Archives

2006 2007 to June 2008 to Dec 2008 to June 2009 to Dec 2009 to June 2010 to December 2010 to June 2011 to December 2011 to June 2012 to December 2012 to June 2013

At Miriam Battista, your first edit to replace "crippled" was reverted by me. Your second edit to remove "crippled" was reverted by another editor. It's time for you to make your case on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it. I have now responded on the talk page of the article where I have expounded on my reasoning. --Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you've moved into field position for WP:3RRN with your most recent revert, which you know is disputed. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "field position"? I really don't know. What I do know is that I have made 3 edits to the article over a period of 10 days, which doesn't seem to be anywhere close to 3RR; as I mentioned, I have commented on the talkpage.. --Slp1 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must sheepishly admit that I also thought you were a he until I just looked at your page. Not that it matters, but I wonder why. Maybe your writing style is diff than others here? Not sure it's enough for a PhD, but another data point, at least...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this. --Kangaroopowah 21:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. But do be careful with those automated tools; they are powerful and can be a bit dangerous if there isn't someone very viligant in control! --Slp1 (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a reader of cardiac theory. Work by Torrent-Guasp captivated me the first time I saw the late doctors' rendering of the unfolding of the myocardium. I have seen a similar view once before in the work of Dr. Carolyn Thomas (possibly from New England), dated somewhere around 1959, connected to work by Peskin and McQueen. Further extrapolation of this work by Dr. Randas Batista allowed radical geometric remodeling of the failing ventricle, mostly in the still deadly epidemic of Chagas Disease. Work by Torrent-Guasp seems to be well reasoned and accepted in Spanish language Wikipedia but remains excluded by English Wikipedia. I respectfully request an explanation for this discrepancy.lbeben 01:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here for discussion. This is the sort of place to discuss things, not by creating an article as you did before. A few points:

• For edits here, it is irrelevant what Spanish Wikipedia has done. The two encyclopedias have different rules and organizations, and so it really isn't worth mentioning here.
• For there to be an article about Dr. Torrent-Guasp he would have to meet WP's notability criteria. These include WP:BIO "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", and/or academics WP:PROF. "Many .."academics" ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." It goes on to list the criteria (such as making a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" or "received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." I have done a quick look through the sources and do not myself find evidence that Dr. T-G would meet these or other criteria. However, you may be able to identify extra sources. You can gather the material and present it at WP:AFC, as I suggested.
• It seems based on your talkpage that you wish to include information about Dr. Torrent-Guasp's theories in other (medical) articles. Please note that on this WP we have very strict standards of sources for medically-related articles (see. WP:MEDRS. From a brief survey, Dr. T-G's theories are not (yet) accepted in the medical community, though reliable sources consider them interesting and some discuss them at length. e.g. [1][2][3][4]. These are the sort of sources (or better still scholarly medical review articles) you need if you want to propose edits to other articles.

I hope that this information helps. Note that this isn't the place to advocate for T-G's theories, even if you think that they are very interesting yourself. Collecting reliable sources about a particular topic and then summarizing them are what we do here.

A final comment. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. This will properly sign and date your posts for you automatically. Slp1 (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the theory advanced by Dr. Francisco Torrent-Guasp worthy of encyclopedic mention in any and all languages?--lbeben 01:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know. I don't know the field and I am afraid have other priorities at present. Why don't you collect references (and links) to high quality academic sources that mention the theory, and propose something on the talkpage of relevant articles.

As I mentioned above please sign your posts properly per WP:SIGNATURE. Your current method does not allow editors to link to your user and talkpage. Thank you. Slp1 (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently stubbed the article to remove unsourced material, and added two WP:RS that clearly assert the subject's notability. Please consider restoration of this article. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming here and asking about this. I appreciate it. I looked at the references you found before I deleted the article; they support that she wants a uterine transplant and that she sued Blue Cross, but why is that notable? How many other individuals want uterine transplants (lots according to the clinical ethics article); how many others have sued Blue Cross for one reason of the other and got their 5 minutes of fame about it? Do we need articles on all of them? This sort of thing doesn't make a person in any way notable to the extent that we need a biographical article, per WP:BASIC and WP:BLP1E. If there is a fuller article to write, with more reliable sources/references and more details about her life, please go ahead and write it; but remember that the article has already been a magnet for BLP violations and consider whether it will really be a benefit for her or for this encyclopedia to host it. --Slp1 (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issues you describe should be considered at AFD. When it takes a full paragraph to explain why an article was deleted under CSD A7, speedy deletion was probably inappropriate. Since my stubbed version of the article was not an obvious BLP violation, please restore the article so that this issue can be discussed by the community. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it needn't take a full paragraph to explain the issue, but I gave you that courtesy. I guess my effort was wasted. The short version is in the deletion summary, which you have already seen. There was no claim of notability and there are in addition issues of BLP1E --Slp1 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a deletion review discussion about this article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1 – I'm a bit concerned about the message that has recently appeared at the head of the article, regarding the fact that someone claims to have "detected that this page contains external links that are either on the spam blacklist or the global spam blacklist", having been flagged up by Cyberbot II – I'm not really sure what to do about it.

The obvious thing is to delete the offending link, but I'm damned if I can find it, and I don't want to have to spend hours looking for it. The message at the head of the source code indicates it as <http://books.google.com/?id=VMF_-aVJSE4C&pg=PA178&dq=British+anti-slavery+petitions+percentage%7Cbot=Cyberbot II}> which does not appear to exist anywhere in the text (unless I've stupidly overlooked it). Presumably there has got to be an easier way of finding exactly what this bot is objecting to and correcting it? Any ideas?

