User talk:Killiondude

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


Hello there: Pep Guardiola[edit]

Hello there. I am an American, a park ranger who lives in Alaska. This User:Walter Görlitz user, as you know, does not take kind to any editing on projects which he considers his. I've attempted to add useful information-- being interested in language and geography-- only to have been take things out and quite nastily. I've pressed on with him, because with regard to Talk:Pep Guardiola, as you'll see, I do not believe he's answered the question as to why accurate and encyclopedic information should be removed. He could have a reason, he just doesn't seem to think that responding on the matter at hand with regard to this article is ... necessarily. I'm wondering if you have any advice. He seems to think I'm a Catalan nationalist. Yeah. No. I'm a park ranger from Alaska. I'm an American. No Spanish or Catalan background. It's very confusing to me. I've worked on controversial topics. This isn't one of them.RangerRichard (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't read all the text on the talk page because there is a lot. I did some skimming and you make a good argument to include that specific information. Also, just because there is "precedent" on articles doesn't mean all articles on a given topic must be uniform in content/aesthetics, etc. For example, look at Good Articles or Featured Articles and you'll see that they vary based on the main author(s) and the team that does the review of the article in the GA/FA process. With this specific editor in mind, you've shown a lot of patience. I commend you on that. He's not easy to work with, and when you call him on it he deflects and refers to "comment on content, not on the contributor". While this is indeed a policy, so is working well with others, which he struggles with.
While not easy, I think it's important to take the high road. In this case, you might comment on the relevant WikiProject talk pages to ask for more thoughts/input to gain consensus. While this obviously takes more time and discussion, it won't allow him to unilaterally revert edits. Killiondude (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello again. I feel as if I'm telling tales out of school, but I recently found this on my talk page as a result of what I wrote to you. Again, I don't know what do. But this is how I responded. Is such a thing a basis for being block?

Recent Notice on my User Page[edit]

November 2014[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Killiondude. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stating that I consider any article on Wikipedia "mine" is a vile notion. Don't do it again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Walter, I alerted you to a thank you I received from someone unknown to me, an admin. I have no idea why he contacted me, except apparently he say something on your page which I wrote. I think I explained to him the crux our disagreement on Pep Guardiola, which centers around your insistence on putative "consistency," and my suggestion that geographic data in infoboxes be based on the specific needs of the article in question. This is not an attack on you. It's an explanation of the struggle that we are having, and frankly, given the many controversial topics I have worked on, I am at a loss to understand why this, of all things, is something where I am unable to work with you in a constructive way. You do very much have a proprietary notion about articles important to you. I never used the word "vile" or anything akin to that to describe you or my belief that this is the case, so please do not put words in my mouth. What's astounding to me is that continue to use the imperative mood, rather than to make reasonable requests, and to explain the basis of your requests to me. Without engaging in such explanations, and dealing with people in such a way, I cannot move forward with you and we will remain at an impasse. Do understand, however, that while confronting other people in the past may have run them off, and you may have simply gotten your way, I will continue to press diligently forward with what I believe to be a reasonable perspective to which you have offered no response with regard to the individual article in question. I don't mean to say that I cannot be convinced that you are right, I simply mean to say that you have not addressed the geographic needs of *this article* in any meaningful and thoughtful way, expect by means of "suggested" guidelines which as you well know are not followed in a myriad of circumstances. RangerRichard (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How tedious. In any case, it seems you copied some off topic discussion to the article talk page. What's best is to focus on the content (what goes on the actual article) and not on the motivation behind the editor in question's actions. I understand that you probably didn't know this wasn't apropos. I think an appropriate goal would be to allow the editor the space to do right, otherwise they'll have plenty of rope. Killiondude (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Former Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe[edit]

I re-created this category which i understand you deleted some years ago. I think that there is now enough material there to warrant its re-creation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I had only deleted it before because it was empty. You're were completely fine to recreate it once it was populated. Thank you for the note. Have a great day. Killiondude (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


