User talk:Sarrus/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sarrus. 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. |
| Archive 1 |
Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Huh?
I'm going to flag the article, St. Vincent Year 6 (2009/10), for speedy deletion. Is that okay with you? Thanks. Endofskull (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem :-).
- Sarrus (Danish talkpage) - 16:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks for replying. :) Endofskull (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't I reply? :-).
- Sarrus (Danish talkpage) - 16:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't I reply? :-).
Holcim Awards for Sustainable Construction
Hey there, thanks for your your help on this entry. I have tried to now adapt it to the wiki style and just wanted your feedback on the current page.
Cheers and thanks!
mebu83 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebu83 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Feedback about what?
- Sarrus (Danish talkpage) - 17:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The article Gert Andersen has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
hey
thanks for editing the wikipedia page of QCPU. this is my first article here. so its kindda hard for me to identify the mistakes of my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodbriansantos06 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou
I was in two minds about leaving you are warning for reverting my both of my edits, it was kind of lazy to assume both were bad, one was a huge mistake. Quite insulting you leave me a generic message suggesting I'm new and have no exp in editing too. You rolled back two edits on History of Hollyoaks, please can you restor my edit before that one please. (If you had asked though, my brower froze, I've been working on the article without saving for twenty minutes, not only did I wipe the page when my browswer froze, I ridded of atleast two paragraphs of fresh content that was going to be added.) So if you could restore the other, I'd be greatful. Happy editing. :)RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 16:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- You can just go to the article's history and then click the date/time link, click the edit tab, write an appropriate edit summary and then click the save button :-). To me it looked like vandalism. It's just a positive thing if it wasn't :-).
- Sarrus (Danish talkpage) - 16:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)- I know I've done it. Plus I know how hard it is to judge, most blanks like that do come from problamtic editors, that's my first dosey edit I've ever made and that article's like my pet project. I tried to do a manual revert quick, because I knew a rollback would take both my edits out, but you were super fast with twinkle lol.RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 17:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is there still something you want me to do?
- Sarrus (c • t) 17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is there still something you want me to do?
- I know I've done it. Plus I know how hard it is to judge, most blanks like that do come from problamtic editors, that's my first dosey edit I've ever made and that article's like my pet project. I tried to do a manual revert quick, because I knew a rollback would take both my edits out, but you were super fast with twinkle lol.RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 17:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Rollback and reviewer granted
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. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I have granted you the reviewer right as well; please see Wikipedia:Reviewing and Help:Pending changes for more information. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then I have to check out what the "review" right does/is... :-)
- Sarrus (c • t) 14:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then I have to check out what the "review" right does/is... :-)
I've taken your tag off the talk page - it'll go with the article when that sinks. Talk pages are not deleted unless they are standing alone with no support, in which case use {{db-talk}}. (There has to be somewhere for the author to rant about how badly Wikipedia is treating him by daring to suggest deleting his pride and joy.) Cheers! Peridon (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's just not a usably content. In dawiki I probably had deleted it as "Fejloprettelse" (fault creation).
- Sarrus (c • t) 17:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)- If it's promotional or attacking, I remove the contents. Otherwise, we just leave talk pages alone. Especially if the article is 100% certain for deletion. I've not been on the Danish Wikipedia (yet...). The Norwegian and a few others, I have edited on. Not deeply enough to work out the deletion templates, though. (I added references to an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia. I went there to get references for an article here, found they hadn't got any either - so I found some and added to both...) Peridon (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, reviewer seems to mean you can accept or reject edits be IPs and new accounts on certain articles that have restricted editing. I'm a reviewer, but I've only used it two or three times so far. There's a list somewhere of edits for review, but I can't remember where - and there seems to be a number of editors who patrol it anyway. I just get the odd one that I find on New Accounts. Peridon (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't found out yet, what the reviewer right is. Do you know if it is verification og just to check that it's not vandalism? I was given the reviewer right, when I asked for rollback. In dawiki we don't delete talkpages when we delete articles, which it looks like you do here.
- Sarrus (c • t) 18:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)- As I said - some articles have restrictions on editing from new or anonymous users. Reviewers can say yes or no to the edits made by these users on the articles that are restricted. You may not have this on dawiki. The articles are ones where there is a lot of vandalism or such. When you look at the History, there's a colour difference where review is needed. You either undo or click something that gives the OK. I can't remember where it is - I just work it out as I go. I think that as reviewers we may be seeing the article with the change, but other people won't see the change until it has been accepted. (If it's rejected, they won't see it anyway.) You may never need to use it, depending on what you do here. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- We don't have the review right in dawiki. We have a patrol right which is given to administrators and a usergroup called "patruljanter" (patrollers). When users without the autopatrol right (Administrators, patrollers and "autopatruljerede" (autopatrollers)) make an edit there's coming red !'s in recent changes and watchlisted when seen by administrators and patroller. What I do a enwiki you can see at Special:Contributions/Sarrus :-).
When you talk about restricted pages you don't talk abourt protected pages (which administrators (de)activate), do you?
- Sarrus (c • t) 18:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)- Something like that - or semi-protected. Here we don't have patroller as a status. It's just something you do. I would think the reviewer right = patroller on dawiki, but only applying to the certain pages. Peridon (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- In dawiki it's also possible to patrol without patrol rights, but if you have you can press a buttoms telling other users with patrol rights that the article is checked and doesn't need further check. In recent changes, watch lists and New pages list you can choose to see only unpatrolled edits.
- Sarrus (c • t) 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- In dawiki it's also possible to patrol without patrol rights, but if you have you can press a buttoms telling other users with patrol rights that the article is checked and doesn't need further check. In recent changes, watch lists and New pages list you can choose to see only unpatrolled edits.