I'm far from happy that this has happened, and it reinforces the impression I have recently gained that Wikipedia these days is edited by powerful technicians and/or administrators who have developed what they believe to be useful robot technology (albeit probably well-meaning), but which ends up just making life difficult and unbearable for lowly contributors, who just want to make an encyclopedia, but end up gettting sick of the interminable changes and disillusioned with the whole futile process.

I'd be interested to hear your views on this.

Cheers – Bruce Agendum (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruce. Nice to hear from you. I hear the weather in the UK has been lovely, after a rather dismal start to the summer. I hope you have been able to enjoy it.

Thanks for drawing my attention to this- I totally missed it. It seems that this bot doesn't like the word "petitions" and so tagged that book reference because it had the word in the google search string. I think the original idea was to ban spamming of petitions in support of this or that, but it shouldn't be tagging this sort of stuff.. The ref was there- not sure why you didn't find it. I removed the search string and that should be the end of our problems.

I have to agree these automated things can be very frustrating, though I guess we do benefit too. The bots who revert vandalism work very well on this article!! It looks like we were a bit unlucky in that the bot was being let loose on a limited trial to see if it behaved well, and poor William was one of the test subjects. If you look at my contribution history you'll see that I have also reported the problems to the powers that be. You could share your opinions there too, if you want. In any case, hopefully the problems will be fixed soon. Keep well, Bruce!! Slp1 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1. Thanks your message, and for sorting this out. I’ve been away for a few days, aware of your efforts and your message – but without time or opportunity to respond. I’ve no idea why I couldn’t find the reference – apart from the fact it was late in the evening and I was tired and annoyed (perhaps you guessed!) I take your point that this was a limited trial and have followed your correspondence with CyberPower and am aware of the issues. It may be best if I don’t now add my voice to the conversation, as you seem to have conveyed the problems more than adequately. Yes, the weather has been fantastic this summer, after so many poor years – it’s about time, as I had been thinking of emigrating! So, I have indeed taken full advantage of it. I hope you are well, and good luck to you, too. Cheers – Bruce Agendum (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds very good. Yes, I am well, thanks for asking!! Have a great week, Bruce.Slp1 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you meet me on IRC?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Meet me at #xlabs ^connect—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I am technically incompetent in many areas, and don't have any idea how to get to IRC. And no real desire to learn either!! Sorry. --Slp1 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After having some time to think, I have decided to restyle the tag to be smaller. The regex generator has been fixed, and the next bot run will test to see if tags will be removed. Thanks for your comments. Cheers.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me and in advance for reworking the template. Just to point out that making it smaller is just one of the suggestions made, and it would be good to address those too. In any case, good luck with your bot. Slp1 (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What were the other suggestions?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. What I am about to say is made in the utmost good faith and in a genuine effort to help you. It is partly informed also by my off-wiki professional life. Please don't be offended. It is not my intent. I have noticed that sometimes it seems like it isn't always easy for you to pick out the key information (includes messages which aren't always explicit) in people's written posts. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that this may be one of those times. Rather than me just give you the list of what suggestions I think were made, why don't you read through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 4 and Template talk:Spam-links and make a list of the suggestions for the template that you see? I'll do the same. Then we can compare notes. It might be instructive. Slp1 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that it a problem. I am autistic, so picking out information that isn't clear will never succeed on my end. All I see that it is quite bulky and that it should be compressed with a details link.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well that makes sense. Thanks for letting me know. But don't say it will never succeed because that's pretty defeatist!! Figuring out strategies to cope with the problem is going to pay enormous dividends for you in terms of interactions with others, and being successful in all sorts of areas. What if I narrow it down for you? These posts all contain suggestions for the template's improvement that go beyond size and a details button. [5][6][7] Do you see them now? I see 5 other suggestions to consider in these Slp1 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, big and bulky needs to be fixed, rename the template, and figure out why syntax isn't working, which may not be fixable from here since I see nothing wrong with the syntax itself.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes those are some. Here's what I see in those links.:

• Reduce size (you got that one)
• Change its position: One of the commentator says "They should have a more decent and reasonable size and position" - This also mentioned on your talkpage.
• Move the template such as 'blacklisted-links'. (you got that one)
• Terminology used on template: I said "it talks about "spam links" which is not the case and uses the term "external links" in a way that is not consistent with WP's definition at external links.
• List of links not always given. "the list of "problematic links" was not shown, which meant we had to dig to try and figure out what the (non)problem was." -I think this is the syntax problem you mentioned.
• Add that the bot may make errors and give a place to report them. I said "given the fact that the bot is in a trial stage and is making mistakes, it seems to me that it would be better to provide information about where to report errors in tagging, rather than the current formulation which suggest that the bot can do no wrong, that the article and its editors (or the blacklist) are at fault, and that they need to figure out the problem and act on it or the bot will be back."

