User talk:Beeswaxcandle

Welcome!

Hello, Beeswaxcandle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! – Liveste (talk • edits) 09:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for all your help! I made the changes you suggested, and hope it is good enough to be kept now. Thanks again. Jennmarie25 (talk) - 09:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beeswaxcandle - there may be some confusion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Rush (2nd nomination) as to exactly which article has been nominated for deletion. May be as well to keep watching the debate to see whether you need to amend your comments. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added section on merge proposal to Talk:Ratana - along with my thoughts against merge. Thought you might like to add yours. Fanx (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should probably be built up significantly! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadel (talk • contribs) 23:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notification. One advice, though: Before you tag new articles for speedy deletion, as you did in flame spread, please check "What links here" to see if an article indeed merits speedy deletion. Thank you! Sebastian (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)[reply]

Thank you very much for the cleanup on Luis, Prince Imperial´s article. It was a muche needed assistance! - --Lecen (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so. Tavix (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed a lot of your missharpened plant stubs over the last couple of weeks. I appreciate you are only trying to help, but if you don't have sufficient background knowledge around the various taxa and classifications, I humbly submit that it would be better not to do that particular job. Hesperian 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's egg on my face then. I couldn't figure out where you were getting them from, and had started to suspect you were guessing; or else a 12-year-old way out of your depth. I am glad to learn that you were being conscientious about it.

The abandonment of Lamiales is news to me. APWeb has nothing on it. Best to take it to our friends at WT:PLANTS I think. Hesperian 11:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep on getting warnings I am trying to help but my stuff is getting deleted. Is it ok if I post my school report on here. Sometimes the warnings people give me make no scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arojr (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you for helping me but that blog is my blog should I delete the post on my blog.[reply]

Sincerely, Andrea Osborn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arojr (talk • contribs) 05:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to contest the speedy. I don't understand how a model with 150 magazine covers, movie roles and tv spots (including The Cosby Show), a recording contract with Blue Note Records all BEFORE creating a hair care line that is still popular with African Americans after she sold it is unnotable? What gives? I have all big name sources for this (no geocities or myspace crap). Tippytim304 (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. So help me, if you were the admin, what would you like to see to keep it from being speedied away. At least give me some time (lack of notability can be voted on if sufficient info not given, something other than the speedy) Tippytim304 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tippytim304 (talk • contribs)

I have six sources.....Give me examples of what qualifies (I thought IMDB would be good) and I'll see what I can find. I looking for online copies of magazine articles published about her product. Unfortunately, at the height of her popularity, the Internet was not commericalized (pre-1994) :-(, so it's taking me a minute, but I'm looking. Tippytim304 (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the typo with Immunosuppression-associated Kaposi sarcoma. Thank you for correcting that! kilbad (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you on my talk page regarding Proliferating angioendotheliomatosis. Thanks again. kilbad (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Thanks. kilbad (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for noticing! ;) I'm attempting to work through musical instrument stubs in hopes that I can help get the catagory cleaned up a bit. I created the salpinx in anatomy page just so there was somewhere to put the extraneous information not related to the musical instrument, but I haven't fact checked any of it--I just wanted it to have its own home. I was planning on copy editing the anatomy stub I made, but other than that, I have no background in anatomy so I hadn't planned on wading to far into that stub. Anything you can do to flesh it out would be appreciated! Patrickmcg (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --KP Botany (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular objection to the picture, but at some point, an article is over-illustrated. This article is at that point.

I would have no objection to replacing one of the existing gallery photos with that one, though. Nandesuka (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that lists of species/genera and alike are not alphabetical, but taxonomical (i.e. based on relationship, as far as known, or, when not known [as can often be seen in subspecies listings], based on distributions in a NW-SE direction). • Rabo³ • 07:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message on my talk here. • Rabo³ • 06:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut and paste the conversation started by you at AIV and would appreciate you coming to my talk page to clarify - it seems that the you may have the first number incorrect also?

