User talk:Chaswmsday

{{adminhelp}}

Hi! How do I report user 173.81.190.232 ? This user has been warned about vandalism of US TV station pages. In this user's edits to Dayton, Ohio TV pages, I think some of the edits are constructive, but the wording is ungrammatical and somewhat incorrect.

Also, in TV station categories, the digital channel number is listed. While that may be useful, wouldn't it be helpful to most Wikipedia users if the article is also categorized with the historic/analog/virtual channel number?

Thanks.

When dealing with vandalism, it's important to communicate with the user first, even if that means warning them that what they're doing isn't right. Wikipedia:Vandalism explains how to handle the problem, gives you ideas for warning templates and explains how to report them if they continue.

As for the TV station categories, there's actually an entire Wikiproject that deals with maintaining TV station articles and categories who may be able to answer your question or explain why the categories are set up that way now. You can find them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_Stations. Shell ^babelfish 13:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.

Others call the user a vandal, and he/she has made quite a few contributions in TV station articles, but at least the Dayton ones seem to be in good faith, just inartfully constructed. I'll see if I can contact him and tweak his changes.

When I look at Wikipedia:Category:American TV stations by channel number, I find that the subcategories are defined as digital or low-power, all referencing that the station broadcasts on such-and-such MHz, i.e. the RF or "actual" channel. There is only one subcategory for virtual channel, "Virtual 69". Not to totally upset the apple-cart, but it would seem to make sense to provide a Virtual Category for all channels...

Are you an administrator of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_Stations ? If not, could you please direct me to one. I've looked at Wiki's Help pages and the Project page, but I still can't figure out how to contact a particular set of administrators, as opposed to a general admin. Thanks again!

Chaswmsday (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects don't really have administrators, usually just editors who are interested in the area. The best way to contact them is to leave a message on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations explaining what your idea is. Shell ^babelfish 15:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. Thank you! Chaswmsday (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your post on WikiProject Television Stations about the virtual channel number categories. I think it is a great idea. Tlonca (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a semi-Wiki-literate newbie, so I have little idea how to do this. It looked like the one virtual category there was forced into some kind of template that didn't quite apply to it.

Also, are there any tools to let you edit Wikipedia without using markup language? It's fun and all, but when I just cut and paste from something else, I don't know if I'm doing it "right" or just propogating an earlier error... --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Channel 6 virtual TV stations in the United States, I just made that category. It shows up in Channel 6 TV stations in the United States as subcategory, but I can't get it to appear at the top with other channel numbers (like a new section.. similiar to low-power tv) Tlonca (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Chaswmsday, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Chaswmsday/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTD DT 2011.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTD HD 2011.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WDTN. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 09:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WDTN Doppler 2X 2008.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WDTN Storm Team 2, 2010.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your topic at ANI, hope that clears up any questions you may have. Feel free to poke me on my talkpage in the future if you need help dealing with these issues, I'm one of the easier folks to get along with in the NFC area :) -- ۩ Mask 11:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've replied on the talk page. I'll leave the image out of the article until we have reached a conclusion. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WLWD, Dayton, Channel 5.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WLWD, Dayton, 07-JUN-1969.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WLWD, Dayton, ca 1973-1976.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WDTN 1976.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WDTN 05-SEP-1981.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WDTN 13-MAY-1982.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WDTN 10-AUG-1987.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that since it is clear from the WDTN talk page that you don't actually understand the concept of WP:NFCC, it would be unwise for you to continue edit-warring on this article. You have been told a number of times by numerous different editors how that image fails our non-free policies; continuing to insert it is a waste of everyone's time and may result in you being blocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTO Prime 2011.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTO Learn 2011.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTO DT 2011.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTD Life 2011.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTD Again 2011.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTD DT 2011.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTD HD 2011.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTO World 2011.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTO HD 2011.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WPTD Ohio 2011.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you chose to delete and revert additions and changes I made to this article that were, in my opinion, harmless? I added no erroneous info or useless filler. I only sought to simplify the text and bring it in-line with other similar articles.

Case in point: the opening paragraph, which is too wordy (IMO) and can be shortened. Several other intros for other TV station articles, such as WBNS-TV and WEWS-TV are done in the same manner. I really don't think it was necessary to rechange that back to the version which you prefer. I also added the mention of the FCC's Sixth Report and Order, which is the reason why WHIO-TV changed channels. That has to be mentioned for factual purposes.

I welcome a dialogue with you on this matter. DreamMcQueen (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On second review, I noticed that you tweaked some of the changes/additions I made, and kept the mention of the Sixth Report and Order. However, I don't think it is necessary to bold channel numbers or mention syndicated programming. Let's face it: all TV stations pretty much air the same stuff, so I don't think it's necessary to add it unless there's something unique.