Last piece of free advice: identifying this kind of information and detail from the communication of others is a very important skill to learn: it will help you in all areas of life if you can learn some strategies to help you process things more efficiently. You might want talk to somebody at your college about getting some information and help about this. Slp1 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the template. Any thoughts? I know I still have to rename it, but it shouldn't be intrusive anymore.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than syntax, I think I did everything.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been off-wiki for a while. Sadly, it looks likes your bot still needs some follow-up and fixes. I'll try to get to it soon. Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1, I regarded the proposals for closure on the horrible RfC as a suggestion of consensus finding. In that light, I actually quite liked them, as preliminary ways to describe consensus. A closing admin could than form his own closing statement and rationale, and could cherrypick and shape their closure based on the earlier proposals. I agree with you that none of them should be taken as is, but as a tool for getting a feel for the consensus, I do think their valuable. That said, by now, they have served their purpose, so keeping them closed is likely the best for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I agree with them all. The proposals were based on a good faith effort to find common ground, and contain wisdom too, which should be useful for a closing administrator. However, my concern was less with the content (though obviously some of it was deeply problematic) and more with the process, which has ended up becoming more of the same unhelpful polarization and battleground behaviours. Once you reach that point, conversation is more trouble than it is worth. --Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we agree in our agreement :D I was commenting on it because I felt it (probably not intentionally) can send the signal out to not break your pretty little editor heads on finding consensus, leave that to the admins, which (I'm sure we also agree on) is not the signal we want to send across. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a good point. I certainly wasn't trying to give that impression. I'll tweak the close statement to make it clearer. Slp1 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring William Wilberforce (estimated annual readership: 313,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing William Wilberforce to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool! Thanks. Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there ! I am getting a bit more settled :) :) Would you have time to look at Talk:Echolalia#Removed? Some version of this "delayed vs. immediate" continues to pop up in this article, and I suspect it is always from the same course. There is text that could be added there, but they never seem to get it right, and I don't have time to rewrite it correctly (nor the inclination, considering the overemphasis on a few marginal sources and one minor aspect of echolalia). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I've been having a busy time in real life, but will certainly take a look as soon as I can. Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1 – Going back to our correspondence two years ago regarding the identity of the sitter of the painting by Hayter, I have contacted the Public Catalogue Foundation with my doubts and referred them to my correspondence with the Curator of the Ferens Gallery and the William Wilberforce House, Hull. If you remember, they tended to be sympathetic with my concerns about the painting, and said that further investigations would be made as to the sitter's identity. The Public Catalogue Foundation has digitised the entire UK national collection of oil paintings and are partners with the BBC on the Your Paintings initiative (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/william-wilberforce-17591833-78598 ). We may now get some information as to the progress of the gallery's enquiries. Cheers – Bruce Agendum (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruce! Happy Thanksgiving, Canadian-style! I'll be fascinated to see how this works out. Please do let me know. Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did find it good for some things, and terrible for many others. I think it has potential, so will probably reactivate it and see if has improved... I am sure it has!Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely still a work in progress, so if you run across problems, please feel free to post a note for me or one of the other people at WP:VEF. You can also sign up for the WP:VisualEditor/Newsletter (one note every few weeks) if you want to hear about what the devs are working on. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lodge a complaint against you about this, because frankly, sanctions are over-used. But that account is retired for good reason, and I'd ask you to respect the policy. Thank you.98.222.60.232 (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead with your complaint if you really think I was outing you. I think you'll find little support for your position. Here's my advice for what it is worth: if you want to retire, then simply retire. If you want to retire don't reappear as an IP to refight battles with an administrator you have previously been in conflict with,[8][9][10] most especially when your complaints have already been judged to be without value.e.g.[11] (see WP:CLEANSTART) If you ignore this and do post as an IP, then don't be surprised if people make the connection, especially when you state that you are a retired editor and actually link to the AN discussion that you began and that led you to retire!!!![12]. For goodness sake, you linked to it yourself- there's absolutely no outing here.. But maybe you want to consider WP:VANISH? But know that from there there is absolutely no coming back.--Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not going to complain. As you note, there is plenty of room for doubt. But what's with the suggestion to vanish. Does celebration of diversity include diversity of thought?98.222.60.232 (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you came here to complain, didn't you? It might have been a good idea to consider the "room for doubt" before making the accusation of outing here. But no worries, since I appreciate your semi-retraction.

There's plenty of room for diversity here, including for diversity of thought. My suggestion about WP:VANISH was related to your comment that you retired your account for a good reason. I think you have previously edited under your real name, and I thought the "good reason" you alluded to might be that you would like to separate your editing here from your real identity. If that is the case, then WP:VANISH might be the way to go. But maybe I am wrong about this.

You want to continue editing WP but not under the old account then you need to read WP:CLEANSTART for advice. Basically, if you do come back with a different account or as an IP you are strongly advised to leave old areas of conflict behind - that would include obviously the men's rights articles and Bbb23 etc. If you don't, it is very likely you will be recognized, just as you were at the AN discussion. Addendum: I just realized that per the "Contentious and scrutinized topics" section, you must avoid the men's rights topic area entirely if are attempting a clean start.

If you want to continue editing WP and want to pursue editing in those areas where you have been in conflict, including men's rights etc then you need to resume editing under your old account, asking for a name change if you wish. WP:RENAME Slp1 (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. About "partial retraction". I didn't intend to say that you violated the policy. But my note was poorly written, and I can see where you thought I was saying that. For that much I'll apologize fully. At the same time, I've realized that being a conservative attracts a lot of vitriol, and it's better not to use my real name, sadly, so please don't jump to connect me.98.222.60.232 (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology: I really appreciate and accept it.

As far as the other matter is concerned, I do understand your problem. The solution is really in your hands, in that you need to pick one of the above options. You are not allowed to pop up as an IP or as another user in the men's rights area or to refight old battles, but if you ignore this, you do run the risk that your real name will get mentioned again and perhaps other issues related to evading scrutiny. Slp1 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It took me several days to, with help, to find out how to search the noticeboard so I just now found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive255#Talk:Men.27s_rights_movement.2FArticle_probation including your comment.

