Metallurgist

I added my personal eMail to my USER page, first section. (DELETE HERE, after reading).

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Likud leadership election, 2012 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paschal Lamb

Moshe Feiglin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Israeli

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The sources says that Netanyahu will be the first PM to complete a four year term, which is different to the Knesset completing a four year term. The Knesset has completed several four year terms, as you can see in this list. This Knesset document also infers that the Knesset has served a four year term previously (it states it is rare, not that it has never happened). But it also happens to be wrong as there have been full term governments previously (like Begin's). Number 57 08:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have used the Reuters article to change the wording to "If it completes its four year term in office, it will be the first since Menachem Begin's government of 1977–1981 to do so." Number 57 09:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, and the whole concept of governments completing the term is slightly misleading anyway - the unity government of 1984–1988 completed its term, but because the Prime Minister changed halfway through as part of the rotation agreement, technically it was two governments. The 1992-1996 government effectively completed its term (although again it was two governments because of Rabin's assassination) but Peres chose early elections rather than being forced into it. Number 57 19:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Consensus has been reached at the article mentioned above in regards to the Table in the Calender section. Further reverts will be considered escalating an edit war. Reporting will be considered. Please see the talk page with my final comment as a third party.

The action to remove the table (the only information as concise and complete in Wikipedia on the 2012 Republican primaries) was carried out by one anonymous individual calling himself or herself a 'third-party' person. Where does this come from? A few vague generalities were made to find the information elsewhere. I pointed out the information in other Wikipedia pages is incomplete and often incorrect. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

We both know he's now blatantly lying (6 people are against me?) and just put a tag here. This just convinces me more and more he's sockpuppeting with like a half dozen accounts now.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Metallurgist, I'm leaving a note on your TALK page; then I'll go to the talk page of Anonymous-68 and leave this message for him or her:

Sign in as a real person to be respected as an editor. .!. . . . Respectfully, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

SUBJECT: Words between Alice (in Wonderland) and the Cheshire Cat: "Who . . . are . . . you ? "

Perhaps a new Wikipedia page is in order which would link from the main page. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can you read up on asking a QUESTION to the Help Desk of Wikipedia? I know that you know how things work at Wikipedia, but in addition, senior editors can look at the TALK and it would be good for them to become involved. This is a HIGH PRIORITY and HIGH INTEREST Wikipedia page and should not be treated so lightly by 'you-know-who'. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

"When you argue with a fool, observers may not know [the wiser]." You are obviously right in the mini-tempest, but if it comes to arbitration, I have seen good and best work discounted. If you get tired of putting the table back, I copied the Wiki-code and could take a turn. I want the table to stay till at least Super Tuesday and through March. After that, it may be a great idea to have a new Wikipedia page with some introductory lines before the table and then the link over to the actual table. Give it some thought just in case. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't know—we'll see when we see. The calendar might get split up eventually once the primaries are over. I'm not sure it's worth edit-warring because we're the mature ones, so we can stop. And I'm confident, he'll be proven wrong in the end.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are the adult on the TALK page. Can you send a note to my personal eMail address (on my TALK page) ? I have some insights not for the public eye here on Wikipedia. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. Did you mean, "he'll be proven wrong in the end, or did you mean, "Hell will be proven wrong in the end"?Reply

No, I just dont use apostrophes. :P And I dont see your email--Metallurgist (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why should it be your say only when the table should stay until?68.39.100.32 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Its not my say only. But no one except a suspected sockpuppet disagrees with me.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Suspected. And when I and the other 4 or 5 users are proven not to be the same person, what will happen?68.39.100.32 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is almost certain that there is sockpuppetry somewhere here. You may be separate from this, but I honestly doubt it.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I AM separate from this. Is there anyway that you can get CheckUser to check us/the page with the sockpuppet report?68.39.100.32 (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I dont believe that, but we shall see. And I have no idea what is taking so long. Im sure we both can agree on wanting this to be resolved already.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

LMAO, that makes one thing ;) 68.39.100.32 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I TOLD you I wasnt a sockpuppet or associated with them.68.39.100.32 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

You havent been cleared yet. He just said he didnt have any comment on you. That could mean anything. He did say there wasnt enough evidence to connect Screwball to those identities, but did say he was likely behind them. Theres still a good bit of evidence to connect you and Screwball, but not yet enough to get you banned. He was banned for a month tho.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

To the puppet I would say, "Did you add to your USER page, or your TALK page I created for you? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Metallurgist. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, has been proposed for a merge with Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

(An interesting idea but due to size and current high interest in the main WP article here, it didn't happen. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk))