• 61.69.3.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is editing the same articles in the same way that blocked IP 61.96.25.208 did yesterday. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting.--VS ^talk 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder also if this report is correct - I can see no evidence of the link between these two IP's.--VS ^talk 23:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just noticed my typo for the second IP. It should be 61.69.25.208. The particular edits were considered vandalism. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back - but edits of current IP do not seem to be vandalism - & even more specifically they are edits from 2006.--VS ^talk 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		In appreciation for your diligence in the matter listed for investigation at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 April 13. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your noting the problem and taking the time to follow through. It's very important to address copyright matters within process for a number of reasons. Even when text is placed by a copyright holder, as it turned out to be here, that can be very hard to prove down the road if permission is not verified when the contributor is active on Wikipedia. I've seen a number of cases were text placed years ago that did not go through the copyright verification process has had to be removed for just that very reason. (Of course, now that it's cleared, it's up to you and other contributors with interest in the articles to determine how best to handle it. I've found the contributor very easy to work with; maybe you will as well.) I wanted to express my appreciation. Obviously, I value copyright work on Wikipedia, and I admire contributors who go the extra mile to make sure that what we have, we have legally. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I made some revisions and wish to courteously invite you to revisit the Fleet's Hall page. I hope you see through several cited additions, that this is a building and site with great historical signficance. Thank you. Inoysterbay (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw over here that you've started taking some of the Oyster Bay articles to AFD. Personally, I think that all or most of these could go without any loss, so I'd appreciate it if you could let me know when you tag one. And if you need any help with the work, just let me know, ok? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note! I was about to do a simple rollback until the 2000 BC date caught my eye. It took a while to find the most recent clean page. It has since been semi-protected for a week. I'll keep an eye on it on my watchlist, in case it needs further protection after next week (seems likely). Age Happens (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be redundant. I thought it was a totally different area that was not directly linked with the discussion page. Please delete these pages speedily. My bad. I'm having problems finding sources for the Coptic articles. I went to the pages in search of some good Coptic sources I could add to Mark_the_Evangelist, but could not find a single source for the articles. Thanks for bringing this redundancy to my attention. Jason3777 (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to the following on the articles' discussion pages: "This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it." Which I did. I don't see why it was deleted because feedback on the articles is requested, twice even, on the top of the page. You should actually remove these request for reviews from the discussion page if they are going to be deleted as soon as they are written. Jason3777 (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was just sort of frustrated about not finding any Coptic sources. Jason3777 (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote/comment

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message on the Admin noticeboard. I've replied there but I thought I'd drop you a line as well to let you know that as the individual has used three IP addresses over the past month to insert the inappropriate material, I have chosen to semi-protected the article for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually the orignal poster and both the questions were not only unanswered in the Talk Page, but were answered in the article. So didn't see the point of keeping them... 24.141.45.91 (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppers, was all 3. You're right about confusing. So the 2 user accounts are deleted and actually just forgot to sign-in24.141.45.91 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at WT:PHARM:CAT. If you have any other editors/friends you can bring into the discussion, that would be great too! Regardless, thanks again. ---kilbad (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

‘Ian has been more than patient…’

I thank you very much for that comment. I had hoped that that what I was being—I was trying to help them establish a worthwhile article, without quite letting on, because for many reasons Wikipedia is actually not at all easy for ‘foreigners’ to edit. And we need those people. And in this case, even though I was pretty dubious about the article from the start, I thought they should be helped through the heaps of acronyms and bureaucracy.

Still, there were times when I felt my annoyance boiled over visibly! Ian Spackman (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Joshua Issac (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok... well.. drat. Um... There was honestly no harm meant by deleting my own note, the issue had been resolved, so I didn't think it needed to be acknowledged anymore. I'll read that 'bad practice' link, but... yeah, that's all I've got to say. And I have no clue how to 'wikispeak' or do anything with all the symbols and what not, so, this'll probably be the last you hear of me, hopefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.124.155 (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

If available, your continued comments at WT:PHARM:CAT would be greatly appreciated. Regardless, thanks again for your help in the past. ---kilbad (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Army - I have restored but couldn't find citation, I have removed it first trying to edit the thing, I am not sure Croatia bought any Kornet-E, as a matter of fact I am quite sure of it, but I needed to find more info, this is why I posted in the talk page, need info... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.53.72 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, makes more sense now. 203.59.213.54 (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

Dear Moderator-

This page is a biography of Robin Raina and his work as a CEO and Founder of an International Charity and has references to Robin Raina Foundation site(www.rainafoundation.com) founded by him. There is no copyright violation as I am a senior member of Robin Raina Foundation and head the Public Relations division. Through this email i am confirming that any text content from rainafoundation.com page can be published on wikipedia. We explicitly permit use of the contents under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.