My general philospohy is to keep it simple for those who don't follow this stuff, and to add just enough for the hard-core. Please accept my apologies. DreamMcQueen (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the category rational after looking at some stations in it. Strafidlo (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks! --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you add the airport links to all of the cities on any airport page again you will be blocked. You have no right to put my discussion with User:Snoozlepet on a full page. This was not your discussion this was mine with Snoozlepet. Get rid of it before you get blocked. There is no agreement made and again I WILL NOT tolerate any vandalism as you made, you will be blocked. Cali4529 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had to undo some of your edits to undo another users edits, you can put the notations back and all but DO NOT PUT THE LINKS IN THE CITIES UNTIL AN AGREEMENT IS MADE. Thanks!!! Cali4529 (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. When you need to ask for a third opinion, first you have to place the request at WP:3O, and then you place the {{3O}} template in the corresponding talk page. Please remember that this process is intended for disputes in which only two editors are engaged in it. I have already removed for yourself the third opinion request for the ongoing discussion at WP:AIRPORTS. Cheers.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Airport Linking Format has begun please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports under the Airline/Airport Table Voting column. Thanks! Cali4529 (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can have images in your user space as long as they are not fair use ones. I have almost 300 in my user space. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found out late last night that it was my friend the whole time. I left my account logged in and he changed the pswrd. He came over to my house blah blah blah I saw he was on my account and thats it. The times I can't really explain, we were both on separate computers at my house after work and we were both on wikipedia then. With my backing of his idea on the wiki airports thats simply because he pitched that suggestion to me while we were talking and I liked it. Thanks for your concern! Aviationspecialist101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your curiosity! I didn't give my friend the password I left my account logged on while I was using his computer. I am not sure what you mean by "you were always only one individual who overreacted to a perceived slight and acted disruptively." Please further explain that. And while appreciate your concern I think you are over reacting to a simple occurrence. I haven't even done anything bad to make you warrant a "loud" conversation. You can delete my Cali page, I am only using this one because my friend made enemies with my account I do not want to be affiliated with that. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did change my password but I didn't give it to him. The only thing I can think of is if he saw me put it in once before. Thanks! Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, Chaswmsday, you recently made you your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for helping improve airport and television related articles, and for all your contributions to the project. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Maryana (WMF):

Thanks! It's nice to know someone's watching over us. I've felt appreciated by most of the community in airport articles; I wish I could say the same about the incivility of WP:NFCC zealots in the TV articles. It almost put me off editing at all. Someday I hope to compose a humongous discussion about NFCC with added insight about the related lack of civility, personal attacks and general lack of a collaborative spirit in case the Foundation is unaware of the "horrors" taking place, with the alleged intent of "saving" Wikipedia. Overdramatic? Yep, that's me. ;) --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand. On the one hand, I'm sympathetic to community-led efforts to ensure we don't get sued off the Internet for hosting illegal content. Very sympathetic – thank you, community! On the other hand, when I edit as a volunteer, I never, ever, ever get into the thickets of that stuff because I know it will ruin my day – and just because it's complicated and involves The Law^(tm), it shouldn't have to be that way. It's not exactly something the WMF can wave a magic wand over, but rest assured that your voice is not going unheard :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken, but as I have come to understand the arguments, it's not about hosting illegal content. The Law^(tm) generally allows for the legal fair use/fair dealing of copyright content. English Wikipedia apparently goes well beyond this, worrying about the legalities for users "downstream" from En-WP. I don't doubt there was noble intent behind this, but I believe En-WP generally fails at it. Unless I'm totally off-base in my understanding, I believe I could compose a fairly compelling set of counter-arguments to the current fair use rules, if I must quite immodestly(!) state this myself... --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End copy.

Text in italics copied from User Talk:Magioladitis:

Magioladitis, please stop removing empty comments from airport articles; they are deliberate, as they GREATLY ease editing of the destination tables. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.... do you find it easier than just empty lines? Mclay1 has asked for this and in fact I also find the page cleaner. I 'll stop removing it from airports till we sort it out. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop for now removing comments on airports but I wonder how did that started for airport pages. Editors have asked me in the past to remove empty comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all pages with the word "airport" from my list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empty lines also change the layout of the table. Slasher-fun (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change, Magioladitis. I was just about to say what Slasher-fun did. I believe I started adding empty comments to airport articles and everyone else picked up on it. I was afraid of having a non-empty comment, since that would just add to the existing density of text in these tables. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the formalization and arranging regarding my template addition. I'm going to make a note at the article's talk page, perhaps later than I should have.... Mapsax (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Interchange (road), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mixmaster and Spaghetti Bowl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you should know, altering someones comments (like striking them) is against the rules and is severely frowned upon. The clarification I made is in response to the opening statement of the thread (on this thread) where you stated the article had been "unsourced since April 2007". This is incorrect and hence my clarification. Please stop striking my comment. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please read that again. I was referring to directory (databases) being unsourced, yet relied on by WP:NOTDIR - not to the sourcing for List of AT&T U-verse channels. Meanwhile, I was very apprehensive about moving/removing another user's comments, that's why I took a "lesser of two evils" approach and struck them out instead. Sorry for that. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not for nothing, but in the above "edit warring" to which you responded, I was supporting the retention of an article which you seem to have worked on extensively from what I believe are poorly defined rationales for AfD. Not that it still couldn't be deleted under other rationales. You're welcome. :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a clarification, not really something that was to sway opinion in one way or another, just updated information. As for the 3RR warning, I would have been amiss if I didn't warn you. If Masem would have went to 3RR, I would have warned him as well (he was only at 2), so it wouldn't have just been you. I am an Equal-Opportunity Warn-er. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CANVASS, your posts pointing to the AT&T Uverse AFD to the other "list of channels" talk pages is not appropriate behavior. The TV project was notified at the very start as well as the village pump. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I started out opposed to deletion, I'm actually on the fence now, due almost solely to WP:NOTADVERTISING as a rationale.

