User talk:Shimbo

Your GA nomination of Operation Chastity

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Chastity you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Chastity

The article Operation Chastity you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Chastity for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

ํYou reverted my change on Locmariaquer

The redirection of Le Grand Menhir Brise is absurd. Let me see if I got this straight

(1) You realize that the redirection is wrong. (2) You, unlike myself, know how to fix the problem. (All I could do was leave a note so that a more cognizant Wiki editor could fix it.) (3) Rather than fixing the problem, you chose to REMOVE the note appealing for a cognizant editor to fix it. Is that about right?  :-) Jamesdowallen (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, James, you haven't got it straight. What actually happened was:

(1) You realised the redirection was wrong.

(2) In an attempt to help you made an edit that didn't help.

(3) I fixed your mistake and also fixed the original problem (by redirecting Grand menhir brisé to Locmariaquer megaliths, instead of Locmariaquer).

(4) I let you know I'd fixed the problem on Talk:Locmariaquer, which BTW is the place to discuss problems with an article, not my user page.

Also, I understand your frustration with the complexities of Wikipedia, but insulting people who are just trying to help isn't going to fix any problems. When you see something on Wikipedia is wrong and you don't know what to do about it, the thing is to ask for help at WP:Q. Please discuss any further problems with the article at Talk:Locmariaquer or Talk:Locmariaquer megaliths. Thanks and I hope that helps clear up the confusion. --Shimbo (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Shimbo. I did miss your comment on the talk page; sorry. (You might have hinted that you'd fixed the problem in your Reversion.) And I do take exception to "In an attempt to help you made an edit that didn't help." In fact my Edit DID help -- it induced you to fix the problem. Thanks again! I have enough experience at Wikipedia to know that adding a note to a page, as I did, is MUCH MUCH more likely to lead to a fix than any comment on the Talk page. Jamesdowallen (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wilhelm Fahrmbacher

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wilhelm Fahrmbacher you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wilhelm Fahrmbacher

The article Wilhelm Fahrmbacher you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Wilhelm Fahrmbacher for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2022 (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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)