User talk:NE Ent

Last word: Gerda Arendt (talk).

Archives
Archives (Index) Meet the Press 2008/December 2014 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2014

DYK

... that the DYKs in outcoms for women 2015 are not for any good facts about any good women but for new or expanded articles? Perhaps suggest a different section for Nobel prize winners etc (as I installed one for TFAs), - they don't belong in the DYKs section which is for articles which will in the DYK section of the Main page during March (or will be removed, - I am not sure that all nominations will make it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Too complicated for me. Do you want me to revert? Or you can. If you want a new article Know Your IX is recent ... NE Ent 16:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What is too complicated? - No need to revert now, many in the table are just nominated and not certain to appear. By the end of the month, only those that appeared will be left. - The new article would be good! No refs needed in the lead which should be a summary of sourced info in the body, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the new one closer. I will nominate if you do a few things, like make the current lead a first paragraph and write a lead that is a clear summary for someone unfamilar with IX - like me. Perhaps take some of what the critical source writes about it. Some year in the lead please, for people reading it in 10 years. Tell me when done, you have one more week ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done NE Ent 14:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Nominated, please follow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail

Thanks. But

Hello, NE Ent. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Surely this doesn't mean you intended to roll back MB's t-ban, per this comment; if so, I disagree, only myself or WP:ARCA can reverser it, it's an AE ban. I'm thinking H got a little ahead of himself. Dreadstar ☥ 06:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course not [1]. (Actually, AE or AN can overturn per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications).

I didn't think so, thanks for clarifying! Dreadstar ☥ 09:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't seem to get edit conflict messages anymore

Hello NE Ent. Sorry about this. We seem to have hit save almost simultaneously. I appreciate your trying to turn down the heat on the drama but it may not work. I wish other editors had a chance to respond to my research and message (30 minutes worth of work :-) ya know - this is in jest) before your closure but I am not asking you to reverse it. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 20:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeepers events are moving fast - a block was handed out while I was typing so this message is now irrelevant. Feel free to remove it if you wish. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh that was like my worst close ever in terms of typos, template etc. ... feel free to start a new section if you think ... never mindNE Ent!

HeeHee. I think I could hear the lilting tones of Emily Litella saying the last two words of your post. Boy I miss her as well as the other characters that Gilda created. Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

WTF

what is this? — Ched :  ?  12:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ched, you may have missed that the original filer of that request has been checkuser-blocked as a block-evading sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

OK ... my bad then. — Ched :  ?  12:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not going to revert my revert ... the subject is going to end up there at some point. — Ched :  ?  12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No doubt. However, it will be a tremendous distraction from the case if the filer is an editor designated as a blocked or banned editor. Why do you go ahead and file? NE Ent 12:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

template fail

the template fail was because you inserted a * in front *{{subst:cfd top}} See [2] (without *) and [3] (with *) NE Ent 20:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring that out : ) - jc37 20:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Formatting

I reformatted with this [4] to make that bullet list consistent. Please check that you are happy with the way I presented your comments in the list and feel free to adjust. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia there is no happiness nor sadness, only contributions... It's fine. NE Ent 22:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

OS candidacy

Apologies, I'd missed your question, but I've answered it now. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RfAR

Why narrowly on Collect? Please answer at the RfAR.

Dear0Dear 11:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How dare you?

How dare you presume to presumptuously pseudo-clerk my pseudo-clerking presumptiveness so presu... ah hell, even I'm confused now. 02:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi NE Ent, you have been removed as a party from the American politics 2 arbitration case by an arbitrator. Accordingly, your evidence size limit is now 500 words and 50 diffs. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Know Your IX

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Zero

Further to [5], note [6], [7]. Compare the screenshot in the BBC article to Cheetah#Range_and_habitat: there is no indication of sourcing in the SMS version, if that screenshot is accurate and up to date.

At any rate, this type of article delivery results in a captive audience of passive consumers who can neither contribute to Wikipedia, nor check Wikipedia articles' sourcing, nor access alternative sources.

The only ones with read-write access to Wikipedia will be the country's business and political elite. The potential for manipulation, as illustrated in embryo by the Wifione case, is stupendous, all the more so as the average Wikipedian has little interest nor knowledge in these topic areas.

This is why net neutrality matters: see comments by AccessNow and EFF. Andreas JN466 02:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that (the technical part, we're not going to agree on the politics). The other part of my question is whether the smartphone mobile interface, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah provides a way to access the talk page?

Rare today

... was made a bit brighter by your comment: "To anyone actually important (i.e. Wikipedia readers)" - such a rare precious thought! Readers, you really said readers, not main editors? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)