User talk:Anastrophe/Archive 2010-2019
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 21:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Barry Bonds
Thanks for your editorial contributions. You may want to post this on your user page.
 | This user helped promote Barry Bonds to good article status. |
--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop
Please stop assuming that everyone's IP address stays perfectly static for all eternity. I've never touched the pages you claimed I vandalized. 75.154.107.206 (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Needing Wiki contribution assistance!
Hello Anastrophe!
I am looking for an experienced Wikipedian to contribute an article for our band Mr. Meeble. We have a very basic Wikipedia article written already, but I know that someone like yourself may be able to point out our formatting errors and critical omissions. You can hear our music and see our videos here:
http://youtube.com/mrmeeble
http://soundcloud.com/meeble
Let me know if you would be willing to help!
Regards,
Devin
mm @ meeble.com
Devbot (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Winter's Bone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hawkes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Please be careful
I am making a good-faith effort to have civil discussions in the talk areas of my user page and on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban page. In all of my comments, I try use polite language. I respectfully ask you to do the same when replying to me, or when referring to my comments. For example:
- Your first interaction with me was to write on my talk page, "Please read the 'talk' page for the AWB article. The matter has been discussed previously. Scrubbing the word cosmetic from the article because it doesn't appear in the law isn't a valid reason." You first assumed that I had not read the talk page, and then you chose the word "scrubbing" to describe my edit when "deleting" would have served just as well, without the extra meaning.
- On the AWB talk page, you wrote, "I'm sorry, but this is a nonsensical reading." Then, you also asked me to start a new RfC, and 1. Asserted that if I did not do so, I would be making "a mockery of the discussion," and 2. Accused me of "overtly ignoring the substantive responses" you'd made. (You later said that "nonsensical reading" does not mean "you are nonsensical" or "you are being nonsensical," but there are many who would agree that those words imply just such meanings. At any rate, you could have just as easily omitted your "nonsensical reading" remark and simply posted the rest of your comment.)
- Then you wrote, "Wielding the policy bat that easily throws up red flags for me." This implies that I'd been verbally clubbing you, and identifies me to others as someone whose intentions are questionable.
- Finally, you declared that if I do not discuss items brought up by Mike in his angry and abusive rant at me, that I would be choosing a not-ethical path.
There are other examples, but these, I hope, will make my point. Also, even though I posted my suggestion on the wrong page before, I do think you should update your user page. It is vague and misleading, IMO. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Anastrophe, please stop calling me a "single-purpose advocacy" user
Anastrophe, please stop calling me a "single-purpose advocacy" user. (I think you meant to say a single-purpose account, but either way - I am not an SPA and I want this accusation to stop.) Example: 18:00 1 OCT 2013 (utc) on ANI board: "I see a pattern by this single-purpose advocacy account...." (After I started an ANI for article ownership, which I didn't feel the need to trumpet by calling it a "very serious problem," even though it is. I let the notice speak for itself.) --Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to reply, I just want the suggestions to please stop
When I asked you to please stop calling me [or as you prefer, suggesting that I may be] a "single-purpose advocacy" user, I was following WP guidelines about where to put personal comments. (You have put personal messages/requests on my talk page, and I didn't know you have a separate rule about where to put my personal messages/requests to you. I will try to remember.) If you don't want to reply, fine. I just want you to know that I'm formally asking for the suggestions to stop. Lightbreather (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Please stop WP:PA and WP:WAR
Anastrophe, please stop attacking me and warring with me.
Today, you made uncivil comments about me in an edit summary, you used "you" language at me in an article discussion (which I've asked you to stop several times in the past), and you reverted my good-faith edits based on a peer review three times.
The revert diffs are here, here, and here.
PLEASE STOP. Lightbreather (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Please stop WP:PA (2nd request in 14 hours)
Despite multiple requests to stop to stop attacking me - most recently 14 hours ago - you again made (untrue and) uncivil comments about me in an edit summary.