• Regarding your comment about "here to promove a website" on the noticeboard, that is incorrect, my detailed response is on the Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement#User:MilesMoney in the second paragraph (by the way do I need to use this @Slp1: to make sure you are notified?) in short is:

to be clear that I am not "promoting a website" one comment and example. First, one should not confuse the website with specific images. I mean you might have your User page mention that you're a cyclist and you plan to upload images from your cycling trip, does that mean you're here to promote your website, or cycling club, or logos? Of course not... But maybe you feel there are not enough photos in the public domain of, I don't know, of some national park, fine, you upload those and put them in the public domain. Are you here to promote your bike club or its website just because you want to put some images in the public domain? Of course not...Even if you also edit articles on cycling. Now, in this cade..I was referring to specific images. As I pointed out, people upload images, for example, a picture of the White House, and they then put it in the Public Domain. They are not promoting their tourist group, theya re uploading an image of the white house or of something else. If no one wants to use it (this often happens) that's fine, if someone wants to use it in a wikipedia article, that's great. That is all I said or mean about my intention to upload a few images. And this has nothing to do with the edit of the aritcle, so having this out of the way, we can return to addressing the article

The reason I know of this is, having searched for images online I would from time to time find images on wikipedia.org or commons.wikimedia.org or others, and then it would list pages that use that image, sometimes it would be blank, somestimes one or many pages would use an image. There would usually be a note about putting the image in the public domain. Sometimes it would be one image, sometimes a few, and sometimes a large collection or photos, or, a large collection or png or gif graphics, created with some software that uses commands to draw lines etc. So I intend to upload maybe a handful of images and to put them into the public domain. As noted, this is not only not a no-no, it's part of what user accounts on wikipedia are for. Yes, it's not the same as the commons, but still relevant, still done, still useful, and still encouraged when useful. Now that I have an account and still working on finishing getting images ready, I made a few edits to improve articles, and may do so aain in the future if things don't get too discouraging.

The fellow with the IP address was correct by the way, one this point, that the editor or administrator, along with other comments, did specifically also comment a sarcastic (they later clarified it was "sarcastic") about the user name "maleliberation". So putting aside their comments on other things, they did specifically choose to comment on my user name, and sarcastically call it "lovely" which is not a good idea. Even if the admin is correct (in this case they are quite incorrect) about the user name, it's not a good thing to do. I mean even things we all (or almost all) agree are bad, evil, for example a user name ProFascism should not be commented about sarcastically, for general reasons of editors not having the appearance of bias against the user, and for practical ones of not fostering an antagonistic atmosphere (it may encourage that user or others to criticize the admin etc). In this case the admin was also quite incorrect in their assumptions, despite the User page explaining my being pro human rights for and liberation for both genders (with apologies to those who critique the notion of there being only two genders, this is a simplification I'm making to be more brief while focusing on other issues) but as noted that's secondary, admins should avoid such sarcasm even against those they correctly see as standing for something they strongly oppose. There is also a practical reason. If Bbb23 does this, anti-WL (anti rights for women) people may use that on their part to attack them or attack WL, which Bbb23 might think would make me happy, thining I'm anti-WL just because I'm pro-ML, but I'm not, so it would make me sad to see WL hurt due to attacks on actions by Bbb23 where Bbb23 shows an anti ML bias.

In my note on the Talk page I also point out I did not call him "profeminist" and I clarify the difference between my own views (we all have views, mine include protion of cooperation and mutual respect among ML and WL not just to be "nice" but because, in not all but in many areas, doing so actually promotes a more successful effort for your side, too bad so few see this) versus, asking that actual historical facts that are central, epecially central to a section on Relation to Feminism, be included. There is probably some fancy command or code I don't know to give you the links but the entire url is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement#User:MilesMoney It also addresses that in at least one case, the edit was not creating, but actually fixing an unsourced/unverifiable statement. Maleliberation (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all this, but please, please, Maleliberation, try to write in a more succinct fashion: you'll find that many people won't have the patience to wade through it all.

What I get from this is that you understand that you must not use WP to promote your agenda; but what I also get is that you have a clear agenda, and that it is pretty hard for you not to promote those ideas through your proposed website, the graphics and even your arguments here. That's totally understandable: I admire people who put energy into their convictions. It's just that being an advocate for a cause, whether it is feminism, men's rights, fascism, communism, or in your case "being pro human rights for and liberation for both genders" is liable to result in an editor being unable to edit neutrally, which is a requirement here. The fact that you are a new editor, with a name that promotes your website (violating WP:SPAMNAME) and only edit on this topic rings massive warning bells too. I strongly suggest that you reconsider your approach and goal here, as I can see things ending badly. Maybe you should begin by editing some other pages and topics to get a better feel for the place.Slp1 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found your reply from two days ago Slp1. I edited a bit here and there without a user account way back in 2005 and 2006 I think it was so I'm not completely unfamiliar with wikipedia, but not an expert, and not sure if watchlist is the only way to find replies like yours more quickly or if there are other ways. I would suggest that "agenda" is a loaded term but if you want to use it, every human being has values, has beliefs, and if you wish, has an agenda. Being "pro-human rights" does not make it any harder for me to be neutral than any other editor (almost all of whom will at least claim to be pro human rights") and while liberating both genders is not as familiar as the more general notion of liberation, if you ask 100 editors if they are for or against people being liberated, the majority will also have that "agenda" too ;) In either case, our pro-human rights views do not prevent us from editing an article about human rights in Russia for example, or elsewhere. I agree we should be careful...but that really means all of us, all editors, to do their best to be careful, and to cite sources as needed.

Some of us naturally take more words to express ourselve and we do our best. As you can see from this note, I can be more brief when I sense someone is listening and elsewhere when the opposite words from what I said were put in my mouth, I took longer, or, suggesting admins should not express publicly their strong personal distaste for someone's user name. As I've clarified elsehwere, there is not "company, group, institution or product" that even exists or is planned for existence so there is no WP:SPAMNAME or WP:GROUPNAME violation as that clause requires that " a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt)" be "unambiguously" referred to, a fortiori, is requires that "company, group, institution or product" exist, and none such exist. In fact none will exist, since there aren't even plans. My interests have grown in some areas and that's reflected in blog names and wikipedia names, just as ILoveCleanAir might be a user name on wikipedia by someone who cares about clean air, and also they might even have a blog/website, that is not a company or group, just their personal blog, but that uses the same phrase that they like when they think about their interest.