Some of the pages to which I posted had already been retained after their own previous AfD discussions.

As CANVASS states, my posts were "done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus". How many editors, out of the entire WP Community, actually spend significant time at Village Pump or a Project page? Since I first started participating in WP discussions, I've found a HUGE self-selection bias in the talk pages - IMO, a major and likely hard-to-avoid flaw in WP. These posts didn't go directly to editors and thus shouldn't pull in uninformed ones, but ones concerned enough to occasionally check a relevant article's talk page and to know how to participate in a discussion. In other words, editors who are slightly less geeky than us. :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly against canvassing. By posting on article talk pages that will be affected by the AFD, you have created a bias. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so? By informing editors that pages in which they've shown an interest might have something interesting happen to them?? To paraphrase Stephen Colbert (wikiquote:Reality), "reality has a well-known bias". Those talk pages mightly easily be read by editors who have always wanted to delete an article, but are only now emboldened by this AfD to do so. Answer me this: don't you usually run into a similar subset of hardcore editors during an intense WP discussion? I know that I do. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's how we define canvassing. We use only a few messages at the broadest points of interest to draw readers for comment, not masses of individual pages or users. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it could be interpreted as pro-keep, given that an editor interested enough to watch a page is probably more likely to be interested in its content than a pro-delete editor would be. OTOH, I do find the participants in talk pages to be highly self-selected, generally with some overarching goal other than a particular interest in the article topic... --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 15:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what we say in regards to the TV pages. They've made up their minds and they'll steam roller over anything in opposition. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've dealt with that kind of editor many times. If you'll note, I'm still waiting on an answer as to how List of Playstation games is not 100% analagous to this AfD. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not. You'll be told it doesn't matter. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the summary that justifies why the pages were deleted? The AFD discussion certainly did not achieve consensus. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked that question at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination)#Result: delete. --Chaswmsday (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your rebuttal of the deletion rationale was very eloquent. As I kept saying, it was mostly "I don't like it" and there was the 'our articles are awesome. you're meanies for drawing parallels' business as well. You forgot to mention that the discussion went on for about 10 days, was closed without consensus, then suddenly reopened, which was clearly to favor the deletionists and buy them time. Will you be appealing the deletions? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Bobby. I don't enjoy arguing with other editors about a sub-topic of TV articles in which I'm not particularly interested. I'd prefer that someone else take the lead in shepherding these discussions. However, I am willing to post to WP:Deletion review, and also I could post to the TV Project an alternative that @Masem (perhaps inadvertently) guided me toward. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added to Deletion Review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 29#List of DirecTV channels and made alternate suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Channel lineups for comparison and contrast. Now please take the reins... --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I was just suggesting it as a possibility. You moved a lot faster than I thought you would. I was caught unawares :-) - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked_--_can_we_bring_this_to_closure.3F

The "one link" rule/enforcement has gotten out of hand, I'm trying to get something closer to rationality. I need any refinements to the proposal, and your support. Thanks Boundlessly (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a prosperous New Year! Snoozlepet (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaswmsday. As a recent contributor to discussion on the WP:NOTADVERTISING policy, I was wondering if you could perhaps help clarify a related issue? Does including an image of a particular brand of a given country's main export constitute advertising (i.e. does it breach that policy)? I ask because an editor has suggested that adding this photo of Ethiopian Blessed Coffee brand bags by the Maryland state government as an example of Ethiopia's main export, coffee, is advertising. I believe the situation is little different from the Iran Khodro car photo that's included on the Iran article as an example of one of Iran's main exports, cars (c.f. [1]). The Manual of Style's WP:PERTINENCE sub-policy also seems to support the both commodity pics' relevance. Please advise. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noted from my discussions, I have some serious disagreements about proper content with the seemingly self-appointed "powers that be" within Wikipedia. That being said, your question is not one I've ever considered. My best hunch, at least at en.Wikipedia, is that such an image would probably be OK if it's in the public domain or similarly free (probably contatined in WikiMedia Commons), or licensed, as was the image you cited. I'm certainly no expert in this area. You may wish to enquire at Commons. Other than that, it's anyone's guess what the opinion of the "powers that be" here in en.WP might be... --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's what I had thought. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

