# User talk:Timwi

Notice:
• I will reply here. If you ask a question here, please check back regularly to see if I have replied (or add this page to your watchlist). I want my threads to be in the same place, because otherwise the comments will be scattered around and out of context.
• Please feel free to leave messages in languages other than English, although I cannot guarantee that I will understand it unless it's in English, German, French, or Esperanto.
• All my "User talk" pages on other Wikimedia projects redirect to here. This is to ensure that all the messages you people send me are collected in a central place where I can manage and archive them. Also I will receive a "You have new messages" notification on the English Wikipedia this way; I use all the other projects rather rarely. So, please leave your message here.

User talk:Timwi/Archive

## Request for recording some sounds

Hello Timwi, I'm a software developer and currently I'm working on a captcha software - this software plays sounds for disabled people to solve the challanges. I also want german sounds for random numbers and letters, I just found your "German alphabet" and "German sounds" sounds - really useful for me.

Would it be possible to record some additional sounds? I'm missing some sounds for special words like "geteilt durch" and "minus" for the challanges.

I would be grateful if you could do me this favor - due to the fact that your sounds match perfectly into my software. :)

Feel free to contact me anytime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stdevel (talkcontribs) 22:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Hi Timwi, I need to following sounds:

• Plus (the math operand +)
• Minus (the math operand -)
• "großes" (for spelling, like "großes A" and "großes B") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stdevel (talkcontribs) 18:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Hi Timwi, I just wanted to know if you already had some time to record the sounds? Best greetings and thanks a lot in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stdevel (talkcontribs) 18:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

## Template:Bcdb

Please provide documentation for this template, in particular explaining how to find the url components for it and including a See also section for `{{bcdb title}}` which in many cases will be easier to use. --Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You will have to ask one of the other contributors. Apparently I created that template over 7 years ago. I don’t remember anything about it; I am not familiar with the site it links to; and it has changed substantially since my first edit. — Timwi (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

## List of fictional animals

Hi, nice to see that you have been active here for so long and still going strong! I have just requested a history merge from Lists of fictional animals to List of fictional animals, which you edited in 2004. After that I intend to propose a page move to the "Lists..." name, as it is a list of lists. Thought it would be polite to notify you. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) — Timwi (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

## Barnstar

 The Original Barnstar This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

## MSU Interview

Dear Timwi,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and

Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's

Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we

and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what

you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community

_New_class_at_MSU|HERE]], where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my

students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training,

motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one

of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of

communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)

• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will

never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.

• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an

interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.

• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics

review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have

been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak

with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I

will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be

more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

## MSU Interview

Dear Beetstra,

My name is Jonathan Walby user:walbyjon and I am with Dr. Obar's class at Michigan State University. You have previously stated that you would be willing to answer a few questions for our research project. If you are still willing to participate, please let me know. You may contact me at walbyjon@msu.edu. Please let me know when you have time to talk and we will set up a time to talk via Skype. If you have any questions please feel free to let me know. Thank you for your involvement and help with this project.

## Non-free rationale for File:King of the Zoo (2).png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:King of the Zoo (2).png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. — Timwi (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

## n:ACTA rejected by European Parliament, protesters rejoice

I'm working on expanding this article, and I note it was yourself who put the PP.de source on it and, I assume, translated the quotes across.