I agree with you that I will gain more experience, even having been on wikipedia ages ago, by looking at other pages, and I will, and I might edit there a bit, but maybe not, or maybe only a little bit elsewhere.. After all, it is natural for me to edit in those areas I know more about, and those tend to overlap for most human beings, with those areas we are interested in, so MRM and related pages. I'm not eager to spend a huge amount of time since facts (not opinion but referenced facts) but facts informed by a non-antifeminist, pro-womensrights but pro-mens-rights background, seem to be shot down or not capable of being heard, so I might take a break and come back rather than give up on it, but I'll try to make edit suggestions now and then. Probably not many. But for now just insist that there not be a misunderstanding that the personal interests of mine (which is not suprrising is the inspiration people use for both their wikipedia names, and for their private personal blog websites) are not a company, group, institution, or a product. Thanks. Maleliberation (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, that is quite a wall of text above ! Student edits dropped in to Agraphia, I did some cleanup, but it's nonsensical to me. Also, it looks like there may be two different classes working on the article, but since never respond, hard to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. Sorry very busy in my real life, but I will give it a look. I do hate cleaning up after others, though, so I share your pain. It is so much easier just to research and write the stuff one's self.--Slp1 (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider work by Adolph Fick in Cardiac Output as the foundation of Ejection Fraction.lbeben 05:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Slp1; Your user page mentioned that you had experience in health care and perhaps might have an interest in doing a review for a Featured Article among the health care articles? Any possible interest? BillMoyers (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, if it helps, I think you're a good writer and always have been. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on 3/19/14. Please send us a message if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding these edits: [13], [14], [15], can you offer your opinion in this discussion? It is sorely needed. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with ((ping|DerHexer)). Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paternity fraud 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/Paternity fraud until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Warm Worm (talk) 02:07, 14 May 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) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Slp1. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A crapsey.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Slp1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Olivia Manning has been scheduled as today's featured article for 27 February 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 27, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

writers and other bizarre topics

Thank you for quality articles Olivia Manning, William Wilberforce, Learned Hand and École Polytechnique massacre, and on "a very bizarre mixture that reflect my eclectic interests, including some subjects I had no interest in at all until I waded in to help other editors in the middle of a dispute", - repeating (29 April 2010): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two year ago, you were recipient no. 1865 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Slp1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:George antheil.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Faithful friends who are dear to us
		... gather near to us once more. May your heart be light and your troubles out of sight, now and in the New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madam - In the child custody section of MRM, I removed the word "consensus" from a sentence. Though, the citation does show that some scholars disagree with the concept of Parental Alienation, there is no evidence in the article about the alleged consensus. Additionally, the article is a review of a book, rather than that of a literature. Therefore, I submit that due to any backing in literature, the word should be removed and my edit preserved. Please advise.

Regards! Wilkn (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)wilkn[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for consulting me here. I will reply on the talkpage of the article concerned. --Slp1 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you return the two refs you deleted from the lead-in sentence of Early life?

1. The Sun-Herald article provides her d.o.b. It provides the information, "She'll be 32 in November (and that's a real 32) and just by giving out her date of birth - November 1, 1972 - she sets herself apart from many actresses who linger longer between birthdays than the rest of us." This shows that she is willing to have her d.o.b. published widely.
2. The Out article provides her assertion, "Wikipedia also claims my real name is Antonia, which is absolutely not true." This is used to verify that Antonia is not her birth name. This name is found in numerous, otherwise reliable sources, but according to the individual is incorrect. The false positive, i.e. "Antonia", is commented out in both the infobox and the Lead. Without a reference for Antonia being incorrect it could be re-added to the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. I see I missed the date of birth in the first reference. Yes, that is important and I will restore it. Sorry for the mistake. As for the second reference, I think what you are mentioned about Antonia is important, and probably better explained as a note to make it clear. I will do that shortly. Please watch the article. --Slp1 (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Thanks for your prompt responses.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Slp1 (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)t[reply]

Then explain yourself better next time. Your original edit summary was basically unparsable, so it was completely impossible to suss out your intentions properly — you explained it much better on my talk page just now, but almost nothing you said on my talk page was clear from your original edit summary at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, and may I respond with some of my own? Next time please ask for more information before reverting a longterm editor who helped to bring the article to FA status. It would have taken less time in the end.

--Slp1 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are being messaged because there was a bug in UTRS that made it look like you had access to no appeals in the system. This has now since been patched and will be tested more before fully implemented again. You can track the progress if you wish here. I appreciate your patience and wanted to stop by to say try again, and let me know if anything else is wrong. Please also ping me if you reply here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were wanting to talk to him. Just FYI. Mo Billings (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why you banned Boopy76 as a sock. I don’t see any evidence that they are a sock puppet of the editor who you believe created it. I could be wrong about that, but you also reverted their edits on this page which seemed to be factual and actually helpful. Could you please explain why you did that? I reverted your deletion for now but I’d like to know why you did this and if I should delete it again and add my own source. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...I commented on your talk page a few minutes which partly answers your questions. If you want to know who they are, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive. This editor is very, very obvious when you know what to look for. As I mentioned, it does not matter if their contributions are helpful (though they often aren't,in a way that you need to check carefully to see). The editor is banned and they are not allowed to edit. Letting their edits stand just encourages them to come back with yet another sockpuppet.--Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing to explain. There is a difference between banning and blocking. See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF I blocked the editor because they are a banned editor, banned long ago here and in other wikis due to ongoing abuse. --Slp1 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1,