An editor named John from Idegon questioned my use of that account, so I retired it never to be used again.The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

I've escaped to your talk page because mine is too long[edit]

But really. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]


I need you to provide me a copy of the deleted article on Cloverton (band), so I can see what was done on that article previously. Their new Christmas EP charted on three Billboard charts.The Cross Bearer (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

They're definitely notable now. It seems you have it at User:The Cross Bearer/Cloverton (band). Killiondude (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]


The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit][edit]

(This section is a repost from User Mitchumch (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: The following FAQ appears on the FAQs page for the pageviews statistics tool

Are redirects included in the data for a specific article?
No. One would need to look up each redirect's hit statistics.

In light of this FAQ, do you still think the statement, "The results do not tell us what people search for, only what pages they end up on ..." is true?

Mitchumch (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course. That hit counter is primarily telling us what people get to via links; it has nothing intrinsically to do with searches.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Killiondude: @Henrik:
I am trying to resolve the above disagreement. As can be read, I referred to the FAQs page to resolve this disagreement. However, the disagreement remains. I was hoping the maintainers of this tool could state if either understanding is correct or incorrect. This disagreement is rooted in the following statement written by me (Mitchumch),
"The article "Movements for civil rights" has been viewed on average 205 times per day as of March 23, 2015. This article has three terms that serve as redirects to it. Those redirect terms are "Civil rights movements," "Rights movement," and "Civil rights in the United States." The term "Civil rights movements" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. The term "Rights movement" contributes an average of 0.4 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. The term "Civil rights in the United States" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. Of the four terms that directs users and readers to this page, the term "Movements for civil rights" is particularly recognizable. The term "Movements for civil rights" is a phrase many search for. The term "Civil rights movements" is a phrase many do not search for."
Thank you for your assistance. Mitchumch (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Mitchumch, the counts are for what URL is in the address bar. It doesn't matter how they got to the page (via Wikipedia's internal search or via an external search engine). What matters is which link they clicked to get to the target. With that in mind, your statements, including that Movements for civil rights is the most searched for, seem to be reasonable. I apologize for not responding sooner. I saw your ping, and then I forgot about replying. Killiondude (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I want to review your response to ensure that I understand it as you intended.
Does not count
  • Search suggestions that display in Wikipedia's internal search engine
  • Web "Links" on external search engine pages
Does count
  • URL address for article or namespace pages
I am confused. How are terms that serve as redirects counted if that pages URL address is never displayed to the editor or reader?
Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I went to gather test cases to show you, but things have changed over the years. It seems that MediaWiki now automatically changes the URL in the address bar. I used to be able to visit Sacramento, CA with that title in the URL but it's now swapped to the target Sacramento, California. Due to that, I'm not sure anymore how this works. MZMcBride, do you know anything about this? Or can you poke around? Is it just anytime the (Redirected from x) appears? Killiondude (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, hello. We're using JavaScript to do that URL updating/fixing/rewriting. You can blame or thank Matma Rex. Stats, damned lies, &c. Hope that helps. Cheers! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Matma Rex: How are terms that serve as redirects counted if that pages URL address is never displayed to the editor or reader? Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how counts redirects, I don't run it. The user's browser still sends a request for the "original" URL, not the "fixed" one, so they are presumably handled exactly how they were handled before this feature was introduced. (Of course, if a user refreshes the page or bookmarks it or copies the URL to give someone else, then the "fixed" URL is used.) Matma Rex talk 10:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]


Hi, Killiondude. You deleted File:Manspreading.png as a copyvio on Commons yesterday. Could you tell me who uploaded it and when, please? I can't see that stuff as I'm not an admin on Commons. The file has been used for trolling on Manspreading, and I'd like to know if it was the same user that uploaded it. Bishonen | talk 16:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC).