We're always very cautious around sources in languages we're not familiar with, and tend to try avoiding them. I've run the quotes from the PP.de source through Google Translate, and posted the results on the talk page. I would appreciate if you'd take a look at the output and see if you want to tweak the quotes any. Fortunately GTrans is 'almost good enough' with German->English translations, sometimes even picking out better synonyms people may have overlooked. --Brian McNeil /talk 11:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you removed a "broken" external link at de:7 Wonders. Please don't do that again, unless you have confirmed, that the link really is lost. Here the publisher reorganized their website's structure but the content was retained. I admit, that it wasn't easy to find the new URL, because you need to understand French to navigate this part of the site, but non the less, you removed valuable information that could and should have been saved. Please take a look at de:Wikipedia:Defekte Weblinks to see our policy. rgds --h-stt !? 07:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Das ergibt nicht viel Sinn. 99% der Besucher werden keine Lust haben, dem Inhalt hinterherzujagen, erst Seiten wie Wikipedia:Defekte Weblinks zu lesen, oder erst irgendwelche Vorlagen herauszusuchen. Für diese Besucher präsentieren sich also nur zwei Alternativen: den Link entfernen oder nichts tun. Dadurch, dass ich den Link entfernt habe, wurdet ihr darauf aufmerksam und habt den Link durch einen neuen ersetzt. Der Artikel ist damit besser als vorher. Die Alternative wäre gewesen, nichts zu tun; niemand hätte davon Notiz genommen und der Link wäre immernoch unerreichbar. Meine Entfernung des Links war also sinnvoll und hilfreich. — Timwi (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Nein, ein toter Weblink ist immer noch besser als ihn kommentarlos zu entfernen. Denn ein toter Weblink besagt immerhin, dass es da mal einen Link gab. Das ist bei Enzelnachweisen natürlich wichtiger als hier bei einer nur ergänzenden Information. Aber wir haben die Richtlinie zum Umgang mit toten Links nicht zufällig so bestimmt wie sie ist. Und vielleicht hast du es noch nicht bemerkt, aber zur Zeit läuft endlich mal wieder ein Bot durch die ganze deWP und prüft jeden externen Link. Er ist im Moment beim Buchstaben E, so dass 7 Wonders noch eine Weile gedauert hätte. Aber wir hätten den toten Link dank dem Bot auch ohne deine Löschung gefunden. Ich bitte dich, die Richtlinie ernst zu nehmen. Sie gibt die Anforderungen der deWP-Community wieder. Grüße --h-stt !? 11:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Wie gesagt: meine Entfernung des Links war offensichtlich sinnvoll und hilfreich, weil es zu einer Verbesserung des Artikels geführt hat. Ich kann deinen Argumenten also nur entnehmen, dass ich nicht an der Verbesserung von Wikipedia mithelfen soll. Schade. Ich dachte, es hätte mal geheißen, anybody can edit. Offenbar ist anybody jetzt nicht mehr willkommen. (Ich frage mich, wie viel besser die Wikipedia wäre, wenn es nicht diesen von Leuten wie dir praktizierten Exklusionismus gäbe.) — Timwi (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Bist du sicher, dass du mein Anliegen und die Richtlinie der deWP korrekt interpretierst? Ich glaube nein. Hier liegt ein Missverständnis vor. Wir haben als deWP-Community eine Richtlinie zum Umgang mit toten Weblinks geschrieben. Die hat ihre Gründe und ich habe versucht, dir diede Gründe zu erklären. Du gehst darauf nicht ein, unterstellst mir dich aus der deWP ausschließen zu wollen und setzt dein persönliches Verständnis eines Sachverhalts absolut ohne auch nur darüber nachzudenken, dass du da gegen eine etablierte Position der Community stehst. Mein Anliegen war schlicht, dir einen Hinweis auf diese Richtlinie zu geben, verbunden mit der Bitte diese Richtlinie ernst zu nehmen. Nicht mehr und schon gar nicht, dass du die deWP nicht bearbeiten dürftest. Und jetzt auf weiterhin gute Zusammenarbeit. Grüße --h-stt !? 07:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Ich unterstelle dir doch gar nicht, dass du mich ausschließen willst. Ich erkläre dir nur, dass du das tust (offenbar also ungewollt). Es geht eigentlich auch gar nicht so sehr um die Richtlinie, sondern um deine Reaktion auf Verstöße derselben. Die Reaktion auf eine gutgemeinte Bearbeitung der WP darf niemals sein „du hast etwas falsch gemacht“! Dadurch vermittelst du Leuten (bei weitem nicht nur mir!) das Gefühl, der Verbesserungsversuch war ein Fehler und vergraulst die Leute damit. Dadurch gehen hunderttausende, möglicherweise Millionen von sinnvollen, hilfreichen und wertvollen Beiträgen verloren, weil jeder Neuling bei seinem ersten kleinen Versuch gleich so eine Reaktion erlebt und sich danach nie wieder traut, irgend etwas zu bearbeiten. Der Glaube, dass ein Otto Normalbearbeiter überhaupt irgendwelche Richtlinien liest, ist einfach vollkommen illusorisch. Eine bessere Reaktion wäre, den jeweiligen Artikel richtlinienkonform zu „berichtigen“, vielleicht mit Link auf die Richtlinie in der Edit Summary (das hast du im Falle von 7 Wonders versäumt) und den Neuling ansonsten einfach vollkommen in Ruhe zu lassen. Wenn der Neuling später öfter bearbeitet, wird er das irgendwann schon merken, wenn er die Versionsgeschichte oder die Watchlist entdeckt; wenn er aber nicht mehr groß weiter bearbeitet, war deine Beschwerde an ihn sowieso vollkommen unnötig. — Timwi (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Doch, die Reaktion auf einen gut gemeinten Beitrag darf sein "Du hast da was falsch gemacht." Wie sonst soll denn der Neuling etwas lernen? Und dein - gut gemeinter - Beitrag war destruktiv, er hat wertvolle Informationen entfernt. Und deine Annahme, dass Neulinge die Versionsgeschichte nach ihrer Bearbeitung von Artikel daraufhin beobachten, wie regulars reagieren, ist reichlich optimistisch. Außerdem geht deine Annahme davon aus, dass wir alle hier isoliert rumlaufen und ja nicht miteinander kommunizieren sollten. Die Vorstellung, ich sollte eine Neuling "vollkommen in Ruhe lassen", ist so absurd, dass ich sie zweimal gelesen habe. Nein, wir bilden hier eine Community, wir sind aufeinander angewiesen und wenn ich einen Neuling treffe, dann bekommt der von mir erstmal eine Begrüßung und in einem zweiten Absatz einen Hinweis, wodurch er mir aufgefallen ist. Das ist mal ein Lob für einen Beitrag, mal ein Hinweis darauf, dass man etwas besser machen kann. Du bist kein Neuling, dich habe ich daher anders angesprochen und zwar habe ich dich direkt auf die Richtlinie hingewiesen, weil ich aufgrund deiner Benutzerseiten in de und en annahm, dass du vielleicht diese Richtline der deWP gar nicht kennst. Grüße --h-stt !? 10:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nachdem ich dir jetzt mehr als geduldig erklärt habe, welche Auswirkungen deine Reaktion hat, kannst du nicht mehr behaupten, dass es unbeabsichtigt ist. Wenn du den Drang verspürst, Neulinge ständig bei Kleinstverstößen zurechtzuweisen, dann bist du der Destruktive, weil du aktiv und bewusst Leute ausschließt. Zu deinen Argumenten: Der Neuling lernt, indem seine Änderungen rückgängig gemacht werden, dazu ist der normale Mensch mündig genug und braucht keine Bevormundung von dir. Mein Beitrag war nicht destruktiv, weil er auf den Link aufmerksam gemacht hat und dieser dann durch einen besseren ersetzt wurde (das habe ich bereits erklärt). Neulinge werden nicht sofort wie Regulars reagieren, aber nach einer Weile schon, wenn sie Regulars werden (was du ja von vornherein verhinderst). Deine Priorität ist das Bilden einer Community? Komisch, und ich dachte es ging um das Schreiben einer Enzyklopädie; mir scheint, das hat die gesamte „Community“ völlig vergessen. Das „wir sind aufeinander angewiesen“ ist enorm ironisch: die Enzyklopädie ist angewiesen auf freiwillige Mitarbeiter, nicht auf eine exklusive „Community“, daher ist es mehr als destruktiv, das gesamte Schwanzende der Gelegenheitsbearbeiter auszuschließen und damit vermutlich die Mehrheit aller wertvoller, hilfreicher Beiträge zu verhindern. — Timwi (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree to disagee? Wir haben dazu offenbar erheblich unterschiedliche Ansichten. Auch zum Diskussionsstil. Du empfindest deine Beiträge als "geduldiges Erklären" der Auswirkungen meiner Handlung, ich sehe darin vielmehr eine mehrfache Wiederholung deiner Meinung über das Verhalten von Neulingn, denn natürlich haben wir beide keine empirischen Daten darüber, wie Neulinge in der Wikipedia auf welches Verhalten reagieren. Wir haben beide nur Ansichten. Und die sind unterschiedlich. Meine sind stark ergebnisorientiert und an der Qualität der Wikipediatexte sowie offener und direkter Kommunikation ausgerichtet, während du - wenn ich dich richtig verstehe - eine angenehme Athmosphäre sogar dem Vorhandensein von Kommunikation vorziehst, wenn nur ein Fehler nicht Fehler genannt wird, weil man damit ja einen Autor verschrecken könnte. Grüße --h-stt !? 12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Rational agents cannot agree to disagree. Zwar hast du natürlich recht, wir haben beide unvollständige Daten. Trotzdem lässt sich aus unvollständigen Daten was ableiten. Zum Beispiel kann man fragen: Mit welcher Wahrscheinlichkeit wäre die Qualität der Wikipediatexte höher, wenn mehr Beiträge ihren Weg in die Wikipedia fänden, weil weniger Benutzer abgeschreckt werden? Deine Argumentation ergibt nur Sinn, wenn du glaubst, dass die Qualität darunter wahrscheinlicher leidet als davon profitiert. Kannst du erklären, wie du zu dieser Schlussfolgerung kommst? In meinem Beispiel, wo ich einen Link entfernt habe, ist die Qualität insgesamt ja gestiegen. — Ich basiere die Hypothese, dass dadurch Autoren verschreckt werden, nicht auf reiner Spekulation. Ich kenne durchaus einige, die von ihrem ersten Erlebnis in der Wikipedia abgeschreckt wurden und sich jetzt nicht mehr trauen („die wollen mich eh nicht“). Du als Regular bekommst das nicht mit, weil du entweder niemanden fragst („es kann ja eh nicht daran liegen“), oder die (für dich unangenehme) Antwort abweist („stell dich doch nicht so an, wir wollen dir ja helfen“). — Außerdem habe ich ja nie gesagt, dass ich Kommunikation ganz abschaffen will. Das ist ein Strohmann. — Timwi (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Deshalb nehme ich ja an, dass mindestens einer von uns sich nicht rational verhält. Und dann kann es zur Vermeidung von weiterem Reibungsaufwand sinnvoll sein, eine Diskussion ohne Ergebnis zu beenden. Und natürlich glaube ich, dass es sinnvoll ist Wikipedianer auf Richtlinien aufmerksam zu machen, während ich es für abwegig halte, Neulinge gar nicht anzusprechen, nur um zu vermeiden, ihnen zu sagen, dass sie etwas getan haben, was die Community nicht für sinnvoll hält. Grüße --h-stt !? 12:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

