- 1 Everything to date now archived
- 2 Ross University School of Medicine
- 3 Xanth?
- 4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
- 5 2015 Azarenka page
- 6 Talk: Cultural Marxism, deleted comments
- 7 29th Melbourne Meetup
- 8 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 9 Richard Dawkins
- 10 Cultural Marxism
- 11 Extended confirmed protection
- 12 Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
- 13 A new user right for New Page Patrollers
- 14 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 15 Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
- 16 Merging into Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations instead of AfD
- 17 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 18 Melbourne Wikimeetup (June/July)
Everything to date now archived
Ross University School of Medicine
I'm not sure if this is a canvassing violation, but I'd sure appreciate it if you could voice your opinion / kick in over at the title article. All of my relatively conservative edits to reduce the NPOV problem have been summarily reverted by an IP editor, and the WP:SPA editor who brought the request for protection seems very resistant to making any substantative changes as well.
I hate to see this kind of thing on Wikipedia. But the subject of this article is outside my usual interests, and given the determined opposition, getting this article to a point where it is not an embarrassment is likely to be a lot more work to do on my own than I really want to commit to. Having a second voice would be appreciated if the rules permit this request. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'll have another look at it tomorrow. It's outside my usual interests as well, though I do know a bit about universities in a general way. Maybe I can at least make a supportive note on the article's talk page. I don't see this as canvassing in any forbidden way, especially given where the discussion started. Metamagician3000 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I find your username amusing. Did you derive it from Piers Anthony's Xanth books? I'm particularly interested because I suggested the term "metamagic" and its definition to him in a fan letter. (Acknowledgements, Question Quest.) --Thnidu (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, afraid not. One source was the 1985 Douglas Hofstadter book, Metamagical Themas - but more in the foreground at the time was someone else's discussion of metamagical thinking that I'd read. I think it might have been something by Robert Sapolsky, but it's quite a while ago now. I really should go back and check... Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- And a further check of my shelves finds that the relevant discussion was, indeed, by Sapolsky. It's in his book Junk Food Monkeys, also published as The Trouble with Testosterone. I just left a note on the talk page for the Sapolsky article that these seem to be two names for (different editions of) the same book. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about that - it wasn't meant to be two !votes. I've never been sure whether we're supposed to confirm/update positions from before a case being relisted. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
2015 Azarenka page
Yes I have. You can safely delete it, but if somehow Victoria Azarenka does return to form in 2015 (something I doubt given her injury woes in 2015) then I can reinstate it. MasterMind5991 (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Talk: Cultural Marxism, deleted comments
I believe you've deleted some of my comments during your archiving of talk:Cultural Marxism. This is against Wikipedia policy, so please fix this questionable error immediately. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for letting me know. As you'll see if you look near the top of the talk page, I noted that it was possible to make a mistake and inadvertently delete something. I gave something of an apology for that in advance. I asked if someone could check that I hadn't failed to archive something. There was a lot of material, not all of it in order, and like everyone else I'm doing my best in my spare time, so it's easy to make a mistake.
- So, my apologies to you in particular. It's all in the history, though, so it's fairly easily rectified. Go ahead and copy the missing material into the relevant part of the archive by all means. Or if you need help I'll be happy to do it for you. But could you tell me the approximate date of the material to make it a bit easier? Best wishes, Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for sounding suspicious but what with the political interest in that page there's been some strange goings on. It will probably be easier if ,as you suggest, I fix it myself (as there's probably more motivation on my part to do so). Thank you for you courteous and prompt reply. Sincerely --126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
29th Melbourne Meetup
Hello, you have previously indicated that you would be interested in attending Melbourne meetups. A meetup will be held on Wednesday August 12, 2015 6-8pm. Please check out Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 29 for details and add your name to the list if you think you can attend. --Michael Billington (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Michael. I no longer live in Melbourne, but the contact from you is appreciated. Metamagician3000 (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you help to improve this article over the years via X!'s editcount tool. I have worked on the citations over the past few months and I am nearing the end of what else I can see to do to improve it. Please consider nominating this article for Featured Article status or at least for another peer review. Thanks.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I see you're not that active currently here, but I came across your contributions to the AFD on this, having recently found myself somewhat bemused to discover how WP deals with this phrase. What you've left up on your user page happens to tally pretty much exactly with what I've thought (and said, in the latest flare-up) about this. I'm not sure what solution there is to this that won't involve inordinate amount of discussion, a pile-on by people looking to debate modern-day US politics in great detail, and probably as unsatisfactory an outcome as last time, but the status quo seems nuts to me, for want of a better description. It doesn't tell anyone much about the origins of the concept – which surely warrants a standalone page focusing on its usage as found in most academic writing, before turning to discuss (factually, not by way of debate) its adoption as a polemical, pejorative term – and leaves the Frankfurt School page stuffed full of tangential commentary by and about some fairly marginal right-wing US figures. N-HH talk/edits 13:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, I agree. I gave up on trying to make any contribution to this on-Wiki debate as it was just too politicized and difficult (and burning up my time and energy for no gain). I did write some stuff in my own name on the Cogito blog hosted by The Conversation, if you're interested (the link will take you to Part 1 and there's a further link to Part 2), but I don't think there's much current prospect of getting Wikipedia to handle this topic well or fairly. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
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
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.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
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.
- NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
- Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
- 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.
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Merging into Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations instead of AfD
- I'm traveling at the moment, so better if you ask another admin to handle this. I take it, from a quick glance at the page, that you mean the consensus was to oppose merger. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Melbourne Wikimeetup (June/July)
|Melbourne Meetup |
Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)
Hi, I've just made a doodle poll to vote on the best date for the next Wikimeetup in Melbourne (Beer Deluxe, Fed Square). Would be great to see you there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Date of next Melbourne meetup decided:
- When: 6-8pm, Sunday 8 July 2018
- Where: Beer DeLuxe, Flinders St