Despite the accusation in that edit summary ("i have no idea why this links were intentionally broken by editor lightbreather, but I am repairing them."), the breaks were unintentional. They were a result of pastes during the drafting process (on my mobile, not my primary medium) that didn't go where I tried to put them. I caught one break and fixed it, but I obviously missed a couple. To say they were intentionally broken was unnecessary and not civil. There was no intentional breaking - just simple mistakes. Lightbreather (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attacks
Today, you replied to me (in part): "...conflate the meaning of a common construct for the purpose of faux concern or faux indignation. This editor actually hopes to have a weekend uninterrupted by POV edit pushing..."
PLEASE STOP with the WP:PA on me on article talk pages. Please stop speculating about my intentions on article talk pages. Please stop accusing me of POV pushing on article talk pages. PLEASE STOP! Lightbreather (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cat Power may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- link|date=September 2011}}</ref> On some occasions this has been attributed to stage fright<ref>[http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/cat-power-gets-some-satisfaction-20000331</ref> and the
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fentanyl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Edward Memorial Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've read your comment on my user talk page. I landed KTVU page after a long surf around aircraft incident-related articles, when I found the entire section was completely deleted by the last edit. With the situation and your edit comment, I assumed it was something like a random vandalism was acted, so I just undid your edit. Sorry for bypassing the discussion. Coming this far, I went to the talk page to leave my comment, and there I found the discussion haven't in fact not ended. So I decided to put an issue tag on the section so that everyone notices there's a ongoing discussion, instead of letting the whole section disappear overnight. Hope you understand. アヲガネ (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas
...can seem insufferable. But I'd say there's no point in doing something that can be interpreted as antagonizing if there's another option. Thus, I'd suggest "they" or "you" rather than "it" as gender-neutral pronouns. I know there are arguments on either side, and I don't want to rehash them all; this is just IMHO. Cheers, and nice work, Homunq (࿓) 16:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Swiss gun control
Switzerland is frequently cited as having lax gun laws, especially by the pro gun lobby in America, but in fact it has quite strict gun laws both at the Federal and Canton level (though of course the latter vary). This was the purpose of my edit and I think it should stay. Most private guns must be registered, all owners licenced to their guns, insurance and training requirements, background checks on purchase, logging and validating of ammunition sales against certificates etc. etc. See my other edits today at other articles. We should not confuse gun control with gun ownership. Switzerland may have a fairly high private gun ownership rate (though not as high as for example Serbia) but this is partly due to its hunting tradition and the familiarity with guns through army service. The laws themselves are quite strict in Switzerland. Which I guess is in part the reason for its not having the same gun crime problem as the United States. It still has one of the highest gun death rates in Western Europe though. --HuntersMoon22 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Gun Shows in the United States
Thank you for your contributions to this page. Please share your thoughts on my new talk section, at your convenience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Separate_Gun_Show_and_Gun_Show_Loophole_Into_Two_Different_WP_Pages Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Notice of discretionary sanctions - topic: Gun control
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Lightbreather (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Gun show loophole talk page
I'm not sure if you'd prefer this kind of feedback on the article talk page, but it seems more civil to start here. I want to warn you about how you're talking to Darknipples on the Gun show loophole talk page. From the way DN writes his/her talk page posts (in this case, use of terms like "seems to be" and "suggest"), I think he/she is either one of the most sensitive male editors I've ever encountered on WP, or a woman. That shouldn't really matter, but I share my thinking on this in case you really only can imagine use of these terms as indicating an editor who's trying to present synthesis. However, of course, whatever his/her gender, it doesn't really matter, unless DN truly breaks a rule. Please WP:AGF and follow WP:TPYES. Responses like this one [1] by you are, IMO, probably ad hominem and certainly "Responding to tone" per WP:TPNO. Lightbreather (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"Incident"
Well, you and your goodfaithed friends must be more than cosy with the aficionados of bikes and crime, "sir".