• I created a possible addition to the map text box caption. I also included how I could go about implementing the change. I like your idea of including links for multiple maps so the majority of this change would be based around that. I'm thinking it would greatly assist individual's with any color vision deficiency. I would appreciate your feedback as I would like to include you in every step of this process. SaveATreeEatAVegan 06:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Great, so what I've done now is used the Protanopia (red-green) color comparison graph to adjust the main map. You were spot on about the yellow comment you made, as our mutual friend would have seen the yellow as white which is completely unhelpful. Changing it to the green (lime), now Gingrich will appear as yellow to anyone with the red-green color deficiency. SaveATreeEatAVegan 18:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, youd never know it if you didnt see things like that.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll want to see what this is talking about. Ill start by looking at the Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC) (PS: What do your professors think about not using apostrophes?)Reply

there was once a famous author who did not use CAPS: c.s.lewis? how fast do you type[question-mark] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ive gotten a point off here and there, but havent written papers in awhile really :P. Sometimes I just avoid contractions altogether, which is a cop out...altho sometimes its required. Really theres no point in having them if you read the criticism section on the apostrophe page. ---- As for the template, the guy withdrew his deletion nomination.--Metallurgist (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just a quick note regarding formatting court cases on Wikipedia, as I noticed this edit of yours. Court cases are always formatted in italics on the English Wikipedia (cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Formatting). Generally people also include the court case citation as well "123 U.S. 456", but including just the year is acceptable. My main concern is the use of italics.

Thank you for all your hard work. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I wasnt aware of that. I put the years to try to help haha --Metallurgist (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Since I know you have a lot of knowledge and interest in Israel and because I noticed that you always make sure that all your contributions are of high quality and reliability, I was hoping you might be able to help me improve the following templates by ensuring that the places from which each attack was launched are marked correctly with the right color. I have started marking them all and I still got much more work to do, nevertheless, I was hoping I could get assistance from additional editors like yourself so that my work would be completed faster and be double checked.

• Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2010s
• Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s
• Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 1990s
• Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 1980s
• Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 1970s
• Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 1960s
• Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 1950s

What do you say? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh wow thats a tough job. Whats your rationale for doing it? Im not opposed, but Im "curious". Ill see if I can help..--Metallurgist (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Throughout Israel's history it has been attacked by various organizations that launched terror attacks from different countries and territories. In my opinion it is not enough to specify only the name of each attack (which doesn't mean a lot to most of the readers anyway) and that therefore we should also mark the countries and/or territories from which each attack was launched with separate colors so that our readers would be able to understand much faster where the attacks originated from in each period of the conflict. In my opinion we shouldn't disregard this aspect, especially not since the places from which the terror attacks are launched are of great importance to all researchers studying this subject and would help the readers understand better and much faster the geopolitics of the region in each period of time. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah ok. Which ones do you want me to do? Or should I just double check them?--Metallurgist (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The most important one in my opinion is Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s (which is not finished and therefore your assistance with it would be mostly appreciated). In general I would appreciate if you can double check every single one of the events listed in each template mentioned above since their accuracy is very important. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. Ill do a bit sometime today. Remind me if I forget.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You have edited Conventions table in this article. Could you give me the source of updated results? No source shows that Romney won 1 delegate in 1CD. What is more, no one shows an uncommitted delegate in 8CD (it should be Unknown, not Uncommitted I think). Regards Bielsko (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

This tweet says it was for CD1. Its not quite reliable, but there isnt anyone doubting it. As for CD8, uncommitted and unknown are functionally the same.--Metallurgist (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's rather unconfirmed info. 3rd delegate should be marked as uncommitted, I think. Official sources (Pat Anderson, National Committeewoman) confirms only 20 for Paul - [1]. Few days ago, she confirmed 2 delegates for Santorum - [2].

"Uncommitted and unknown are functionally the same" - OK, my fault. Regards Bielsko (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is, but theres presently no reason to doubt it. I wish there was a more reliable source, but the media has been negligent. And nothing at fault. There is a small difference, but its not really important.--Metallurgist (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

In general, please explain your edits in the edit summaries - that's what they're for. This change, for example, would be much easier to evaluate if you explained what you were changing and why. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I did explain it. Missouri is what I changed.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your entire summary is "Missouri". But what are you changing about it, and why? Contrast that to the edit summary of the previous edit, by yours truly: "Update Minnesota delegate count per todays results as updated at Minnesota Republican caucuses, 2012; updated totals at bottom of table too.". While I don't provide a direct source, at least I let editors know where I got the information (which I verified to be properly sourced before I used it), so they can verify it. Your "Missouri" edit summary doesn't facilitate verification like that at all. It's not like this info is front page on the NY Times. Why make others dig it up when you can point them to it? Presumably you did not make up these numbers, so why not tell others where you got them? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You dont need to write a whole abstract on your edit. The diff is pretty explanatory.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You give no indication whatsoever of what your source is. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nothing on that chart is sourced.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, unfortunately. Makes verification extremely difficult. Anyway, that's just more reason to indicate in the edit summary the source of any updates. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Its verifiable if you look at the subpages.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You have twice now quoted WP:BOLD in your edits to Alberta general election, 2012. Please know that a part of being bold is not to "get upset if your bold edits get deleted". Let's start the WP:BRD cycle, not the edit war cycle. 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