have a look on my recent uploades files: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Hans_Haase --Hans Haase (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They look great, Hans! When I get time, I'll probably use some to replace the prior versions in the road articles I've recently edited. --Chaswmsday (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Boilerplate prose copied from another article --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the NHS and AADT info, most every other road article that is at ~B or above has this info. So why would these not have this info.Detcin (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the prose specifically about NHS and AADT should be removed from the route articles (references to them are great), per the edit summary comments I made when removing. Please see comments made at Wikipedia:Help desk#Boilerplate prose copied from another article. --Chaswmsday (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same (or something smiliar) prose are in most Michigan road articles and most are above GA, M-51 (Michigan highway).. How about adding a commit over at WT:USRD the wik project that maintain US road articles, instead somewhere else.Detcin (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Except that when articles have gone through FAC and later been granted FA status have been reviewed, other editors asked for commentary on the significance of the road and the level of traffic. Since NHS inclusion or exclusion is a mark of significance, that has been added to many, many articles in most states with active editorship by USRD, including the brief statement of explanation.

Similar is true of the inclusion of AADT data, which answers one of the Five Ws, "Who" as in "Who uses the road?"

Now that we've established why NHS and AADT are included in the articles, we've got the situation where technical information about transportation planning is included in an otherwise non-technical article. A brief explanation of technical details, such as a basic definition of AADT or what the NHS is about, is appropriate in good writing. Forcing readers to jump to another article, just so that they'd understand that "the National Highway System consists of roadways important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility."^[a] is a bad writing practice. It is considered bad at the higher levels of writing standards expected of FAs because we should not send a reader to another article for such a simple explanation that can be offered inline. I would agree that this is tangential if we summarized the NHS as more than "important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility", but a half-sentence is not excessive. Entire details of the Interstate Highway System, STRAHNET, and intermodal connectors, as well as the entire background and legal foundation for the system are left for the larger article, for example.

A single sentence explanation of AADT is also not excessive. If the reader wants more information than provided, that's what the wikilink is for, but a reader shipped off to another article may not come back to the subject article to continue reading. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please either remove or collapse your copy and pasted text, out of courtesy? If you want a violation of WP:SYNC, that is one right there, as every time someone posts at those pages, they get out of sync. The project members would greatly appreciate it, as we're the ones who have to put up with the long wall of text as we conduct our business on the page. --Rschen7754 06:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm growing increasingly concerned with your manner of interacting with other editors (especially looking at the posts above). Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, where we work together. Right now, it seems that you are hell bent on removing certain phrases from articles, per your interpretation of policy, and don't care what anyone else says. Your insistence of keeping all that text on our talk page is not backed up by policy (can you quote anything from TPG that backs up your position?) Frankly, this is coming off like you are showing us the middle finger. Can you please take a step back and reevaluate how you are approaching this situation? It would be greatly appreciated by everyone, and then we could get back to writing an encyclopedia Take it from someone who's been here almost 8 years, writing is better than fighting. --Rschen7754 06:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with enough bullying self-appointed guardians of Wikipedia myself over the years (as you can see by reviewing my Talk posts) and so far, have been free of that in the Roads area. Unlike those who have bullied me or bullied those who have held similar views in various controversies, after the first few reverts in the current discussion, I have stuck to arguing my points on Talk pages, not continued to edit any content pages per my interpretations.

As for "our" talk page, I'm sure that by "our" you meant the "Wikipedia Community's" talk page, as it is long-standing policy that no page in WP "belongs" to any one person or interest group, even one's own user talk page. If "ours" was your intent, please be aware that although not a formal member of US Roads, I have made fairly extensive, and I hope, positive contributions to Road articles since I've been actively editing WP content. --Chaswmsday (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's something that I would have done at WP:ANI too if someone had posted a wall of text - this is very common practice. The statement "I've dealt with enough bullying self-appointed guardians of Wikipedia myself over the years (as you can see by reviewing my Talk posts)" is also very concerning, as it does not take into account your behavior in the matters above. Can you please Wikipedia:Assume good faith, per policy? We need more road editors, but you're making it impossible for me to work with you here. --Rschen7754 07:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. A "wall of text" isn't going to hurt anyone or disrupt any business. The last new section in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads was started on 21 February 2013; the last prior comment was 27 Februrary. The thread we're discussing will archive away and stop bothering in due time. Please don't "be concerned" about my behavior, or urge me to "assume good faith", when you arguably have been trying to hide my comment thread and seem to be assuming bad faith on my part. I'm not assuming bad faith on your part in regards to content, just a disagreement. So, I will continue to pose arguments attempting to sway you and/or the community to my interpretation of good content, as you and others are free to do as well. --Chaswmsday (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to leave the "repeated" information in there, will you abide by it? --Rschen7754 07:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest w/you. If you look at my posts, first, I might argue about the nature of consensus in WP. Particularly in some very contentious AfD's, the only people who came to the party were those pushing a particular interpretation. It's really hard to get disinterested editors to play. Next, there were irregularities about holding pro-keep (us) discussions open until "they" got the (delete) !vote they wanted, while swiftly closing pro-delete resolutions. Then there were admin decisions which were technically correct, but in the face of no true consensus, in rendering a decision based on the arguments, not the !votes, counted "me too" delete !votes as valid and ignored goofily-argued delete !votes, but seemed to minimize the importance of (but still counted) "me too" keep !votes and held all of the nutty/invalid/whack-a-doodle keep !votes against the keep side.