(unsigned message by user AlterBerg (talk))
LDL
would you be willing to explain what I did wrong on the LDL talk page, I thought I hadn't deleted anything that was referenced thanks for recognising the good faith - pulls the sting quite a bit! please delete this message I just couldn't see how to IM you best wishes, Kate X-mass (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thanks for the info - a month on and my head is full of prep for Electro Magnetic Field 2014 https://www.emfcamp.org/ but hopefully I get back to but stuff in talk. But can I thank you again for taking the time to communicate, it helps this human feel much better about the world. Best wishes X-mass (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Edit I made to djbdns
Since, as the author of MaraDNS, I have a conflict of interest, I have notifying other editors that I have just made a minor neutral edit correcting a factual error. The article stated that there exists three forks of DJBdns; I know of at least five, so I changed the wording to “a number of”. Here is the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Djbdns&diff=622745383&oldid=614310840
My personal opinion is that N-DJBDNS is the best fork out there; yeah, it’s GPL, but it’s the only fork I know of that is current with all known security issues in DJBdns (which, of course, is very secure, with only five issues coming up in its 15 year of existence). Samboy (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Join WikiProject Microsoft!
It seems that you have been editing Microsoft-related articles, so why don't you consider joining WikiProject Microsoft, not to be confused with WikiProject Microsoft Windows. WikiProject Microsoft is a group of editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microsoft, its technologies, Web-based sites and applications, its important people, and share interests regarding Microsoft. This WikiProject is in the process of being revived and is welcoming any and all editors who are willing to help out with the process. Add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft/Participants and/or add the userbox {{User WikiProject Microsoft}}. Thanks! STJMLCC (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Sam Donaldson Talk Additions, and Edits
Dear Anastrophe:
Sorry you did not like, or could not use, the comments I left regarding Sam's career at ABC news. I was not trying to be conversational, merely letting you know my recollections. I actually liked him ... and was sorry to see him slip into the background as a news reporter. I tried to offer some reasons... Anyway, you might want to keep what I have written, on reserve, as a reference of sorts.
-- Best, J. G. Lewis (John G. Lewis (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC))
Old business
Hello, Anastrophe. I hope this post finds you well.
I would like to invite you to confer with me on the federal AWB talk page to finish up some old business that stalled some months ago. I believe we had nearly reached some agreement on the "Criteria of an assault weapon" section of that article. Our last discussion is archived at Compromise on cosmetic. Lightbreather (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
RSN notice
I have started a discussion at RSN called Gun show loophole that you may be interested in. Lightbreather (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
A favor, por favor
I can't initiate a Good Article reassessment of Gun violence in the United States because I'm not allowed to create the necessary page. Would you be able to do that for me? I think this is the link:[2], or there's one for "community reassessment" at the top of the talk page. Here's the reason I'm asking for a reassessment: (five tildes gives a timestamp).
- The article has not been reassessed since 2006 and there've been a lotta changes since then. Two big problems: the intro doesn't summarize the article, and it contains repetitive, non-neutral text. [[user:162.119.231.132]] ~~~~~
If it's a request you'd rather not fulfill I'll ask someone else next time I'm logged on here. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's more! After it's created it needs to be transluded:
- 3.Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number.
- That should be {{Talk:Gun violence in the United States/Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gun violence in the United States/2}}. I hope. This is more work than I thought. Sorry! All the more reason to blow it off. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Help
That's great! What kind words. So to confirm (please forgive my wiki-ignorance) -- I must cite all information on the page? Thank you again.
The first to be nominated! Babel, 2007.
FAC input
Hi! Would you be interested in commenting or reviewing my FAC for the article xx (album)? It's received one editor's comments but no follow-up yet, so anything would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom
Just curious if you're interested in this at all... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
if..., then... (IPv4)
The 'then' after an 'if' is really not required, and omitting it is quite common usage ("If you build it, they will come."). In some cases the 'then' sounds rather stuffy. I'd say it's probably close to 50/50 as to whether or not the 'then' is included. The comma is always required. There are a variety of examples of both forms in English conditional sentences, and a variety of easily findable discussions of the topic on the Internet. OTOH, I'm not going to belabor the point over at IPv4, although I do think it sounds stuffier with the 'then'. Rwessel (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
My edits were not opinion, except when they were a response to other opinions. The vast majority of my edits were factual (certainly not "counterfactual" as your edits allege). You are removing a cited quote from Hitler himself that affirms his gun control policy and its motivations, as well as quotes from Gandhi and John Locke, who both agree that tyrants such as Hitler are should be removed from power, through force if necessary, which requires the exercise of the right to bear arms, while you and Hitler are both aware of this, and you realize that this is the primary reason why Hitler prohibited all members of the so-called "subject races", the non-Germanic, non-Aryan peoples, the vast majority of humanity, from bearing arms. You have no right to silence all dissent on the basis of your opinion that all views and facts that contradict your imaginary reading of history are "counterfactual" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempus Loquendi (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Posts here will be archived after I read them.
