- 1 A welcome from Sango123
- 2 CVC
- 3 United States Senate Page
- 4 BSA
- 5 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 6 Presiding over the Senate
- 7 Special Rules
- 8 Blocking a nonregistered member
- 9 Striking your vote
- 10 WP:CITE
- 11 President pro tempore of the United States Senate
- 12 the Instant-runoff voting article.
- 13 Project Congress
- 14 Rollback
- 15 coconut doughnut
- 16 third opinion miliband
- 17 WikiProject Scouting elections
- 18 Reviewer granted
- 19 Invitation to join WikiProject United States
- 20 US National Archives collaboration
- 21 The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
- 22 I appreciate your support
- 23 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 24 Zakir Naik
- 25 List of Vita games - Playstation TV compatibility
- 26 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 27 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 28 Checking in
- 29 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Meamemg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
- Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- Simplified Ruleset
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Wikipedia Glossary
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)
as this week's WP:AID winner==
Davodd 17:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You are right, it is September for the CVC opening. I changed it back. I thought I read somewhere that it had been pushed back to December. Yesterday's Roll Call article correctly states September.--Daysleeper47 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I see you've been about the only editor trying to keep the article free of vandalism. I'll be happy to stick around and assist. (I'm probably off-net for a three days starting Tuesday, so you're on your own then.) John Broughton | Talk 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:Just curious, if VP Cheney were impeached and thus tried in the Senate? Am I correct, in assuming the president pro tempore (currentley: Robert Byrd), would preside over the Trial? GoodDay 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the Scouting WikiProject! I noticed your interest in the Boy Scouts of America. You may be interested in The Language of Scouting, the official BSA style guide- we us this as a supplement to the AP Stylebook. In the terms and style section is an entry on capitalization that should prove useful. Please let us know if you have any questions. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I replied to your question on my talk page. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
Presiding over the Senate
I saw your edit to President pro tempore of the United States Senate. You are correct that only majority-party senators currently preside. I suspect, however, that the anon who referred to senators of both parties presiding is thinking of the Senate of an earlier era; senators from both parties routinely took part in presiding until I believe the mid-1970's. I'm going to leave a note to the anon to this effect, though with dynamic IP's I don't know whether he or she will receive it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Recently, I registered, but I was the original author of the Special Rules article.
You made a made a change in it in November, but I recently changed it back. You changed a "Majority of the entire membership" to "majority vote." These are two different things. Majority vote is a majority of the votes cast. In an organization with 125 members, a vote of one in favor, no one against is a majority vote in RONR. For some things, like adopting special rules is a majority of the entire membership (or a 2/3 vote with notice) is needed. If the organization has 125 members, 63 yes votes are needed (RONR, pp. 17, 390-1) is needed.
I just wanted you to know that I changed your edit. Please feel free to chech on the RONR website or ask the question on that board if you'd like to verify it.
--J. J. in PA 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocking a nonregistered member
How do you block an unregistered member engaging in vandalism?
I have one on a page that I monitor.
J. J. in PA 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Where do I leave the formal warning; it's a living person's bio. Don Bailey.
He's not registered, so I can't talk with him.
J. J. in PA 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps this will stop it; I'm a little concerned because it is a living person biography.
J. J. in PA 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
A new post warning post from Lawprofessor. He is adding "sanctioned" comment again.
J. J. in PA 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Striking your vote
Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.
The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.
The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.
Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.
In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.
We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.
Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.
Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.
For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee
For the record, I don't think WP:BLP would regard an unsourced statment about a living person as "unharmful", but I'm glad you found a reliable source. Happy editing. Croctotheface 05:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've whitelised the specific url per your request, for President pro tempore of the United States Senate and have added the citation back. Thanks Meamemg. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
the Instant-runoff voting article.
Thanks for your comments on this article. All the issues in the RFC are about the introduction, which is a critical part of the article. One of the editors is COI on this, being a paid consultant to FairVote and, quite possibly -- the timing is perfect -- a "meat puppet" recruited by the Executive Director of FairVote. He was blocked for that, but because he is a published author in the field, and it seemed like he would behave reasonably, I helped restore his access. However, he must be understood as promoting a pro-IRV agenda. He's reasonably restrained in that. User:MilesAgain is an acknowledged sock who has been largely promoting the same agenda that was promoted and maintained in the article by the blocked sock puppets User:BenB4 and User:Acct4 and the IP editor who acknowledged being Rob Richie (which was also known by the IP). I don't know who MilesAgain actually is.... but the point is that these editors know that the introduction is very important, for many readers, where IRV is being promoted, will read the introduction and nothing else. So what is in the introduction should be spotlessly NPOV.