But this isn't a keep/delete, inclusionist/deletionist issue, so I likely won't argue about process at all. In the face of insurmountable opposition, whether I feel the process is fair or not, I'll just cave and let the !voters do as they wish. Unless convinced otherwise, I probably won't like the decision, but I'll just wait to twirl my mustache, cackle gleefully and "release the hounds, Smithers!" if and when the "I told you so" moment arrives... --Chaswmsday (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely confused by this. So you wanted non-road editors to comment, but you posted at a roads project talk page? --Rschen7754 08:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the situation I discussed there was about TV service providers (cable/satellite/etc). I didn't even particularly have a dog in the hunt; I had on my watchlist a page related to an AfD article and let myself get dragged into that debate on principle. I made my arguments more general, discussing the acknowledged vagueness of the policy interpretation the deleters used to justify their wish to delete and the misuse of process (i.e. When it suited them, articles stood or fell on their own merits, yet when it suited them otherwise, one article's deletion justified mass deletion of all others of that "type". And yet again, AfD's were parceled out in groups because (paraphrasing) "You get too much pushback if you try to delete all articles at once, even though that's our goal." Any good, not-in-dispute content contained w/i specific articles be damned; it was deleted as well.) Sorry, I'm just venting here. This kind of crap is why I hate contentious debates.

Anyway, to your question, I do want Road editors to comment and !vote on Road issues, but not Road editors with some overarching agenda. Nonsense like "road articles must not contain images of the route shield, because that's the state's specific copyright" or "Interstate-XX must always be written with a hyphen because in the enabling legislation..." Those are just goofy, made-up examples, but they illustrate the types of arguments I've struggled against, with editors who are militant in their belief system and will belittle and stack votes and pile up on everything you do or say until they get their way. Bullies with an agenda. That's why I've gotten touchy when you've come close to suggesting that about me. I'll argue vigorously, but I don't think I've bullied anyone and at least try not to.

If there's a wider question about policy interpretations or process, or an AfD needs to be resolved, or if there's an intractable stalemate within a Project (where fresh, truly disinterested eyes might help, but often they don't grasp the issues), only then would I find "outsiders" necessary. Hope this rant explains things! --Chaswmsday (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question I have is: who has an overarching agenda? And how is that assuming good faith?

I can't speak for the TV people, but the U.S. road article standards are quite demanding because we wrote them so that if an article meets those standards, it will pass GA and FA. The GA and FA standards are quite rigorous. Sure, our methods seem odd, but they work. By the numbers, 0.4% of our articles are FAs, and 7.7% of our articles are GAs, which beats the Wikipedia average of 0.09% for FAs and 0.4% for GAs, respectively.

All I'm saying is before you bash the project or our methods or standards or articles, try them out for a while, as they work. We've been around for over 7 years, and were even featured in the Signpost this week, and are generating lots of good content, so we must be doing something right. --Rschen7754 09:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree with you, @Rschen7754. Of the Projects I've semi-extensively contributed to, I've found the Roads editors the most agreeable. Again, be assured that I wasn't stating actual examples of misbehavior in Roads, just hypotheticals about the kind of stuff that's happened in my editing career. (And I gave some true examples of bullying and contention I've found in other Projects).

I can speak for the vast majority of the TV people. Nice people. Nice, well-run Project(s). For the most part. But there have been a few editors there who seemingly came out of nowhere (one after a year-long ban, who may have sockpuppeted, and is I believe currently banned under her/his newer, somewhat less-toxic name). These few "bad apples", having won the great "don't use station logos unless we personally LIKETHEM" debate, had so cowed the good folks at TV that they would yield to whatever outrageous proposal the little cabal proposed, and were reluctant to put forward ideas that were deemed to be "OK", for fear that they might anger that group. Yet admins kept giving the worst of the bunch chance after chance, month after month, to improve her/his misbehavior of bullying, incivility and blind running of overly-powerful bots, until, at loooong last, s/he was finally banned again. And another group of TV bullies, which AfD'd a type of article they didn't like, but when I presented them with substantially the same type of article in another unrelated Project (which, purely by coincidence - no, really!, one of the ringleaders had contributed to) s/he claimed that article was entirely valid and should never be deleted, and if anyone ever tried, felt confident that the members of that Project would strongly block any deletion attempt. All of these folks were editors who very rarely or never added or improved content, other than enforcing their own inflexible interpretations of rules. I suppose there's a place for such editors, but they usually seem to get so wrapped up in those rules that nothing else matters.