A while ago on BLPN you asserted that an editor was engaged in an off-wiki smear campaign. The matter is now before WP:AN, and your input would be appreciated. Thus;

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Full protection on Susie Boniface. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, who is the sockpuppet you are referring to in this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Gibson_(politician)&diff=988253707&oldid=988217742 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of any confusion I meant to remove his LinkedIn as it's a terrible source. But one would assume the source promoted by the Conservative Party is reliable. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It is nothing to do with sourcing but because the editor who added this information is a disruptive sock puppet. See [16]. Per WP:BANREVERT I delete all their edits as soon as they are identified. You can add the info again if you want, but as you know, you should use very strong reliable sources.Slp1 (talk) 23:44, 12 November 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) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott		Happy holidays
		Dear Slp1, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy". Wishing you health, peace and happiness this holiday season and in the coming year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1 – glad you got rid of that Dundas stuff. While some of it might have been relevant, most of it was unnecessary and I was about to cut it when life got in the way. I got in touch with the real Kevin Belmonte who is cited as one of the sources, and is quite a well known for writing about WW – he didn't write it (which I was pretty sure about), so it turned out the editor who added all that stuff was just using his name. I left him/her a message and no word from him since, no fur ther edits anywhere. He has a bee in his bonnet about Dundas and Pitt being respomsible for the delay to the 1792 bill, (not true) which he's also added elsewhere, most of which I deleted. Hope you are well. Best wishes, Bruce/ Agendum (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mmm. That is very interesting. I assumed it was the real Belmonte. But if it isn’t...well, I better look into what should be done from an admin perspective. Thanks for the info and if anything similar happens in the future don’t hesitate to get in touch.

I do want to look into all this Dundas stuff when I have a minute. There seem to lots of people with bees in their bonnets about it all.

I am well, but looking forward to getting vaccinated and for the whole world to be too, of course! Hope you are well too! Slp1 (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1 - don't understand why my contribution of 16.03, 1 January 2021 regarding his grandfather's partnership in the Hull sugarhouse has now been removed. Whilst the citation refers to my website, the original info (which apparently I can't add to Wiki) is from Lambeth Archives - The Thornton Papers Ref IV/104. Thank you. Bryan Hamster622 (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryan, thanks for getting in touch. There are a few problems, but the main one is that WP requires reliable sources for articles. See WP:RS, also WP:V. Unfortunately, your website doesn’t qualify as a reliable source. The other is although I am sure that your research is 100% correct, we are not allowed to do original research here. See WP:NOR. We have to privilege secondary sources. There is also the question of whether this information is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. After all, this is the bio about William, not his grandfather, and if none of his many biographers thought this was important enough info to include in their full length bios, then why should it be included here? Maybe they didn’t know the info, but that takes us back to our rules about sourcing and not allowing original research.

I realize that on this article it seems like these rules are a bit strict and restricting, but you would be surprised. A few years ago, an editor wanted to include info he found on a website about how WW had an affair with Anne Bronte!! And in the encyclopedia in total there are also all sorts of people who want to inform the world about their new physics theorem, new cure for COVID etc. That’s why these rules were developed.

I am sorry about this, but I hope it does not put you off from contributing to WP.Slp1 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Slp1 -