Hi Bish, it was uploaded by The Great Corrector (talk · contribs). It was uploaded at 03:35, 16 April 2015. Killiondude (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Aha, I thought it might have been. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 27 May 2015[edit] is "stuck"?[edit]

hello; seems to be "stuck" @ 2015-05-23, in that no statistics newer than that date are showing up; at least for wp/en. unfortunately, i haven't time to field-test more wikis just now (my apologies).

no idea if the problem is with the site/tool there, or something further "upstream"; but i hope it gets put back online soon; it's a very important & useful tool!

best regards & much luck in fixing it,

Lx 121 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Same issue in German WP. Henrik seems to be offline since 2014 August. Maybe you can help. Thanks. --Partynia (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-03-11[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-03-11, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-03-11 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-03-11 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 10:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 12 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 19 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 02 September 2015[edit]

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list[edit]

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 16 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 23 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 30 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 07 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 21 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 28 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 16 December 2015[edit]

Merry Christmas and happy new year[edit]

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:


That's a nice collection of pictures. Thanks for the well wishes. :) Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016[edit]

Can you help me ?[edit]

It seems like you are the only one that I can talk to here I asked the model manager to put CC0 Public Domain Free for commercial use No attribution required For the pictures I'm trying to upload

Here is the link

Here is the link

Haroonazizi (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Haroonazizi (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Haroonazizi. I'm not quite sure what you're asking me to do. Has it been released by the copyright holder? If so, it needs to go to OTRS. Something like Killiondude (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

A page you started (Joseph Son) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Joseph Son, Killiondude!

Wikipedia editor RexPatricius just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Disambiguation appears to be complete.

To reply, leave a comment on RexPatricius's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Killiondude. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Killiondude.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is serious business[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Wikipedia:Wikipedia is serious business, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is serious business (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is serious business during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pikachu RP25 18:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Killiondude. 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)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 22 December 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

Daily fail[edit]

Hello. I wonder whether you want to undelete Daily fail. Another redirect Daily Fail was created. --George Ho (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not particularly. You can recreate it if you want. Killiondude (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Daily Wail[edit]

Hello again. Three years after deletion per RfD nom, someone re-created the page Daily Wail as a redirect to Daily Mail. I wonder whether you can undelete previous revisions of the page. Thank you. –George Ho (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to. There were two edits: one to create and one to put up for RfD. Killiondude (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2017[edit]


I demand a refund. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, madame? How may I assist you? President Bartlet is going to tell the country he has MS. Things are tense. Killiondude (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Two Cathedrals?! --MZMcBride (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Just finished the episode prior. I now know to be mentally prepared for the next. Killiondude (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I started that article (such that it was) back when the English Wikipedia had spoiler warnings. Nowadays Killiondude just blurts them out on his talk page without warning! --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Ha. There's no assertion of notability there! Killiondude (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Merging edit history of Alfa Romeo Tipo 103[edit]

Hi Killiondude, thanks for the question. I am happy to follow whatever the wikipedia best practice is for edit histories. From what I've read editors are discouraged from doing what I just did; a big cut/paste edit. I like to work in my sandbox when making many changes but don't know how to merge the histories myself. If you could point me to a reference that explains it that would be appreciated. I have edited articles in articlespace and after making many often minor changes I have sometimes felt that the history is getting cluttered up, but I recognize that having the entire history there makes reverting any one change easier. Kumboloi (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey there Kumboloi. I haven't been actively editing in the last several years, but yes, big cut/paste edits are somewhat frowned upon. However, like I mentioned, since you were the only contributor to the page it should be fine in terms of attribution. Administrators have to do history merging, and I happen to be one! Just let me know what you'd like. Killiondude (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Killiondude, I am okay with it being left as one big edit, without merging the edit history from the sandbox. If this situation comes up in the future, how could I request a merge of the history? Thanks again. Kumboloi (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. You can use Template:Histmerge or Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. You seem like a very sane and nice person. Thank you for adding to Wikipedia. If you ever need help, let me know. Killiondude (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 6 September 2017[edit]

Invitation to Admin confidence survey[edit]


Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 23 October 2017[edit]