So I'm just skittish about not running into the same types of folks again. I'm not sure what methods or standards Roads uses that are unique to the Project, but I'm not out to bash them in any manner. I just disagree over some content decisions, basing that not on the Project, but on general Wikipedia principles. I was going to say "overarching principles", but I'm not sure how that joke would have gone over... (Tried to do a smiley, but couldn't find it...) --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for an opinion from a military history FA writer: User talk:Dank#USRD comment --Rschen7754 21:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaswmsday, I added some knowledge into the article. Would you review my english language skills a little bit. Thank you so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3-way_junction&diff=570793952&oldid=568959088

And I would like you to know, I am completing samples and references on the article seagull is. Here's a German version in my user space: w:de:Benutzer:Hans Haase/Seagull Intersection. --Hans Haase (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working on the article and asking forwaring the question. --Hans Haase (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's that kind of interchange? Is there a name for it? Technically this is a grade separated HIGH-T / CGT / Seagull or sealed trumpet?

• 27.552055,-82.562985 US-19 / US-41
• 39.077387,-108.576782 US-50 / US-6

it can also be found at I-10 to I-20 intersection next to west end of Texas. --Hans Haase (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, pls review my contribs in Single-point urban interchange, thx --Hans Haase (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information Source about Road junction types: http://attap.umd.edu/UAID_gss.php?UAIDType=22&iFeature=8

And at 39.15581,-76.744824 is a "half DDI" --Hans Haase (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CFL – here's a reference: http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/mtc/papers/documents/chatterjee2007paper.pdf it would be a nice section of Diamond interchange --Hans Haase (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the references and sample for the CFL: 26.301177,-80.186479 Contraflow left turn lanes on Lyons Creek Pkwy underneath SR 869 Florida http://attap.umd.edu/UAID_gss.php?UAIDType=18&iFeature=3 --Hans Haase (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated Diamond interchange. Pleas take al look on the article. About the Dogbone: capacity is being increased when using Turbo roundabouts, else only possible conflicts are being reduced. The missing road in a teardrop roundabout is bbeing used for direct u-turn of if more roads than the cross street are beeing connected to the roundabout. --Hans Haase (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you enter this in to the map search, prepare, it could be funny to see, but not funny to pay: 51.131148,-114.227603 --Hans Haase (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That looks way safer than a standard four-cloverleaf interchange. –Fredddie™ 23:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new Year 2014, Chaswmsday, is something that kind in USA, UK, or somewhere else installed? In the 1990ies Düsseldorf had some installed along Bundesstrasse 8, but uninstalled today. Göttingen has still some, signalling speeds 40, 50 and 60 km/h (equals 25, 30 and 40 mph) to make the vehicles arrive during green singal phase. --Hans Haase (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you live in Evansville, or Southwestern Indiana? I've lived here for nearly 20 years and for as long as I have lived here, The Lloyd Expressway is usually referred to as The Lloyd and is even often called Lloyd Boulevard Rhatsa26X (talk) 11:43 30, March 2014 (CDT)

They are typically abbreviated.

• The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.) says to abbreviate them in the reference list (§6.30, p. 187).
• The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (7th ed.) says to abbreviate them in "documentation" (§7.3, p. 236).
• The Chicago Manual of Style (16th. ed.) says they are usually abbreviated in bibliographies while they should be spelled out in running text (§10.28, p. 498).

The examples on Template:Cite news/doc oddly show location names and publishers for newspapers that contain the name of the city in the title (The Seattle Times and "Seattle") and where the name of the newspaper is repeated in the name of the publisher, neither of which is necessary. Help:CS1#Work and publisher tell us that in such cases, the location and the publisher are superfluous, but the CS1 documentation is silent on abbreviating vs. not abbreviating state names, so I defer to established style manuals' practice, which is nearly unanimous among the big three used by undergraduate students. Imzadi 1979 → 23:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the English section of Wikipedia is the British English, and not the American English? In British English, "cancelled" is written just like that. toreau (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Alcatraz: I believe it's generally been held, under MOS:ENGVAR, that articles whose topics "belong" to a particular country (such as this TV series) should use the variety of English spoken in that country. If an article's subject is transnational, the prose is generally kept in the variety in which it was originally written. I don't particularly like the "canceled" spelling myself, and as a young lad I remember learning the "LL" spelling, but that seems to have changed over the years in the US. :( --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thanks for the answer! toreau (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Fargo (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