It's the revision of 17:49, 17 January 2021, and thank you for your explanation. If it requires verifying from published works, then the citation can be "Sugarbakers ... from sweat to sweetness" by Bryan Mawer AGFHS Publications 2011. ISBN 978-09547632-7-5. but the source at Lambeth Archives is still the same. I have noted the point on my website about his biographers not adding this info. If they had scoured Hull Archives they'd have found a copy there. Perhaps they thought it might have been a negative comment toward WW, but the alternative view is that WW would have visited that sugarhouse with his grandfather during his early years and learning the source of the sugar may have affected his thinking re the Caribbean. We shall never know ... but I just thought it worth adding to the discussion, and after all is said, all I was doing was adding to the line about how his grandfather made the family fortune! Bryan. Hamster622 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Bryan. I myself think it is a fascinating factoid about the source of the family wealth and possible family discussions, and I have a feeling that future biographers will take the cue from your website and book, and make exactly those points about it. But we need to wait till then, unfortunately.Slp1 (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bryan – I have to say I agree with Slp1’s assessment of the edits, as the article is about William Wilberforce rather than his grandfather – although I also have to say that I personally found the article you referenced rather interesting. I read it and noted the mention of the Old Sugar House in Lime Street – and especially the fact that it was at one time under the management of the Thornton family (amongst others). I suspect there may be a connection with John and/or Henry Thornton, who were both associates of Wilberforce – see John_Thornton_(philanthropist). Just a thought – I will look into it. Good luck with your researches, Bruce/Agendum (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bruce. The summary of the original documents is at [17] where you will see the start-up partners included Robert, Godfrey and William Thornton. John Thornton became a partner just before WW senior's death, with John's son(s) a few years later. (I read these Thornton papers in Hull Archives 2006). Overnight I had considered trying a different edit to attach after 'Baltic countries,' - eg: "and the sugar trade as a partner with the Thornton family in Hull's huge cane sugar refinery in Lime Street from 1733. ["Sugarbakers ... from sweat to sweetness" by Bryan Mawer, AGFHS Publications 2008 & 2011]". My thoughts are that it continues the line about the family fortune as well as linking well with both the sugar trade and the Thorntons mentioned later on the page and both central to WW's life. Would that be acceptable? Bryan Hamster622 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could justifiably add a few words to mention the sugar trade (it's interesting, as all the biographies I have seen only ever mention the Baltic trade – whatever that means), but it is not something that merits any more than that in an article about Wilberforce. I'll give it some thought. But I'm afraid that Wikipedia won't allow you to use your own publication as a reference, as that constitutes original research – see WP:NOR. Can I suggest that we move this conversation to your own talk page – or to mine, rather than this page? Bruce Agendum (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruce and Bryan!! I actually think we should move the discussion to the William Wilberforce talkpage. There's something else I would like to suggest too. It is the middle of the workday here in Canada, so if it is okay with everybody, I will do this in the evening my time.Slp1 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this is now done! Slp1 (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, folks, but I cannot understand why my accepted, and informative, contributions have once again been removed [between 17.21 and 18.43, 8 June 2023]. Please explain. Bryan Hamster622 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are discussed on the talkpage of the article. Please discuss it there. Slp1 (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you may be interested in, Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case, has just been undeleted. Any help you could give to this, included BLP-related edits, would be very much appreciated. --Bangalamania (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the note on your user page about people assuming you're a 'he', and your interest in language. Don't know if you've seen the analysis toys, but they're a bit of fun: Gender Guesser at Hacker Factor, GenderAnalyzer_v5 at uClassify, and Gender Analyzer at readable.com. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Slp1:, Checking in with you regarding this page. I miss your excellent guidance and we seem to be stuck. I sought out guidance from User:MelanieN about how to move forward and she suggested I ask you on your talk page. I emailed and pinged you and not sure you received those. Is your sandbox draft ready to go? If yes are you willing to paste it into the article or would like someone else to do it? If it is not ready, what do you recommend in order to get it finished? Please I beg you to help us finish. Thank you. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry. Yes, I keep meaning to get back over there, but to be honest, I know that it will be such a huge job that I can hardly face it. But sometime this week I will look over it again, and we can discuss the next step. --Slp1 (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand and feel the same way. It is a bit overwhelming for me too. Thank you for doing it anyway. The result will be magnificent with your help.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Slp1: - missing you on the Medjugorje page, it has been over two weeks now. What are your thoughts? Also I had to submit a conflict resolution on a Medjugorje related page Hnilica. You are mentioned here [18] with the need of a response. I am not really good at figuring out what a person wants to do, when there is no communication. Please communicate. It seems that more than editing is involved on the Med page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slp1: Also I need to know if you are going to actively be overseeing the Medjugorje page. I hope so. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slp1: Since we have not heard from you I am assuming you are not wanting to edit with us on Our Lady of Medjugorje. In that case, I am going to request another person to help us from Third Opinion. Thank you for what you did - very helpful. It would have been better if you had officially told us. Feel free to always join us in the future.Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing up with a mop; I was quite surprised no admin had dealt with that. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly discouraging that somebody gets their kicks out of something like that. I have watchlisted the page and will try and keep an eye for the next while. I hope you are well!! --Slp1 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doing fine! Depressed about Wikipedia, and hoping the will to write will return... it usually does. I hope you are also well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Came across your user profile from one of your older edit lists @ Discrimination against atheists Looking for some article expansion help in following draft topic areas

• Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic
• Draft:Irrational beliefs
• Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies

Requesting your visit to above draft topics, and help them expand if you find them interested in.

Thanks & warm regards

Bookku (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance I can get you to un-delete Soegiharto ? He was an Indonesian government minister who died of covid, it seems like the kind of thing that should not be deleted just because of a dispute with a Wikipedia user. -Dan Carkner (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article was not deleted because of a dispute with an editor but because the creator is a globally banned editor who is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. They have a long history of copyright and BLP violations and have used 100s of abusive sock puppets over more than 10 years. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Marquis de la Eirron for more details.

You are welcome to rewrite the article if you want. I will even email the old article so you have the references etc to hand. You will be taking responsibility on recreation so based on past experience of this editor I recommend checking every source very carefully, and of course use your own words. Let me know if you would like the text. Slp1 (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read a bit about the sock puppet thing before commenting here, definitely not good, I'm just trying to be protective of this noteworthy topic and wasn't sure if it would be deleted if I recreated it later. Don't worry about sending it to me, I will just rewrite it from scratch next week when I'm back from vacation. Thanks. -Dan Carkner (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Have a great rest of your holiday! Slp1 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Slp1,

Just a reminder when you are doing mass deletions like this that the articles have talk pages that need to be deleted as well. Luckily, they showed up on a report late tonight but you might check next time. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. It was my first time trying the mass deletion thingy, and I guess this doesn't remind people about the talkpage (and of course I forgot!!). If I ever use that option again I will do my best to remember. Sorry for the trouble. --Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the page Diratsagae Alfred Kganare that you deleted. The person was a Member of the National Assembly of South Africa. Greenman (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, no I will not restore that article, as it was created by a globally-locked banned user. If you want to rewrite the article, that is fine, but see the section above. Let me know if you want me to email you the previous article so that you can consult it. --Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable as a National Parliament member in Indonesia Germartin1 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to answer this. However the answer is the same as the answer in the section above. --Slp1 (talk) 23:41, 21 November 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) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A token of thanks Hi Slp1! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Slp1

Greetings! I’ve asked editors (on the Talk page) for their opinions on the addition of ‘Further reading’ to the foot of the William Wilberforce article (way back in July last year), and whether they think it really adds anything.

I’d be grateful to know your opinion, if you have time. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruce! I will take a look sometime this weekend I hope. BTW… look at this! [19] It seems your art detective efforts bore fruit! Maybe you knew already, but wow, pretty cool to be part of this! Slp1 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1 – Good to hear from you – hope you are well. I hadn’t seen this news, so thanks very much for alerting me to the revised identification of the sitter. It’s good to know that we were right, and his true identity has been discovered! – I’m far from being an expert on paintings, all I knew was that it didn’t look like Wilberforce.