- Something like that - or semi-protected. Here we don't have patroller as a status. It's just something you do. I would think the reviewer right = patroller on dawiki, but only applying to the certain pages. Peridon (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- We don't have the review right in dawiki. We have a patrol right which is given to administrators and a usergroup called "patruljanter" (patrollers). When users without the autopatrol right (Administrators, patrollers and "autopatruljerede" (autopatrollers)) make an edit there's coming red !'s in recent changes and watchlisted when seen by administrators and patroller. What I do a enwiki you can see at Special:Contributions/Sarrus :-).
- As I said - some articles have restrictions on editing from new or anonymous users. Reviewers can say yes or no to the edits made by these users on the articles that are restricted. You may not have this on dawiki. The articles are ones where there is a lot of vandalism or such. When you look at the History, there's a colour difference where review is needed. You either undo or click something that gives the OK. I can't remember where it is - I just work it out as I go. I think that as reviewers we may be seeing the article with the change, but other people won't see the change until it has been accepted. (If it's rejected, they won't see it anyway.) You may never need to use it, depending on what you do here. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't found out yet, what the reviewer right is. Do you know if it is verification og just to check that it's not vandalism? I was given the reviewer right, when I asked for rollback. In dawiki we don't delete talkpages when we delete articles, which it looks like you do here.
- There's a thing like that here - but I've never found how or what. I operate without any of the tools (Twinkle, Huggle, rollback and so on). I find the stuff the others miss, and work in Articles for Deletion too. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, reviewer seems to mean you can accept or reject edits be IPs and new accounts on certain articles that have restricted editing. I'm a reviewer, but I've only used it two or three times so far. There's a list somewhere of edits for review, but I can't remember where - and there seems to be a number of editors who patrol it anyway. I just get the odd one that I find on New Accounts. Peridon (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- If it's promotional or attacking, I remove the contents. Otherwise, we just leave talk pages alone. Especially if the article is 100% certain for deletion. I've not been on the Danish Wikipedia (yet...). The Norwegian and a few others, I have edited on. Not deeply enough to work out the deletion templates, though. (I added references to an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia. I went there to get references for an article here, found they hadn't got any either - so I found some and added to both...) Peridon (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The article Ana Razdorov-Lyø has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- in significant
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Paganpan (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
 |
The Pack of Wolves Award | |
| Thanks for fixing my page Jab843 (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
- Well, vandalism has to be reverted :-).
- Sarrus (c • t) 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The article 2013 World Men's Handball Championship has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- WP:CRYSTAL, no confirmed info.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
November 2010
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to review and accept obvious vandalism edits to articles, as you did at Suicide Silence with this acception, your reviewing purpose may be permantly revoked. GunMetal Angel 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please relax. Is one single mistake really enough to threaten to revoke reviewer rights? Couldn't you have said it in a more polite way? I do know there are differences among Wikimedia projects when it comes to norms and policies, but in dawiki (where I have been a sysop since February 2009 and thus both can grant and revoke patroller flag) we don't threaten patrollers with revoking their patroller flag after one single mistake! Not even the first warnings to vandals (here on enwiki) contain threats of blocking!
- Sarrus (c • t) 09:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Why? :(?
Why can't mr awesome 68.209.140.102 vandalize wiki? - - 68.209.140.102 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.140.102 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Vandalism is not permitted.
- Sarrus (c • t) 15:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
From User:Colombia678
Hi,
I want to upload a picture for the "casa tia" article but I can't, could you do it? Colombia678 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Colombia678Colombia678 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- The reason why you can't upload is probably that you are too new. In other words: You will get the upload right when you are getting an autoconfirmed user. But if you upload it to Commons, that is our media archive for all Wikimedia projects, you can upload files immediately. I don't have the picture you want to upload so that's not possible. Please feel free to ask if you have more questions.
- Sarrus (c • t) 17:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patroll
Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. I see you started using AWB today for patrolling new pages. As quality and accuracy of patrolling are far more important than speed, could you please be sure that you are only applying relevant tags, and edit summaries. Tagging articles is not 'cleaning up', and there is no purpose in tagging one-line stubs for Wikifying. You may find that AWB makes your work quicker, but it makes work for those of us who have to check your work and remove the tags again. Please see the newly updated page WP:NPP to see what patrollers at en.Wiki should be doing. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you look here I have not marked then as patrolled. As far as I remember I mostly (if not only) did edit if there were no categories. It then also added other tags. But AWB automatically adds in the edit summary what it does of changes when doing this. Except the "cleaning up", however.
- Sarrus (c • t) 14:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Joan Miró
Hello! I've seen on you Userpage that you speak dannish and I would like to ask you for some help: The Wikipedia in Catalan have reached an agreement with the Joan Miró Foundation: They will include QRpedia codes next to the highlights of his upcoming exhibition about Joan Miró. It's the most important exhibit in the last 20 years, and has passed summer at Tate in London, this autumn will be in Barcelona, and then will go to National Gallery of Art in Washington. The articles have been made in Catalan and are being translated into English, and I would like you to help us translating some of them to dannish. The more languages we have, the better the experience for the user. You can find more information about the Wikiproject here. Thank you in advance!.--Kippelboy (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand which articles you want me to translate, but please don't expect I translate any.
- Sarrus (c • t) 20:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Sarrus! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited København Håndbold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Handball (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) 10:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The article Paw Peters has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2018 European Women's Handball Championship, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brest and Pau. 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) 09:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Sarrus. 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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Sarrus. 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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Sarrus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 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)
Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Sarrus! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)