## 18-point problem

Dear Sir, In the journal of the dutch federation for math teachers (NVvW) we have a recreational puzzel corner in which we recently asked questions concerning this problem and som variotions. For the discussion of this puzzel we would like to add your nice picture of a solution of the placement of 17 points. Can we get your permission for this publication, or should we just mention the site where this picture can be found? Of course we will mention the source of this nice picture. Thanks, (Lliekedr (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

I take it you mean File:Irregularity of distributions.png, right? If you check the image’s info page, it says it’s public domain. This means you can use it for anything and in any way you want. Thanks for crediting me though if you do :) — Timwi (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

## In response to your edit summary

By all means, you are welcome to adopt the song page. I hope you'll be able to put more time into it than I was able to. You can also grab and merge in User:28bytes/List of non-instrumental songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics and User:28bytes/List of songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics if you like; I had those userfied around the same time.

I had also started User:28bytes/List of Top 40 songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics, thinking that if the songs were given a more strict inclusion criterion, the list might fare better at AfD if someone sent it there. It may (or may not) be of use to you as well. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, these lists seem to overlap in purpose. I’ll take care of this some time later. Thanks! — Timwi (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:PDFlink

Template:PDFlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lexein (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

## Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Timwi,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott talk 15:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

## commons:File:Venn diagram gr la ru.svg

User:Lipedia didn't claim that Y and У are "the same letter"[sic] -- he actually made a judgement call that the common graphic realizations of the letters in the two alphabets are quite similar. There's no black-and-white absolutely correct answers to some of the questions involved in a graphic like this. If you wish to make a substantially different version of this graphic, imposing your personal judgement calls over those of Lipedia, then please upload it as a separate file under a different name... AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Y and У, there is a right answer, and it’s “they’re different”. I made the change in a good-faith effort to improve the file. Please do not discourage people from improving the material. — Timwi (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said, "If you wish to make a substantially different version of this graphic, imposing your personal judgement calls over those of Lipedia, then please upload it as a separate file under a different name." Please consult COM:OVERWRITE... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I brought this up on the Village Pump. — Timwi (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
You're not discouraged to make improvements, but if you follow the link (which you deleted while moving AnonMoos' cooments from Commons) you'll understand that if you substantially change an image it is better to re-upload it with a new file name. Also note, that Commons images don't necessarily need to be factually correct! There's no content filtering as on Wikipedia.
Regarding your change: I noticed that you did more than just differentiating Y and У. I (without knowing much on the topic) do not directly understand your changes (e.g. ere is ${\displaystyle \Omega }$ gone?). Therefore you should upload a new Version and elaborate in the respective articles why in your opinion the current image was wrong. --Patrick87 (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I did not mean to remove any of those characters. Apparently I also managed to remove Б and Ё without noticing. I’ll have to fix that. — Timwi (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Saying "there is a right answer" is not an argument, and it's simply not true.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Here, then, is an actual argument. In the adoption of Cyrillic for Turkic and Mongolic languages, the letters У (spelling /u/) and Ү (spelling /y/) are different! This would be rather unlikely to happen if the curliness of the tail was regarded in Cyrillic as an acceptable point of variation. (Not impossible -- witness the way the IPA disjoined /a/ and /ɑ/ -- but unlikely.)
On top of that, the only plausible reason I can see that Y and У should have been identified, while Δ and Д or Λ and Л weren't, is that User:Lipedia is only a practiced user of Roman and is extending Roman's idea of what is acceptable glyph variation to all three scripts without realising it, without consciously noting that scripts can differ in that. Curly uppercase Y is secondary in Roman, just as delta and lambda shapes are secondary in Cyrillic. Disunifying the Ys would in this fashion be an improvement in consistency, a removal of a Roman-favouring bias. 4pq1injbok (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, but I’m not getting the impression that commons is interested in this. They specifically want wrong stuff on their site. This is corroborated by commons:Commons:OVERWRITE, which specifically does not state “factual correction” as a reason to modify (“overwrite”) a file. — Timwi (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone made a corrected sorry, modified version under a different file name yet? 4pq1injbok (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I did.Timwi (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:Nordic Council

Template:Nordic Council has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lfdder (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Ers:user:xqbot/LD-Hinweis

Huh? It’s not listed there at all. — Timwi (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

## Category:Star Trek races

Category:Star Trek races, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

## An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

## Nigra vidvo / vidvino

Saluton. Mi iom diskutis en Lingva konsultejo (facebook) pri Nigra vidvo / vidvino kun rezulta inklino al vidvino. Ĉu vi povus diskuti en eo:Diskuto:Nigra vidvo pri la afero? Dume mi alinomigas la artikolon (kaj mi petas vin estontece provizi pli konkretan klarigon dum alinomigo). Amike. --KuboF (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Shai-Hulud (disambiguation)

The article Shai-Hulud (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS, hatontes are preferable (and in place)

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

## Since you participated in the Sedna discussion

Minor planet 90377 Sedna > Sedna (minor planet) discussion taking place at Talk:90377_Sedna#Odd_name. Please join in if it catches your fancy. A previous discussion took place with a result of Sedna (planetoid) which is why you are on this list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

## Tony Blair's Private life listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tony Blair's Private life. Since you had some involvement with the Tony Blair's Private life redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Neveselbert 22:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

## Extended confirmed protection

 Hello, Timwi. 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. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

## Personal message

Inspired by your Berliner (doughnut) spoken article, I've contributed my share in Spanish Omelette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicojonesgodel (talkcontribs) 05:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

## A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Timwi.

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!

 Hello, Timwi. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## Lightbulbs listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lightbulbs. Since you had some involvement with the Lightbulbs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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.

NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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.

Arbitration

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.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

## 47

User:47 used to redirect to your user page. Unfortunately, it no longer redirects here because the account has been renamed. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

## Can you help verify translations of articles from German

Hello Timwi,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:The Essential Calvin and Hobbes.png

Thanks for uploading File:The Essential Calvin and Hobbes.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Timwi. 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)

## Nomination of Bit bucket for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bit bucket is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit bucket until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ï¿½ (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

## Nomination of Lists of dragons for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lists of dragons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of dragons until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)