i doubt that you would use a word like "capital crime", because it is more neutral to describe this. Next time you wish to make major edits, please start a discussion talk on the appropriate talk page first. Thank you. I reverted your edits. --Santiago84 (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do personally feel that genital cutting is mutilation, but that's my opinion. The article is at the NPOV title "female genital cutting," so it should use it as such. It can report that some people call it "mutilation," but it shouldn't assert such an opinion. If you think the term "female genital mutilation" should be used in the article then propose for it to be moved to the title. Until there's concensus for that we should stick with "female genital cutting" in the article. Incididently "capital crime" means the perpetrator could be executed, so if I were out for revenge I wouldn't mind that name ;-) -Helvetica (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging and reverting[edit]

Stop edit warring over a tag. Consensus has not been reached yet and your reverts are only polarizing other editors. Tags mean something needs to be loked at. So let the process run its course. Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was there for political reasons because the user thought that it cast Beck in a bad light. No good reason was given for why the tag was needed. Tags may be removed if no good reason is given for keeping them in place. -Helvetica (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A) Don;t comment on the contributor instead of the edit since it falls under WP:NPA. B)Your new discussion section was flat out wrong. Look two sections up. Read the whole thing then reply. C) (completely unrelated) I am noming one of your images for deletion. I will shoot you the link to the discussion when I am done.Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And notification that you are mentioned here Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to disregard the above. Andy attempted to fix it and it is almost close enough.Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't need a lecture from me about edit warring or NPOV but I do feel it is appropriate to list an image you uploaded at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 July 28. Apologies for the drama. If you can address the issues provided I will be happy to rescind my request as I did for the Beck article. Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phaseolus vulgaris[edit]

A year back you made a proposal re Phaseolus vulgaris (the "common" bean). A new related proposal has been put forward, but I think someone may be confused about what was proposed then, and perhaps you would want to illuminate at Talk:Phaseolus_vulgaris#Merger_of_Green_bean_into_this_article? ENeville (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Helvetica. 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]

1RR restriction[edit]

Please note that Syrian war related pages are under 1RR restriction. That was a violation. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Important[edit]

Go on the Wikipedia talk page on Brittany Pettibone right now. It seems like Wikipedia editors trusted the sources, which turned out to be incorrect. She's now threatening a legal lawsuit.

Poster21256732245678933 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Poster21256732245678933 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Patrolling admin) Normally I would remove the above message due to ban evasion, but since you appear to have been (separately) involved in the article, I'm leaving it to make you aware of the concern. —C.Fred (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Helvetica. 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]

Proposed deletion of File:Track Kern.png[edit]

The file File:Track Kern.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, low-res, no obvious use. Superseded by File:Tracking vs Kerning.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]