It's clear why they want the Robert's Rules "recommendation" there. In the past, I've added the balancing information to the introduction that is necessary to make it an NPOV report, and, of course, it was objected that this was too much information for the introduction. So ultimately the mention of Robert's Rules was moved to the interior of the article where the explanation could be complete. It seemed that it was settled, but MilesAgain put it back and has been edit warring over it, moving the language around, recommendation to advises to suggests and all of it ignoring the basic point: Robert's Rules actually criticizes IRV, specifically. There are other "preferential voting" methods which don't have the problem RR is concerned about.
The other issues are more subtle. The emphasis that the voter is casting a "single vote" has previously been acknowledged by a neutral editor as being totally unnecessary for the meaning, so why do they want it? It's because there is current legal controversy -- and actual lawsuit over this -- and FairVote is actively promoting the controversial position that IRV is only a "single vote." It's arguable, for sure, but promoting a controversial position in the introduction? Not okay! Again, detail is already there, the use of the term adds nothing except to promote a particular interpretation. And without source, to boot.
As to the explanation of the name, "Instant Runoff Voting" was invented by FairVote as a political tactic, this is well-known, and should actually be in the article, I'm trying to find reliable source for it. The method is actually a simulation from stated preferences of Exhaustive ballot, not Runoff voting, and it behaves very differently from Runoff voting as a result. Again, it's a complex issue. I'd be in favor of *history* on the invention of the name being in the intro; otherwise, it is essentially promoting a political intepretation.
FairVote developed these arguments and interpretations and has been promoting them for more than ten years. Many of the arguments are, indeed, quite subtle, I bought the "Robert's Rules recommends..." argument myself for over a year. Until I learned that I needed to look at FairVote arguments with a jaundiced eye. Anyway, thanks for your comment; I hope you will look at the other two components to the RFC and indicate your opinions there as well. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. JamieS93 20:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
third opinion miliband
WikiProject Scouting elections
You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.
Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.
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.
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
US National Archives collaboration
|United States National Archives WikiProject|
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your support
Thanks for noticing my corrective edit to the Title 18 (U.S. Code) page.
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) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I am surprised. The only edit I made was putting a word extremist. You can please google and figure out that Zakir Naik is banned throughout the developed and emerging non-islamic countries because of his extreme take on wahaabi islam. !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for responding. As mentioned as WP:BLP any potentially controversial statement in an article on a living person needs to be supported with high quality sources. So the requirement would be that we cite in the article the support for the claim, even if you can find it on google. Also, changes of this nature should be discussed on the articles talk page first, since other editors are likely to disagree with the change. This allows the community to come to a consensus on what should be included in the first sentence of the article. Happy editing! meamemg (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
List of Vita games - Playstation TV compatibility
Hello Meamemg, Thank you for your comments regarding my edit on the [] . I am new to wikipedia and created an account to help the list accurately reflect PSTV compatibility. I understand and respect the wikipedia rules for citing reliable sources.
I have a concern with the way the vast majority of Vita games are by default listed as non-compatible with the PSTV (default is "no") I think "unknown" would be a better alternative by default.
- @FSSimon: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm glad you decided to join us and contribute. In cases where it says "Yes" or "No" without a source, I think it would be fine to change it to unknown. It looks like all of the entries have some sort of source in the last column, so just make sure you check that the source listed does not indicate one way or the other before making that change. However, you may want to bring this up on the article's Talk Page , since that is where other editors will look for discussions about the article's content, and other editors may feel differently about this than I do. Happy Editing! meamemg (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
I noticed you reverted an edit of mine on the Executive Schedule article. I'm not particularly familiar with the subject of the article, so I don't doubt that you're correct that the military's senior flag officers go by a different pay schedule. However, what led me to believe otherwise was the first footnote in this ref from the CJCS article in the rank section. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention in case the statement on the CJCS article had to be changed. Ergo Sum 04:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. These positions are "limited by" the executive schedule, but do not have their pay set by it. At the top of the executive schedule article is a note that "The Executive Schedule is linked to the rates of pay for...uniformed military personnel, because various federal laws establishing those pay systems normally tie the maximum amount payable to various levels of the Executive Schedule," which is what is going on in this case. meamemg (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)