I have already sent an email from my rainafoundation.com email id approving of the contents. (redacted)

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avington2915 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: subst:article-cv|:Robin Raina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Raina

Dear Moderator-

This page is a biography of Robin Raina and his work as a CEO and Founder of an International Charity and has references to Robin Raina Foundation site(www.rainafoundation.com) founded by him. There is no copyright violation as I am a senior member of Robin Raina Foundation and head the Public Relations division. Through this email i am confirming that any text content from rainafoundation.com page can be published on wikipedia. We explicitly permit use of the contents under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.

I have already sent an email from my rainafoundation.com email id approving of the contents. (redacted)

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avington2915 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) --Avington2915 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed at user's talk page. MLauba (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I received your message and I deeply apologize. It will not happen again.

You're right that I shouldn't have posted my opinion in article's talkpage about that movie but it was late and I didn't have determination to look for a review that confirms my point ;) I ususally wouldn't do such thing but I felt this silly movie just didn't deserve high standard of editing in its wikiarticle. Obviously I was wrong. Best regards. IP user 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like your talk page archiving? :) Also, with the Michael Jackson revert you performed, I'd say leave edit summary as it is (e.g reverted edit ... back to last edit by .... etc) and warn the user with uw-delete1 template, which can be found here, instead of uw-test1 template. Regards, --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note.

1. I haven't noticed need to archive this page yet. Despite my involvement in Recent Changes I don't get a lot of talk.
2. Because this was a talk page revert (which is where most of my recent changes work is focused) I didn't use {{uw-delete1}}. It's a mainspace template and refers to the talk page of the article concerned. This means that when it's used to refer to a talk page, then the receiving user is told to talk about changes on the talk page of the talk page - just too confusing. I usually use the uw-tpv series for this purpose, but in this case I chose to use {{uw-test1}} because the IP wasn't amending or deleting comments they didn't agree with, they were just putting their two cents in.
3. For IPs who are new to wikipedia I think it's important to give the reason for reverting/undoing in the edit summary as well as on their talk page. This is especially important for dynamic IPs who might never pick up the talk page message. However, I got tired of typing the same thing onto the end of the standard summary, so I've started using the version I used on the edit summary you picked up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KiraChinmoku _{(Talk, My Contribs)} 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete messages, I've inserted messages deleted from LN activists. Do not delete the messages please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.199.13 (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You proposed splitting {{pharmacology-stub}} way back, but this was never implemented. While I doubt I'll have much time for sorting the stubs in the near future: What about making a start by creating the templates and categories? Before doing so myself, I just wanted to ask whether you had an idea how to phrase the templates. "This cardiovascular system drug related article..." is too bulky, and "This article about a drug acting on the cardiovascular system..." would exclude articles about groups of drugs (eg. Alpha blocker, though that is not a good example). Regards, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on the dispute over the capitalization of "Son of God" with a note of sanity. I'm guessing you're the author of the note dated 10:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC) on the Easter talk page. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you put a warning on my page, I haven't made more than one edit in any given 24-hour period. Anyway, I have better things to do than worry about someone injecting POV into a WP page so I've unwatched it. (The original edit that provoked this "war" proclaimed "Jesus isn't the son of God, he's the Son of God").Gr8white (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem, if you want to send me a draft of your proposed rewrite I'll be happy to give my feedback. I agree this exercise was largely a waste of energy and I'm sorry I got involved. I really have no particular interest in the topic and I was only watching the page because at some point I had gone there to find out how the date was computed, found the existing explanation confusing, and rewrote it in a clearer (I hope) fashion. Best wishes. Gr8white (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a favor and take a look at this page? I'm hoping my last edit is the end of this but I'm not holding out much hope. I don't want to get into another situation like I did on Easter so I'll probably just avoid any further involvement (even though at least I'm clearly right in this case).