And part of Wikipedia is not getting upset if your precious article is modified significantly. WP:OWN In addition, you just reverted it without putting up any discussion yourself that you wanted or giving any reasoning to wipe out a very constructive edit. I only planned to revert once, so there was no risk of edit war, fortunately.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

How many times do I have to say BRD? If you want your changes discussed, start the thread on the article's talk. 117Avenue (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I dont have to defend a constructive change. You should put a discussion as to why this change is not constructive if you find it so.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I twice said WP:CONTRAST. I would like to go in more detail about how this formatting is unlike anything else in Canada, but it should be discussed on the article's talk, not a user's. 117Avenue (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Of course it should, but you seem to have no interest in doing so and would rather just tear away an edit.--Metallurgist (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, You have written: "and gaining 17 delegates to the national convention in Tampa.". There is a problem with this sentence - National Convention Delegates will be elected at the state convention in June. Yesterday, caucus elected only 150 delegates and 72 alternates to State Convention. The table you put in that article is also wrong, I think - because it shows national not state convention delgates. Bielsko (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I didnt write that. Someone else did. If it were me, I would have just put the table. And on that note, thats what the source says. Its the same as any other projected delegate count. But I understand what youre saying. You can put a note that theyre projected not elected if you want.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fine. I saw you have just added corrected table. Regards Bielsko (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Next Israeli legislative election (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Balad

Sarhan Bader (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Balad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Metallurgist. Please help me improve this important article as much as you can. Thanks. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I dont know much about this actually. Sorry--Metallurgist (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks anyway. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

As a frequent or occasional editor of U.S. election-related articles, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.--JayJasper (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Metallurgist. You have new messages at Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've added a polling section and told you via your talk page as requested. --Cymru123 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I just wanted to see how likely it was to pass.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Israeli legislative election, 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labor (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) 15:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Metallurgist. Please express your opinion on my template split proposal in the latest part of the discussion you started on the matter. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could I ask why you've removed the surplus vote agreement section from Israeli legislative election, 2013 twice? And even more pressing, why do you think this is vandalism? Cheers, Number 57 09:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

It doesnt seem to serve any constructive purpose, so it should be removed.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's part of the electoral system in Israel, so it's worth including. I'm more concerned that you labelled it as vandalism when it clearly wasn't. Number 57 12:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Explain how. Until it becomes clear what its purpose is, it looks like utter nonsense and vandalism to me. You cant just add gibberish and think that is ok for Wikipedia.--Metallurgist (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

What? Do you know how the system works? Because it's PR, the number of seats can't be allocated exactly, as you can't have 0.2 or whatever of a seat. This means some parties have more votes than they need for their number of seats, but not enough to get another one. Surplus vote agreements mean that they transfer these extra votes to another party so that they perhaps can get enough extra for one more seat. It's a newsworthy issue - see here, here, here etc. Number 57 13:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why are you telling me about what you should be putting on the page if you feel that justifies it?--Metallurgist (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why on earth have you removed it again? It's just vandalism now. Number 57 09:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School#Mises.2Finflation.2FKrugman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School#Edit_Warring_----_Byelf2007_Please_Revert_your_recent_edits Byelf2007 (talk) 7 December 2012

 

Hello, Metallurgist. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 14:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have also replied there. Graham87 05:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bourgeoisie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burgess (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) 12:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Metallurgist! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Metallurgist. Do you have any sources that would help to establish the notability of this band? Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Metallurgist. Sorry to have to post directly on your talk page, but you may have noticed (on the WP:Elections and referendums talk page) that I am trying to get all the election and referendum articles tagged for the project. Unfortunately this is not making any progress, as people are claiming there is no consensus to do this, as no-one has responded on the Project talk page. Could you possibly comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Bot to tag articles for the WikiProject, as I'm getting rather frustrated by the attitude of the people at WP:BTR. Cheers, Number 57 12:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dont you love the bureaucratic process here? ;) —Metallurgist (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

No comment! Number 57 23:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here, your input is appreciated. Lbertolotti (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wikipedia about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

 

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mind taking a look at Anjan Contractor for notability and seeing if you think it qualifies for a strong Keep?3Dnasa (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 Gush Etzion mayoral election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Gush Etzion mayoral election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SecretName101 (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Party shading/Alberta/WR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Party shading/Alberta/Lib has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Party shading/Alberta/NDP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Party shading/Alberta/PC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Irgun Commanders has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply