{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691987405 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691987405 -->
== Recent Edits to "The Battle of Nordlingen 1634" ==
Dear Sirs,
I have over the past few days made numerous edits to Wiki's "The Battle of Nordlingen 1634".
New information was added from Cecily V. Wedgwood's "The Thity Years War". A number of tweaks were made, mostly to improve usage.
I should mention my footnotes appear in the main body. What remains to be done is to integrate these in the proper order to the existing footnote section and then add the source to the bibliography as well.
How could a local chapter assist the copyright donation process?
Hi mailer diablo,
My name is Liang, and I am a board member from Wikimedia Taiwan. We are encountering an issue with OTRS now. Here's the story-- There is a family in our city who get in touch with our chapter, they meet us in person and express that their passed away father left a Taiwanese-Mandarin Dictionary. Their father authorize the dictionary to be printed in paper by a local publisher in 2000 here, and now the copyright is back to the family. Few weeks ago the family contacted Reke, our secretariat of the chapter, to express they want their father's work to be released on Wikimedia projects. They wish to make the work as accessible as possible.
This is a really exciting news for us in the chapter. There are programmer who is working on the modification of the printing files to Wiki source, and there are also some culture events ideas are brainstormed for demonstrating the way to use the dictionary. However, we are not quite sure how to handle this properly with the OTRS process.
Since the members in the family are all elders, it's highly difficult for them to use email to conduct the OTRS process. In the consent email template on Wikicommons, we found the following description:
"If you are releasing a work that is not available online, you may be required to provide proof of your identity. If you are releasing a work where you are acting on the copyright holder's behalf, you may be required to provide proof of authorization to work on the copyright holder's behalf." Looks like we can provide some documents to the OTRS team without their direct email, is it correct? If so, then could you give us some previous cases or the paper consent template to show us what kind of "useful proofs" we should provide to the OTRS team.
Thank you for your patience and we are looking for your feedback.
This is the closest one I could find to indicate "Hey, you're still here after all these years: much respect". So, much respect, even respek. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will you provide an adequate reason for why you deleted the Traditonal Britian Group in 2006? Are you a member?
I do not hereby agree to the following when I press "save page" below: <<By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.78.193 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Hello, Mailer diablo. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
In the second paragraph of this article, it states; the ratio of the nucleus of a hydrogen atom to it's overall size is 145,000:1. This does not compute; the nuclear diameter is 1.75x 10(to-15)M and the overall diameter is 40x 10(to-12)M this calculates to be 22,800:1 which is within 2.5% of the 23,300:1 ratio for U238!!!!!!!! This is a major error and very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.152.46 (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request to use photograph on Clementi Bus Interchange for a smart phone trail
Dear Sir/Mdm,
I am writing to you to request permission to use your photograph of the old bus interchange in Clementifor a smartphone trail around Clementi that we would be carrying out for students and some members of the public. It is for educational purposes and used to educate our students and public on the rich heritage and history of Clementi Neighbourhood.
Do let me know it if is possible to use the photographs. You can email me at yehidaah_beevi_shaik_a@moe.edu.sg.
Almost ten years or so ago a small handful of contributors made a flood of nominations, and another flood of unilateral merges and redirections of articles on Toronto streets and roadways. Reviewing those AFD I see quite a few questionable arguments. I see the nominators claiming the deletions were based on policy, but most of their claims seemed specious, based on hand-waving, not based on policy at all.
In this AFD two of the respondents said "Delete this article on a Church Street, because, so far as I am concerned, the only notable Church Street is my local Church Street." If I were an administrator, and I had closed this AFD, I would have put on my hat as an educator, and explicitly stated I had discounted these opinions where were classic examples of the kinds of bad arguments warned about in WP:Arguments to Avoid.
It is almost ten years later, and almost all the deleted articles are now redirects, or have been turned back into meaningful articles. I've turned a dozen or so of them back into meaningful articles myself, and would have found this a lot easier if I had the original revision history to start from.
If those deletions were done today there is a good chance the deleting administrator would have left the revision history visible, for just this reason. Almost all the roads deleted in this flood of AFD measure up to our notability criteria. Almost all the deletions were made because the 2006 versions were badly written, lacked references, and lacked other information that established their notability. Nevertheless, articles on topics that are notable, should be deleted cautiously, when the sole problem lies with the current article being poorly written or otherwise falling short of our standards.
Restoration of the revision history assists anyone who wants to write an article that does measure up to the standards of 2015.
So, could you please restore the revision history?
WRT my request for restoration of the revision history of Church Street (Toronto) -- could you please be explicit here? Did you simply overlook this request? Or did you wish me to interpret your missing reply as your way of telling me to make my request at DRV?
Personally, if you think you had a good reason why you shouldn't agree to restore the history, I would prefer you share it with me now. If I am convinced we will be saving the time and energy of all those fine people who would have ended up reading my request, if you hadn't talked me out of it. Geo Swan (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article of that name was recommended for deletion and significant new information now exists. Namely, the unreleased album has been released. Thus the primary objection is no longer valid and all objections stem from the primary one. Hagrinas (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
This page was deleted over eight years ago, but I don't want to contest that deletion process. It's just that Lataster has since stepped up his game, writing several more books and getting various coverages for them. He's fairly indubitably notable now. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have over the past few days made numerous edits to Wiki's "The Battle of Nordlingen 1634".
New information was added from Cecily V. Wedgwood's "The Thity Years War". A number of tweaks were made, mostly to improve usage.
I should mention my footnotes appear in the main body. What remains to be done is to integrate these in the proper order to the existing footnote section and then add the source to the bibliography as well.
wikimedia.org . --Liang (WMTW) (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Underground stock has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox train. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.