And since you seem to be interested in these things - you might take a look at the history of Dusha, which consists largely of two users reverting each other's edits. Gr8white (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the conventions of wikipedia, but wouldn't it have been better for you to have done a page move of Talk:Sweet Calabash? which would have retained the edit history. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if there had been an edit history worth retaining. However, it was created shortly before (ca. 30 minutes at most) I found it up and moved the content. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Beeswaxcandle, for your kind offer of informal mediation over the "raw data" issue. I certainly agree that it would be best to cool the tone and pace of the "discussion". Informal mediation, or even a RfC, would certainly be fine by me, although I think it may involve wider issues than just reaching consensus between the three editors who have been involved so far. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked IPNI, it looks as if Passiflora flavicarpa has never been published, and it may just be slopppy usage for Paasiflora edulis f./var. flavicarpa. (IPNI doesn't have f./var. flavicarpa either, but IPNI is incomplete for infraspecific taxa.) I'm not convinced that the name even merits a redirect. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Bernacci et al, Passiflora edulis Sims: the correct taxonomic way to cite the yellow passion fruit (and of others colors), Rev. Bras. Frutic. 30(2): 566-576 (June 2008) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's up bro? What did I do wrong? I am new to this. Please correct me. Thanks brah.

It is absolutely vital that this message is conveyed to Randall Munroe through that medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.116.97 (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of shopping malls in Slovakia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unmaintainable and unencyclopedic list lacking in sourcing

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. --Divebomb is not British 19:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Beeswax! I would not have figured out how to set up auto-archiving. I took one look at the page you sent me to about Archiving and felt it was beyond me. Appreciate the tips on how to be a better wiki-citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.132.236 (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

♠TomasBat 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~ Yo dawg Mokele has thrown insults at me too so stop acting like I'm the bad person and read the entire article before you make crazy assumptions and also check the page you commented on and see the nice little comments he has made too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot for the message dick. I don't see the need for a reference when it is both public knowledge and evident by the picture in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.106.223 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

==

Hi, you had opined on some merge proposals here:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_11#Category:Medical_software
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_11#Category:Healthcare_software

Would you mind looking at my response, and considering whether that might change your mind? While I agree that there is a need to categorize software in this domain, I think it would be much richer to categorize it based on the function, and not on a 'health/healthcare/medicine' split, and instead focus on the functional domain the software covers. In other words, we would still be able to break out software, but there would be less trees to navigate as a result. I haven't found any 3rd party sources which differentiate between 'health software' and 'healthcare software' for example - things are variously called 'health IT', 'eHealth software', 'health software', 'healthcare software', 'medical software', with little consistency in 3rd party sources. --KarlB (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_11#Category:Medical_software. KarlB (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I guess consensus wasn't there for merge at this point. I think you had proposed at one point that merging Category:Healthcare software and Category:Medical software would be acceptable; do you still agree? I'm having a hard time figuring out the difference, or finding any sources that make such a distinction. Also, I've started to categorize things - I've created an Category:Electronic health record software, and a Category:Public health and biosurveillance software - though I'm not sure what other categories would be useful within this Category:Health software tree. I'm also thinking of creating a new cat, that would be a subcat of both Category:Health informatics and Category:Health software that would be something like Category:Types of health software, to store the articles that aren't about a particular piece of software, but about a general class of software (like Electronic medical record for example). What do you think? --KarlB (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:United_States_federal_healthcare_legislation. KarlB (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you moved the page Category talk:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over back to its original place because I stupidly moved it without moving the project page too. I proposed the move a while ago and, since there's been no protest, would you object if I moved it? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I meant to drop you a note when I moved the category talk page back to explain but got distracted in RL and forgot to do it. Sorry about that. There is now a discussion on the category happening at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_2#Category:Wikipedian_usernames_editors_have_expressed_concern_over (which is what brought the move to my attention), so moving it now would be against policy. Please contribute to the discussion as a couple of new ideas for renaming have been proposed that simplify the category name considerably. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir/Madam, I would like to appreciate your insufficient knowledge regarding Bahria College Islamabad, and adding to it, your opposition towards my correction of the page contents. I happen to have a close association with the college, and keeping in mind an honest feedback, that was the most apt description I could make of it, which I changed. Wikipedia should be kept with factful and credible information. Your version of the page is just to attract people towards the aforementioned institution. And you blame me for vandalism? Its pitiful how the worlds seems to be going. One cannot simply tolerate the truth. Your choice. My attempt was to make Wikipedia reliable. Thanks, H.A.W.T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HAWT (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been defending this article from vandalism (mostly by current and recently past students) for some years and am reasonably familiar with the standard types of changes. Your changes are typical of those standard ones. I will enumerate some of the problems with your changes:

1. Comments on the quality of the PCs in the labs are irrelevant to an encyclopaedia
2. Comments on the ability of staff to control pupils are also irrelevant to an encyclopaedia
3. "Facebook, Twitter and other social sites are barred in the college." and "At the moment there is quite a large number of pages related to the college." These two sentences are contradictory.
4. One canteen <> two canteens (also what about the Cambridge Wing? Where do they eat?)
5. Facebook links are not acceptable under the Reliable sources policy

Additionally, you have not provided sources for any of your changes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm leaving this here because I can't currently leave a note on your Wikisource talk page).

Per the discussion at Wikisource, you placed a block on Sfan00_IMG at English Wikisource. That is not in contention.

However, having used Sfan00_IMG here at English Wikipedia (for image related matters),I looged out and logged back in again as ShakespeareFan00 and used the link from the English Wikipedia to transfer over to Wikisource, to check on something. I found a possible glitch and was wanting to check if something could be implemented as a fix, only to find that "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: "Your IP address has been automatically blocked because it was used by another user, who was blocked by Beeswaxcandle. The reason given is:

   Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Sfan00 IMG". 

The reason given for Sfan00 IMG's block is "User request; multiple account confusion"

   Start of block: 19:32, 13 April 2013
   Expiry of block: 19:32, 14 April 2013
   Intended blockee: 80.176.129.180 

You may contact Beeswaxcandle or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a valid email address registered in your user preferences and you have not been blocked from using it.

Your current IP address is 80.176.129.180, and the block ID is #6702. Please include all above details in any queries you make."

I'd switched accounts BECAUSE we'd agreed Sfan00_IMG was an alternate (and thus blocked at Wikisource).

I would appreciate it if you could contact me about this as soon as possible, because whilst Mediawiki is working as designed, it's a demotivater to get an autoblock, apparently for playing by the rules. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Soman (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "I have not the faintest idea of what "proly it's a cog" means. This is the English wikipedia. Please use English when responding." - That's a bit over the top. Proly it's a cog is just "probably", whereas a cog is a machine part. The comment that you made was not proportional to the misspelling, probably meant humorously, that the other editor made. If you could lower it down a bit I'd appreciate it, as that page is too heated as it is. Thanks ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. That explanation still doesn't give any meaning to the phrase used in the context. Just because the individual words are English doesn't mean that when they are strung together they make sense in English. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably it's a cog" = "It's probably a bug/oversight in the code". There's the explanation :) ~Charmlet ^-talk- 04:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so "cog" is an abbreviation as well and stands for "cognitive dissonance". Now to work out how to get Wiktionary to accept this as an alternative meaning. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether it is of interest of not, though I tripped over

• Canterbury papers (1850) by Association for Founding the Settlement of Canterbury in New Zealand

and I cannot find it elsewhere on the web (quick look). — billinghurst sDrewth 03:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, amazing which links to sites come up first and one doesn't realise until afterwards. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's of interest as I have family members who were part of the Association. I've bookmarked it and it will appear on WS at some point soon. I must investigate the Talbot collection in detail for other such things. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of snippets there, and I am slowly grabbing those of primary interest/quirkiness to me. I can note those of a kiwi influence if that of use. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything short and quirky for January's POTM would be good. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few speeches by W. E. Gladstone available. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was great, Beeswaxcandle, that you took the category creator seriously and came up with more appropriately named categories for what he/she was trying to create. No doubt, all of these categories would be swiftly deleted but it was a compassionate response when others were dismissive or mocked. I still don't quite understand the nature of the category he/she created but I think it is admirable that you tried!
Cheers! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You contributed to the debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 2#Category:English_Anglican_priests, which I have closed today as "no consensus". (This notice is being sent all participants in that debate.)