ANEW
RE: Your comment that you may have broken 3RR at Nazi gun control theory: it did not appear so. You only had three reverts vs. the four needed for the rule to kick in. While most administrators would take in to consideration that the other editor's material was a bit beyond the pale, some are a little strict, so it may be a good idea to avoid further reverts there for 24 hours. Others seem to be watching. Kuru (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Anastrophe. 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)
Thank you
Thank you for your edit here [3] The evidence will show that she continues to direct via social media linked from other Wiki projects commons [4] at meta [5]. It is my hope he will accept a topic ban voluntarily the warning comes before the evidence Uninvolved users will be a great help with the clean up phase. again Thank you. J8079s (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC) see also WP:Duck
DC Crime page
Anastrophe, I see you updated the DC crime page graphic on homicide to 2015. I've updated several sections on that page and also the DC gun laws section, as well as DC gun laws page. But the graphic on homicide rates up to 2015 would really be better if it included the 2016 data since DC dropped t 18.5/100k and including 2016 be more accurate in showing a bump up in 2015 and then back down in 2016, as opposed to the very different thing of a trend reversal that the current chart shows. As I don't know how to make those charts and I see you put one in could you update it to current? Thanks!Explainador (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Anastrophe. 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)
ktvu + LG
all relevant sources. read and improve the article.
- 64.175.41.3 (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Intersectionality
Hello fellow editor, I added a comment on the talk page of Intersectionality that is responding to your last edit on that page. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear fellow editor: No, the correct grammar is "transports .... do not". The subject of the sentence must agree with the verb. The verb is "do", so the subject needs to be plural. You have to either (A) change the subject to agree with the verb or (B) change the verb to agree with the subject. Famspear (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mantoux test, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wheal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
IP Sock
Have you filed a sock puppet investigation for 86.180.213.19 and if not, what is the name of the banned account. IWI (chat) 20:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is a current discussion on the talk page of the IP, with the IP. IWI (chat) 20:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Anastrophe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Stanley Kubrick
I undid your revision on the SK article, sorry, I accidentally submited the edit without the full edit summary, which is why I am here to explain. "'massive' heart attack" simply doesn't sound unencyclopedic to me. 'Severe' seems like better wording. I've never heard the phrase "massive heart attack" before, perhaps it is more common in the USA? (I'm from New Zealand/UK and this wording isn't something someone would use here at all). I don't see any problem with "severe" though. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TI-class supertanker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sulzer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I restored the original citation and marked it as a dead link. The cited page is there, but it contains at least one dead link which I think is important. We are better off using the archived copy. - Tystnaden (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Reverts
Hi Anastrophe, the reason I added a note about the tragedy in Christchurch is because, earlier in that section a 2006 study was quoted as saying there have been no mass shootings in either Australia or New Zealand since 1996/1997. It's been 13 years since that study and that is no longer true. In fact, it wasn't even really true in 2006 since there was the Monash University shooting in 2002, in which 7 people were shot and 2 died. They used present tense in the paragraph. On the other hand, my edit I suppose amounts to original research. So I'm not sure what to do. Revoran (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
hi, you're invited to an RfC discussion regarding Bruno Bettelheim article
As a past contributor, you're invited to a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion on the article's lead sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
EL
about this revert[6] I had done the edit per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#External links however upon looking at [7] I see it isn't necessarily a support group, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Anastrophe/Archive 2010-2019,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 16:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Anastrophe/Archive 2010-2019,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Anastrophe/Archive 2010-2019,
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |