User talk:AmandaNP

Archives (Index)

2009/December 2010/January 2010/February 2010/March 2010/April 2010/May 2010/June 2010/July 2010/August 2010/September 2010/October 2010/November 2010/December 2011/January 2011/February 2011/March 2011/April 2011/May 2011/June 2011/July 2011/August 2011/September 2011/October 2011/November 2011/December 2012/January 2012/February 2012/March ISI 2012/April 2012/May 2012/June 2012/September 2012/August 2012/July 2012/October 2012/December 2012/November 2013/January 2013/March 2013/February 2013/April 2013/May 2013/June 2013/July 2013/August 2013/September 2013/October 2013/November 2013/December 2014/January 2014/Early 2014 2014/July 2014/August 2014/September 2014/October 2014/December 2014/November 2015/March-July 2015/January 2015/February 2015/August-November 2015/December 2016/January-February 2016/March-May 2016/June 2016/June-October 2016/November-December 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Need your help!

Need your help with my first ACC. (linked removed). I see here that it was blocked. Do I defer the request to Check Users? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Or is the block only for BOTs? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Seems you have the hang of it now. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 06:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User who keeps blanking his talk page

Ciao! Can you warn user:Daufer to stop blanking his talk page? Thanks.--'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

[excuse the talk page stalking] Please note Wikipedia policy at WP:BLANKING -- Marek 16:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Not done No warning required, they have the right. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:24.84.109.46

Just a heads up, I declined an unblock request from an IP within a range you blocked as a checkuserblock. I directed them to the account creation tool, but thought I would notify you anyway just to ensure I am not missing anything here. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Tyciol down

He'll be back, unfortunately. Negativecharge (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

• Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

• News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

• In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

• Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

• WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion

• Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please unprotect Exit International

Hi, the Requests for Unprotection page says to first ask the admin who put the protection on for assistance. So I'm asking you to unprotect. The edit war, I think, is over, and if it restarts, please take action (note that the opposing editor is edit warring over completely non-controversial data that is required in the page's Infobox, so it's an open and shut case of disruptive editing and warrants a temp ban for User:Night of the Big Wind). Thanks! Jabbsworth (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to unprotect it, I would feel much better though if there was some kind of discussion, thought it's not needed. So I have  unprotected the article in good faith. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the pure and innocent Jabbsworth. For DeltaQuad: as soon as he puts in his POV stuff again I will revert it and ask for another page protection. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind, don't worry, i'm not considering a block for you, you were within 3RR. Just stop by here if anyone starts reverting again and I will protect it back up. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on discussion requests for the talkpage. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, sounds good. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Night of Big Wind has reverted another editor who installed the uncontroversial data into the infobox. Can this be interpreted as anything other than tendentious, disruptive, bloody-minded editing bordering on vandalism? Jabbsworth (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)