Apart from the disagreement in that particular case, there seemed to be no broader agreement on how to categorise of Anglican priests. So I have opened a Requests for Comments discussion about it, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#RFC:_Categorisation_of_Anglican_priests, where your contribution would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beeswaxcandle, I wanted to reply to you here to keep the deletion discussion from becoming unreasonably long, as it probably already is. I presume you did not see my comment from yesterday.[2] I would hope, if you had, you wouldn't have felt so strongly that I was in need of rebuke. If it is a sufficient acknowledgment, we can simply move on; knowing that enough has been said. If it doesn't go far enough in admitting my conduct was inappropriate, tell me of its insufficiency, and I will strengthen it to a public apology. Aside from that, please don't presume to know why I was overtly upset; you are welcome to ask, and I'll answer, but it doesn't excuse me either way. Cheers.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, there was so much going on in the discussion that I attributed that comment to another editor. Sorry about that. Indeed, had I linked it to you, then I would have reduced my response somewhat. I should also say that I spent about 30 minutes drafting it. My aim is always to try to not say things that I will then stew about in the night. I know what's like to get a stinging rebuke here and I don't want to ever put someone on the end of such from me. I see from your last post on the debate, that you're asking why you're bothering with enWP. I acknowledge that it's difficult here sometimes and it's a pity that one of your first encounters with "the machine" has several of us tramping over your stuff. It's one of the reasons that I mostly hang out at Wikisource, we're a much smaller community there with a focus on resurrecting old books and making them available again. My main project there is the first edition of the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (hence my interest in classical music categories), but I'm also working on 19th Century novels, children's books, and books about early New Zealand. If you happen to be interested in proofreading books you would be most welcome over there. By the way, I see that you ask why watchers haven't reverted your category additions. This is because we're not supposed to take articles out of a category while there's a discussion happening (unless of course the article is spuriously there). A somewhat lengthy response intending to say "let's simply move on." Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that thoughtful reply. At the end of the day, your lengthy reply will still be appreciated, as it is now. You can sleep well tonight, knowing that you have made someone who is feeling down, feel considerably better. And you may also know that I will never again allow my disenchantment with one, spill over into my mistreatment of another, as did happen with you. All in all, I'm determined to hold that ground. While you may not have required an apology, and I thank you for that, I do want to directly say: I am sorry for my ill manner, especially with regard to my treatment of you. Best regards.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beeswaxcandle, you said you would have a look at the current problematic category structure around Category:Ecclesiastical titles. How is that going? Do you need any help or input? Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beeswaxcandle, would you be willing to continue our conversation at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_6#Category:Category:Christian_holidays? Thanks in advance, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beeswaxcandle. I noticed that in this edit a while back, you added "St Vincent Ranui Hospital" to the List of hospitals in New Zealand. I wanted to let you know that I have removed that entry in light of the Medical Council of New Zealand's media statement, which states that the "St Vincent Ranui Hospital" is part of an Internet scam and does not actually exist. I'm sure you aren't part of this Internet scam, of course, but I was wondering if you could provide the source of the information so that we ensure the rest of the entries in the article are verifiable. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: I didn't actually add it, I simply undid a stack of changes from the IP editor and then tidied the alpha-sequencing, all in the same edit. I didn't think to check on the Ministry of Health list for the genuineness of any new entries. The Ministry of Health list I linked in the external links at some point in my editing of this list is the only valid source of information on registered health-care facilities in New Zealand. Any unregistered facilities are operating illegally and should not be on this list. Thanks for picking it up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeswaxcandle: Ah excellent. Later today I'll cross-check the list. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Beeswaxcandle. I came across your comment on removal of the "Sequenced Genomes" category (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_10), where you said that Wikidata should be holding the metadata on whether a given species has a sequenced genome, rather than categories or lists.

I've started a proposal on Wikidata (Wikidata:Property_proposal/has_sequenced_genome for a property to hold such metadata. I'd love your feedback if you are still interested in this issue. Photocyte (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm sure we'll see you along at some point but I know some people are a bit sick of video conferencing. Super excited about the Transactions. I know that User:Ambrosia10 will also be excited about this as well! I'll let the group know Einebillion (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beeswaxcandle,

My name is Ghozi. I’m co-ordinator of Program Committee for ESEAP 2022: Reconnect.