One thing – I see that whoever uploaded the image file to Wikipedia got the dates of Henry Bone wrong. I’ve double-checked and it should be 1755–1834. (btw, there are two artists named Henry Bone – father and son – both enamel painters. It’s the older one who is identified as the subject).

So, I tried to correct the dates in the title of the image by George Hayter at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Henry_Bone_1859-1834_formerly_thought_to_be_William_Wilberforce_by_George_Hayter.jpg&action=history, but couldn’t work out how to do it. I guess you may be able to change this with your administrator privileges – we may as well get all the details of this long-running investigation right! Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Bruce. Yes, it is pretty fun to prompted the discovery. I was thinking about leaving the story as a suggestion for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, as others might be interested. What do you think? I won't do it unless you want, as I suspect they would contact you to get a bit more info.

Sorry about the title of the image. That was my fault. I am terrible with remembering numbers like that, and though I thought I checked I guess I didn't do it carefully enough. I will fix it shortly.Slp1 (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp1 – I'm not that familiar with Signpost, but after a quick look at the current page, I agree that it might be interesting for other authors to read about the eleven-year attempt to confirm the misidentification of the painting (yes, I checked – and I first raised doubts about its subject soon after the image was added to the article in Sept 2011). I'm going to check with ArtUK just when the identity of the sitter was finally discussed and revised, as I missed it at the time. It's strange, as I had corresponded with someone there a few years ago, and (as a contributor to their Art Detective discussion about this painting), had asked to be kept informed if anything changed. I'll let you know what response I get.

And thanks for changing the title of the image – I'm sorry that it seems to have been a bit problematic, with all the redirects, etc. At least we got it right in the end! Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. I've been blocked for 24 hrs like Red Rose 13. That was well deserved. No objection. However, Red Rose 13 became noticeably malicious with her most recent editing.

This, this, this and this are the examples.

Ever since the block ended I noticed this passive-aggressive stance from her with comments "let's work as a team", and then she went on to rampage to call me out to fix some shit at Romanis Pontificibus, an article I made 1 edit in total, and to fix some refs I haven't even added on other articles; reverted my edit because she thought it was "my mistake"; changed the meaning of the sentence I added, misusing the source (visible at the Our Lady of Medjugorje talkpage); and what not.

Now, parce mihi Domine quia Dalmata sum, I did this.

But, I believe I can hardly work in this manner with this editor with this kind of... whatever feelings it has.

Maybe we both deserve a month-long break, but this is just too much. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your update on this ongoing dispute, and my sympathies on your role in a dispute that just has gone on for years and gets nowhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC) (The other person who made the mistake of trying to be usefully neutral in this dispute.)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I kept an occasional eye on that DSN and sympathized from afar as you progressed. Or rather didn´t! --Slp1 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were making progress, until we weren't, because they were looking for a magician. The Italian political parties case reminded me a little of it, because I thought I was making progress, until the editors told me that at least two more rounds of RFCs would be required. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:George antheil.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need clarification regarding the interaction ban and what we are doing. Red Rose 13 (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. you can find more information about Interaction Bans here: WP:IBAN. I don't have more information than that. It will make sure you both keep well away from each other. As far as what is happening, hopefully somebody will read and then close the discussion on ANI and they will then let you know what the consensus is. Slp1 (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. After reading the second proposal, I am understanding that we are topic banned and interaction banned for one year. Is that true? Outside of the Medjugorje pages, we don't edit on the same pages. I will ask there too. Thanks for all your support, honesty and guidance. :) Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It seems that two weeks is plenty of time to finish this, don't you think? Who is supposed to answer my question and finalize this.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slp1 - There is a new discussion here [[20]] Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe has nominated William Wilberforce for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revamping references before revising content; see talk page of article. § Lingzhi (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning on helping? § Lingzhi (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have repaired all the broken ((sfn)) references from your recent edits to William Wilberforce. You might find it helpful to install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js which highlights such errors in articles. You may also find it helpful to use your sandpit to practise. I haven't undone, but do not see any reason for, your changes from ((cite web)), ((cite book)), etc, to ((citation)). ((sfn)) is a horrible system, prone to error and degradation over time, and unkind to the reader, who has to look in two different places to see the reference, and then loses his place in the text. I do not understand why anyone thinks it acceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very very much for your help and advice. I had already installed that script and was trying to fix the problems when it got too late last night. It was an unexpected and very pleasant surprise to wake up to find I did not have to struggle with it this morning.

I totally agree it is a horrible system. It was changed to this by another editor, see above, who was kindly doing their best to help. I am inclined to dedicate a few hours to moving back to the other system. If you have any advice about easy ways to do this, please let me know. Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to reference systems are meant to be agreed beforehand on talk pages (WP:CITEVAR), there are some people who are very attached to sfn and don't ever seem to accept alternatives. I don't know of an easy way of doing it once agreed, but will gladly lend a hand. DuncanHill (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. I will pose the question and will let you know.Slp1 (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have created articles of individuals who are notable and have their own pages on other wikipedia pages whether that be the Russian, French or Portuguese. All of my edits are sourced and accurate. Please don't delete them as I work really hard on these articles so that they are correct and they are important to wikipedia for knowledge purposes. 14 years ago an account called the Marquis de la Eirron was blocked because a young editor didn't understand copyright for images and adding sources for content, but since then they have. Many of those who blocked that editor 14 years ago either later got blocked themselves or no longer edit.

What can I do to get unbanned as to say that someone cannot edit wikipedia for the rest of their life is not fair, especially when all of the edits, relating to the Marquis account, have been accurate and correct for many, many years, indeed you can check the previous blocked accounts so that you can see for yourself. HelpMenLondon (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]