User talk:AbstractIllusions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation[edit]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anti-Hinduism.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User diagreement and nesting discussion[edit]

Hi AbstractIllusions,

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?

Best wishes, Melody Lavender (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

vital articles[edit]

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)

Never a problem. Thank you for the link added--definitely helpful. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi AbstractIllusions! Thanks for your insightful comments on Vital Articles. I was wondering if you think Musa I of Mali has a shot at being listed as vital. There are no West Africans on the list and the number of black people on the list generally has declined. You are familiar with Sahelian Kingdoms much more than I am so I thought I'd get your thoughts. From my understanding, Mansa Musa was the one who did the most to built Timbuktu into one of the richest cities of the world. Gizza (t)(c) 01:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

1963 Togolese coup d'état[edit]

Re: 1963 Togolese coup d'état

There is a {{citation needed}} on the above article. Would like to see if you would be able to add a source for that sentence. Adamdaley (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge[edit]

Hello. I've revamped the contest page into this, based on the new British model. Long term goal, but I've added entries since the beginning of July to give it some initial life. Please add anything you've done then this then too! I hope it proves productive long term. The contests are still planned, but will be more tools towards increasing bulk output in overall goal. It's a permanent goal now, and open! I would be grateful if you could keep a record of all your articles you do there, as I really think seeing the combined efforts will encourage others to create more content too! Please spread the word to the others, cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, AbstractIllusions. 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)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest[edit]

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, AbstractIllusions. 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)