You've now been reverted by three editors. That should tell you that the content is inappropriate where you've placed it. The last editor made a good suggestion regarding title allusions. You might want to pay attention to it rather than continuing to edit war. Moreover, please discuss on the talk page, not via edit summary; see WP:BRD. --Drmargi (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for the information on the titles you've added to the Fargo episodes. It looks like you originally got into a bit of a mess adding them, please don't let that get you down. Wikipedia needs more editors like you who are willing to share your knowledge and find the references to improve articles. Thanks for all your hard work! 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you've dropped your IP and are back using your user name. After the last few days' needless drama and haranguing, I just want to reiterate that you are no longer welcome to post on my talk page, either under your user name or under any IP. --Drmargi (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That user (2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A) wasn't me. I haven't even been on WP in the past few days. If you don't believe me, I'm just about to thank and disagree with 2607. --Chaswmsday (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were EXPLICITLY told to stay off my talk page. That means you stay off, and you know it. Cycling to a new IP and playing the games you're playing won't work. Next time, I take it to an admin. I'm tired of your harassment. --Drmargi (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your premise, "After the last few days...", is false, as I am NOT 2607. I understand that you believe that I am, but I don't know who this editor is, or why it has only existed briefly, even though its writing seems to indicate longtime WP experience. Following Whois and other links from this IP user shows Time Warner Cable Internet/Roadrunner. Although I am unhappily a Time Warner Cable TV customer, I am NOT an Internet customer of theirs, nor do I reside in or near Honolulu, Kansas City, KS, Orange, CA or San Diego.

I only added the {{talkback}} to your page to direct you to my response to your allegation here on MY talk page. Other than that talkback, I had not posted on your talk page, even after YOUR harassment and accusations on MY talk page, and even before you put out an un-welcome mat on yours. You are also invited (after responding to this, if you wish) to leave ME alone and not post on my talk page, either under your user name or under any IP.

Looking through your talk archives, I find a number of editors who have accused you of heavy-handedness and a poor attitude. If you continue to harass me based on the actions of others, I will go ahead myself and notify an admin. That admin would be welcome to do any sockpuppet investigation s/he wishes on me. --Chaswmsday (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Channel 93. Since you had some involvement with the Channel 93 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. K7L (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have reverted my edits to a few pages that replaced a variety of links (Channel 7 branded TV stations in the United States, Channel 11 branded TV stations in the United States. etc.). Those links redirect to disambiguation pages. Is your intent to have those links point to Channel 7, Channel 11, etc., or are you intending to link one or two specific pages on those disambiguation pages? -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 16:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Niceguyedc:, per the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 7#American TV stations by channel number (also Canadian & Mexican), it was decided to convert the relevant categories into list articles. Rather than doing the same for TV stations which "brand" by a channel different than the stations' virtual or RF channels (usually the station's cable channel), the "branded" entries were just placed into the matching disambiguation pages. I could redirect to specific sections w/i the DAB pages, but I'm not sure that the layout of these DABs is optimal, or even stable. So, for now at least, I'm intentionally redirecting "Channel 'X' branded TV stations in the United States" directly to the "Channel 'X'" DAB page. If you have any other thoughts on the matter, please let me know. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WGGB-DT2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channel 6 branded TV stations in the United States. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you recently edited Presidio of San Francisco to change some date formats. Per MOS:DATERET, once consistent usage has been established in an article, it should be maintained, absent of consensus to change it. In this case, the article was clearly using dmy dates, as evidenced by the {{Use dmy dates}} template. Kindly revert your edit. Sincerely,—Stepheng3 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion to Talk:Presidio of San Francisco#Date format. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I do not know that you are native English person or just as I am. I am pretty sure, you are wrong, I do not bother if your knowledge of the grammar is that level. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, English is my first language and my usage is correct. The best description for the proper usage can be found at verbal noun. The sentence in question is very long with, in my opinion, too many dependent clauses; were it not in the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline and subject to much community debate, I might have considered rewording the whole sentence. I hope this clarifies things for you. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chaswmsday,

I have found your name on many intersection and interchange talk pages, and it appears that you have a great deal of experience and expertise in the subject area of interchange/intersections. Recently, I posted a new talk page discussion section on on the Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) Talk Page, I am asking for feedback on whether the Double Crossover Merging Interchange (DCMI) should be re-inserted into the Diverging Diamond Interchange article, or if it should have the original standalone DCMI article undeleted.

Can you please review and provide your opinion, it would be greatly appreciated.