Thank you for submitting a proposal for the conference. Program Committee decided to accept your proposal for the program.

We have placed you in the Workshop Tech and Platform: Wikisource. Please find the details regarding your session below.

1) Workshop Tech and Platform: Wikisource (60 mins)
Moderator - TBC
- Opening - (5 mins)
- Beeswaxcandle (40 mins)
- QA - (10 mins)
- Closing - (5 mins)

Please let us know if you’re okay with this arrangement. After we got your confirmation, we may need your email and CC you in a new thread with everyone involved in this session, so everyone can discuss the session more.

Thank you and have a good weekend.

Best regards,
Ghozi Septiandri
On behalf of the Program Committee
ESEAP 2022: Reconnect
GhoziSeptiandri (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Barnstar

A huge thank you for your support of Auckland Museum's successful Alliance fund application "Understanding our past:using Wikipedia as a tool to support local history in Tāmaki Makaurau". The strong support from editors greatly strengthened our application and we're looking forward to collaborating with the community in the new year to implement the project. Best wishes, James (Auckland Museum) Jetaynz (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora! The Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand User Group invites you to read about the call for applications for a Wikipedian-at-Large for Aotearoa New Zealand in 2024. Group members are happy to explain the process and discuss ideas with interested editors.

Sent by Zippybonzo on behalf of MurielMary using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 06:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in an upcoming event in Auckland. Wikimedia Aotearoa is having a WikiCon! WikiCon Aotearoa 2024 is the annual gathering for all new and experienced editors of Wikipedia, Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikisource projects. Anyone interested in editing is welcome to attend. This conference is organized by Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand (WANZ). It aims to provide training to new editors, to encourage editors to learn new skills, to grow the Wiki community in Auckland and to ensure that we have a fun weekend. Food and refreshments provided.  

When: Saturday 23 March - Sunday 24 March 2024

Where: Auckland University of Technology - Sir Paul Reeves Building - WG Building 2 Governor Fitzroy Place, Auckland.

Cost: $10, fully catered, sponsorship / registration fee waiver available  

We are offering full scholarships (registration, travel & accommodation) to attend - please contact info@wikimedia.nz for more information.

To see the full programme as it develops check out the Wikipedia Event page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiCon_Aotearoa/Auckland_2024

To register: https://events.humanitix.com/wikicon-aotearoa-2024 CopperAlchemy (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand (WANZ) members.

We invite you to consider standing for the WANZ Committee at our AGM 22 April 2024 to help shape and influence events and decisions.

The role of Secretary will be vacant. We are also interested in succession planning for the future.  Please email info@wikimedia.nz for the Secretary Job Description, and the document outlining the relationship and tasks between the Secretary and the Executive Advisor position, as the Executive Advisor is now picking up day-to-day administration tasks from the Secretary.

If you would like to come along to a meeting and watch the committee in action before deciding whether to stand please reach out.

If you are interested and want to know more please contact our President Victoria Leachman by calling 021 490 329 or emailing president@wikimedia.nz.

Warm regards

Victoria Leachman (President) CopperAlchemy (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Clinical coding to the article Clinical coder has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 3 § Clinical coding until a consensus is reached. Little pob (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Clinical coding has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 19 § Clinical coding until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally managed to get a copy of the article - thanks for asking around! --Prosperosity (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora, I really enjoyed getting involved with Wikisource at our Auckland WikiCon and would love to continue to be involved. Please let me know the best approach to doing this. Many thanks CopperAlchemy (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CopperAlchemy, the best way to get started is to proofread and/or validate some of the works in the Wikisource:Monthly Challenge. There's a wide range of works chosen each month and you're sure to find something that interests you—even if it's not Aotearoa focused. I suggest you start off with validating some pages, so that you can get an idea of how other editors are doing the templates and proofreading. Then you can launch into proofreading new pages yourself. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! Could I check if you're free to come to the Auckland meetup this Saturday at 10:00AM? We're trying out a new venue, Samoa House on Karangahape Road. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still away this weekend, so won't be there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, hope you have a great time! Prosperosity (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]