- 1 DYK for Jean Aylwin
- 2 ITN credit
- 3 Draft:WikiProject English
- 4 god versus God
- 5 Civility
- 6 Chick-fil-A
- 7 Help required!
- 8 PW:ITN?Candidates
- 9 January 2015
- 10 Persistent sock is back
- 11 Request for comment
- 12 BH2
- 13 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 14 A cupcake for you!
- 15 Arbcom case you might be interested in
- 16 Arbitration Case opened
- 17 The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted
- 18 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
DYK for Jean Aylwin
|On 4 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean Aylwin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that actress Jean Aylwin (pictured) inspired a new dress style "in crepe and lace"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Aylwin. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
|On 20 June 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Felipe VI of Spain, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.|
When you say "This article is *about* the monotheistic conception of God. You can't just say 'god' with lowercase g and no article," you expose the problem. A concept can't be a proper noun. In fact, your sentence has an article, so why no lowercase "g". I do consider it a minor edit to update the grammar of the God page.
You do bring up a good point however. I should have changed the sentences in the instances were I downsized the case in order to incorporate the necessary article. Indeed, in English speaking, Christian dominated countries, in common speech people are overwhelmingly ungrammatical when they use the term "God" without an article, when referring to the general concept of a god, written or spoken, like you did (in fact, I could have written "the general concept of God" and most people would not have noticed). I believe this because of the frequency with which the proper noun is employed to refer to the specific god of their Christian religion. I hope you will give me the go ahead to try these changes. I will not mark the changes as minor.
Alex, I received your message. I am sorry, I thought it wasn't taking. It happened so fast that I thought it was a glitch and not a rollback. Sorry about that. Chris Abraham (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I hope you are well. I hope you remember me. Click the following link to recall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2014_October_5
The discussion is about the 'Error mitigation' section.
Your recent editing history at Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Avono (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Persistent sock is back
You may have already noticed. It seems Bowei Huang 2 is back yet again. I got tired of waiting for somone to block or open an SPI, so did one myself at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2 Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment
An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the report. The case is so obvious I have simply deleted the threads. I don't think this should affect your SPI, but if you'd like me to revert, let me know on my talk page. (You can also revert yourself, obviously, so I am mentioning this in case you prefer I do it myself.) μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
|Sorry about the abusive socking. GABHello! 22:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)|
Arbcom case you might be interested in
I just filed an arbitration request against The Rambling Man, citing an example in which you were involved in. You might be interested in the case. Link is here: . Thanks, Banedon (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration Case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.
Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here
The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)