Talk :Reinsert or UnDelete Double Crossover Merging Interchange

Cliff Shaffer (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

where the drawing is [2] --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:07, 20 November 2015 (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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the term used in numerous articles to refer to Interstate 26 in Columbia, South Carolina. More later when I have time.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Branded TV channel categories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Josh Mandel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited WOAY-TV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Analog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go here. (Also posting at WT:USRD) Mapsax (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in reverting vandalism. Please try WP:TWINKLE, It will add more buttons to help you clean up vandalism faster. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 17:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your commentary on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Road_junction_lists#Interchange_design_encouraged_in_Notes_column about TenPoundHammer's comment to Imzadi1979 that you were "at it again". I have no opinion on your activities that caused that initial comment from TPH, but I do think it was in bad taste to broadcast it on WT:RJL. MoS talk pages are not the place to take umbrage with another editor's comments or actions. If you have concerns regarding a specific editor, it should be discussed at that user's talk page. On that note, TPH should have come to your talk page to discuss it with you. He didn't, so that's on him. –Fredddie™ 03:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie:, my copy of TenPoundHammer and Imzadi1979's comments from Imzadi1979's talk page to WT:RJL was *not* off-topic, since the subject at hand is the interpretation of MOS:RJL guidelines. And I'm not sure how you can claim to have "no opinion" on my edits, since you also reverted them. --Chaswmsday (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's bad faith to assume what my motives and what I'm thinking. I was asked (offwiki) by Imzadi1979 to be sort of a peacemaker between you and him. I initiated WP:BRD on his behalf. You were bold, I reverted, now let's discuss. That's how it's supposed to work. –Fredddie™ 16:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page you posted:

Could you please modify this file to add overlay area code 326 to area code 937. Thanks a lot! --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. It is only by people like you, who notice when resources are old, or out of date (especially since I live in Virginia) and report them so they can be fixed and brought up to date, can we keep Wikipedia an accurate resource. Per your request, I have updated and replaced this map so that the new map shows the two area codes in that reagon. Again, thank you for notifying me so I could fix this. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Do you know how long it will take to show up in WP? --Chaswmsday (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I said I replaced the map, I meant that I had uploaded the new version to Wikipedia. Except for potential cashing issues - like where the old image is being loaded instead of the new one because the last edit on a page shows it has not been changed - it should be available immediately once replaced. Try hitting the 'reload' button on your browser when visiting an area code page using it, and the new map should show up right away. I had checked the map image on Commons itself, I didn't check the Area Code pages that use it. I went to Area codes 937 and 326 which I have not visited in a while, and the new map shows up fine. Advise me if there are still problems after reloading. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It *was* a cache problem on my end. Thanks again! --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to WRGT-TV. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. It is highly doubtful that Sinclair and Spectrum are going to resolve reception difficulties based on a complaint inserted into this article; this is an issue for their technical support departments and hotlines, not here. Nate • (chatter) 19:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Channel 45 branded TV stations in the United States, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Channel 28 branded TV stations in the United States, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. TheWikiholic (talk) 03:41, 23 March 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Dayton, Ohio

added a link pointing to Gem City

Flag of Dayton, Ohio

added a link pointing to Gem City

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dayton, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gem City.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaswmsday

Thank you for creating Great Council State Park.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might notice that I've removed the material you added and re-added to WDCW, and I wanted to explain why.

I am writing pages (like this one) to our Good Article standard. That means material needs to be referenced. No one source is going to tell me that there are only four CW affiliates in the Eastern Time Zone with standalone newsrooms (and honestly WDCW is a weird case). That's synthesis of published material with a fair helping of original research.

I see you've been around a while. Hopefully you'll notice that I'm working to improve the quality of our pages in the TV stations field. That means that the cruft we've tolerated for too long must go. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie, please note that my edits were a good-faith attempt to update already-existing prose and add reciprocal prose in the relevant articles. I have subsequently found that 3 more "CW affiliates w/standalone news" were added by CBS News and Stations. I too am unable to locate a single (or a few) reliable sources making the claim.

I agree with your reasoning and will therefore remove said claim from the 1 article you & another editor missed. However, I would urge you to stick to arguments of synthesis & OR and refrain from using the term "cruft". The word as used in WP is quite polarizing (see WP:NOCRUFT) & assigns a dismissive connotation of superfan unseriousness to good-faith editors. I find the concept of non-Big Four TV stations w/standalone news operations to be rare & notable. Be assured, if I ever find reliable sourcing for such claims, I will not hesitate to add them to the appropriate WP article(s). Thanks. Chaswmsday (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a draft for Sinclair's new channel called The Nest which can be found at [3]. The new channel was launched on October 30 and replaced the Stadium (sports network) channel on Sinclair owned or managed TV stations. Can you help with this proposed article? Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a move request on the page Davenport–Moline–Clinton, Muscatine, Iowa–Illinois Combined Statistical Area, because (as you noted when changing the text) the CSA doesn't include Muscatine or Clinton in its name. Based on recent census dept data, clearly you are correct - meaning the page name is a problem in its current state. But I'd appreciate at least one other look at this request, since I think it's the first move request I've ever done. Thx. CleverTitania (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WWRD-LP, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWRD-LP until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]