- 1 You are now a Reviewer
- 2 PBSKIDS
- 3 ZOOM
- 4 Orphaned non-free image File:Manoa-seal2.jpg
- 5 Talkback
- 6 iCarly
- 7 Vandalism at University of Hawaii and University of Hawaii Manoa Articles
- 8 Hawaii edit-a-thon!
- 9 Looking for editors to help with an Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in Honolulu
- 10 Worldwide Pants... Are they still in business
- 11 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 12 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 13 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
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.
- When you split the articles out, you did not follow the directions on WP:SPLIT, which requires a message in the edit summary stating that the article was split from the original article. A message at the article where the material originated is also needed to state where the information went to. This is REQUIRED for legal reasons. The edits I did to the Zoom page were to satisfy this legal requirement. Please be more careful next time you split an article out; it'll save other editors a lot of trouble and prevent a lawsuit for the Wikimedia Foundation. Thank you, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Manoa-seal2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Manoa-seal2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Esrever (klaT) 19:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The CU was declined as stale, but if the patrolling case clerk admin doesn't think enough of the behavioural evidence provided to block, please consider going to ANI with this info. I am strongly of the opinion people like him who cannot co-operate with others in a cordial manner and refuse to abide by policy, instead dismissing them, do not deserve editing privileges. StrPby (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Need your help now to file an SPI to record this, I'm currently indispensable as I'm in the midst of expanding an article. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies, I can't file an SPI right now--I'm very busy at work, trying to meet a crucial accounting deadline for this upcoming Tuesday. I might be able to assist next week? Thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't request it... see → User talk:LessHeard vanU#Foxhound66 is back, again ←. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I know you voted to keep the show's second and third seasons merged as one season due to them all coming from the same production season despite all of the evidence I provided to defend the case seeing as though you apparently read everything. I've been having a hard time with the main three opposers (Kevinbrogers, AussieLegend, and Alec2011) trying to understand this. They don't want the fact that there are two season cycles existing and are trying to get around everything I provide in defense of that so that there's only one, and it follows by the production cycle. But I was wondering if you could have a second thought about all of this by examining my evidence again since I don't think you examined it clearly on the Talk Page. You had a whole bunch of discussion to absorb into your head from both sides, but below are links that support my defense and it's all you have to worry about absorbing now. It's all of the evidence supporting the broadcast split I provided on the talk page including new evidence (after you left) that indicate that a broadcast split did happen with the Season 2 production episodes airing as two separate seasons:
- Nathan's interview:  (August 2009)
- Dan's blog:  (September 2009)
- Another Dan's blog where he indicates that "iThink They Kissed" was the airing S3 premiere:  (October 2009)
- This is something I recently came across. This is one Nathan video where he talks about the difference between the two cycles: . Here he tells the interviewer that they were taking a hiatus from shooting new episodes (after spending time filming episodes from April 2008 to August 2009), but within a few months time were going to do their third season of filming, which was going to be their fourth season in airing. He says all of this around the 2:00 minute mark. (October 2009)
- Another Nathan video interview where the interviewer call the upcoming Season 4 (2010-11) as such and Nathan doesn't correct him if there wasn't a split:  (April 2010)
- Another Nathan video interview where the interviewers call Season 5 (2011-12 ) as such and Nathan doesn't correct them if they were wrong:  (May 2011)
- A Nick press release listing all 2xx coded episodes from the iLove Carly Collection being from Season 2 and Season 3:  (May 2011)
- A third Dan blog where he states that each time there's a new season there's a new opening credits. Since he stated in the first blog that the network was calling the remaining Season 2 production episodes the show's "third season" he made a new opening for those episodes:  (August 2011)
- The tweet from Miranda Cosgrove calling it Season 6:  (January 2012)
- A tweet from some music company on One Direction guest-appearing on iCarly Season 6: 
So yeah, that's everything I could gather up and it's all pretty useful, especially the couple of Nathan interviews where he talks about it. Aussie tried throwing those out because he's a cast member and thinks he doesn't or shouldn't know anything about the show regarding it's seasons. I'm pretty sure think that's something they should know since they're around the creator and the production team all the time when they're filming episodes. Dan's blog is useful to where he talks about it. Don't be confused on behalf of what Kevinbrogers said. He wasn't sure on when the broadcast Season 3 was going to be begin airing out of the Season 2 production episodes, not if the filming season itself was going to be split. That was just another one of Kevinbrogers' ways of trying to get around things to again, indicate his personal insight on there only being one season cycle. It's the use of one labeling after another that's created a whole issue on Wikipedia and the discussion there is still being open about it. So while the next season is the actual Season 5, it's not going to air that way because of the situation of how the Season 2 episodes were aired out, affecting the airing label of the other seasons apart from it's production label. The number coding will always reflect upon the real season number of a season, but it's airing number will always be different. Feel free to give me your feedback if you wish. Are you still having confusion or concerns or is everything cleared with you now? - Jabrona - 21:16, 19 February 2012
Vandalism at University of Hawaii and University of Hawaii Manoa Articles
- Aloha Aoi, I hope that you noticed my contributions at both pages, helping to deal with the vandalism that occurred, and found them constructive. As a result of this incident, I have recently requested rollback, in case I encounter a situation like this in the future so that I can deal with it better. If you found my contributions helpful to this end, I would appreciate if you could vouch for what I did at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Dalisays if you have time. Thanks for any consideration. Dalisays (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I'm interested in attempting to put together an edit-a-thon for Hawaiian cultural topics something during the Makahiki festival perhaps around the month of November. The hope is that our lackluster coverage of Hawaiian mythology could be improved with help from the Bishop Museum, Hawaii Pacific University, and the Honolulu public library. I am in the process of making initial contacts with these organizations as well as Wikimedia DC's GLAM project. If this sounds like something you might be interested in participating in, or perhaps helping to coordinate, could you please add your name to 2014 Makahiki Edit-a-thon?--v/r - TP 07:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Looking for editors to help with an Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in Honolulu
Last summer I moved to the Seattle area after 14 years in Kailua on Oahu. I immediately fell in with the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group as it formed, joined its board and became its first president as well as the GLAM representative for Washington State.
Recently, Adriel Luis, Curator (Digital & Emerging Media) at the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, contacted me about setting up an edit-a-thon like the previous Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon. In addition to discussing one for Seattle, he wrote:
|“||It's awesome to learn about your past in Honolulu - I'm actually going to be there for another SmithsonianAPA project mid September, and thinking that this could be an opportunity to do an event there as well! I have lots of contacts with UH and the museums, but do you know of any contacts on the Wikimedia side out there?||”|
As I was working two jobs while I lived on Oahu, I did not have the opportunity to meet your or any other Wikipedians at the time. Hence, the reason why I am contacting you now.
If you would like to help, please contact me through one of these methods:
- Email me directly at email@example.com
- Use Special:EmailUser/Peaceray to email me
- Leave a message for me on my talk page.
Worldwide Pants... Are they still in business
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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)