Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

08:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	Cheers! Thewho515 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pratyya Ghosh: nothing yet.... --Mdann52talk to me! 17:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdann52. I'm a little confused by your replacement of File:Cape Breton Island Flag 1940s.jpg with File:Cape Breton Island Flag 1940s.svg. I thought the point of the {{Template:Convert to SVG}} template was to say "this noisy image should be replaced with a simple vector version", but you seem to have just converted it noise-and-all to SVG (presumably using an automated script?). I feel that we were better off with the original version (sorry) - it's particularly bad in this case because the original seems to be a photograph of a fabric flag, with all the weave visible. Have a missed some guideline that says you should do it the way you did?--Otus scops (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Otus scops: sorry, I uploaded the wrong version :/ I'm on mobile now, but should be able to revisit and hopefully resolve this within 24 hours. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

LIO1 redirects to LIO Target, and there is no content on the talk page, so shouldn't it redirect to Talk:LIO Target ? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the banner should of been removed. I have now fixed it. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the prod - did you read the edit summaries? It's a translation from https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uomo_di_Altamura - I use Chrome which automatically translates it. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually that's noted on the talk page with a template. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

08:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please respond and become my trainer for the counter vandalism unit academy. Don't bugger it up like the other guy who I tried to ask, who failed to respond in 3 days. TempUName (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@TempUName: Unless I am missing something, this account has 0 mainspace edits. My personal criteria is at least 200, with some evidence of knowledge of basic policies, which you appear not to have at the moment. Also, I do not appreciate your tone; I am not required to be your trainer, and do not appreciate being pushed. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi ! I am getting the following error: Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as removing all categories from an article, which is potentially unconstructive. Please be aware that vandalism may result in revocation of your editing privileges. If this edit is constructive, please click 'Save page' again, and report this error. Can you please help me out ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulpanditcla (talk • contribs) 16:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rahulpanditcla: The issue is you removing the categories from the bottom of the page. However, you are making an edit that seems overly promotional. Please note if you have a conflict of interest, we strongly recommend you do not edit the article yourself, and instead request edits on the talk page of the article in question. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

07:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You removed the section discussing Charles R. Pellegrino's PhD. The claims were sourced to several news items and there was an extensive discussion on the talk page and elsewhere. Why did you remove it? Glrx (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• .see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 116#Is a library catalog page proof of a PhD?

My edit was an "OTRS action. As I stated in my edit summary, instructions to appeal can be found here. Due to the nature of this, I am unable to give out too much on-wiki, but can give out slightly more information via email. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Glrx: sorry, I forgot to ping you... --Mdann52talk to me! 16:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: nothing yet... --Mdann52talk to me! 08:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a request for an explanation re that removal. Nothing private about it -- just trying to follow your instructions to approach via email. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: I have had a few issues with the EmailUser function recently. Try my direct email (mdannmailyahoo.co.uk). --Mdann52talk to me! 08:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Assam page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems most of my colleagues think these can be removed, but obviously not ban notices. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression any sanction notice should not be removed by the user in question (but auto-archiving seems to be ok in long-term cases...). --Mdann52talk to me! 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That used to be my opinion but I was told I was wrong. See Wikipedia talk:User pages#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked?. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the email on the Bacula talk page. This email has suggestions about the recent controversy between myself and User:Gul.Maikat. Can I know who sent the email? I agree with all points in that email and would like to implement them. I will be very willing to it, but I would prefer it if you would modify the disputed Bareos paragraph, because I would like to avoid a new conflict with User:Gul.Maikat.

For the edits I am suggesting to make, I propose to change the comment about 3rd party contributions to the Bacula project to say that: "Any third party contributions will either not be accepted or will go into the Bacula community version. Only, if the contributor has given authorization by signing a Fiduciary License Agreement may the contribution also be included in the Enterprise version." I believe that all the suggestions including my modification, other than for the Bareos paragraph, are non-contraversial and thus they should not be disputed.

Summary: 1. With your agreement, I would like to make the changes suggested to the Bacula page including my clarification given above. 2. I request you to make the suggested change to the disputed Bareos paragraph.

Sorry, I don't know how to make this a new Topic rather than a section :-( KernSibbald (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@KernSibbald: - simply use the "new section" link at the top of the page :). If you post the full suggestion on the article's talk page, I will impliment the as soon as I can. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have done as you asked and posted the above message in the Bacula Talk page. KernSibbald (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mdann52 Thank you for your reply. I have read what you have sent me. But I don't understand what procedure shall I follow now. What shall I do in order to make sure the updates requested by the Songa Offhsore CEO are not deleted every time I update? :(

Thanks. is there anywhere I need to register again?

Regards, Chryso — Preceding unsigned comment added by CKouyialis (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mdann, thanks for taking the time to close the discussion. However, I have serious concerns with the implication of your close – there was a broader discussion in 2011 which was agreed to be applied consistently across all such bias categories. Now, due to your close, a single discussion on a single category has overridden that consensus. Your close specifically states "no consensus to remove all BLPs" - but if the finding was no-consensus, then the previously established consensus should hold, which was to exclude BLPs accordingly. Secondly, you have suggested your close applies more broadly. I think this is a massively improper extension of the scope – if such a decision is to apply to all other bias categories, a community-wide RFC should be held, not a single discussion about a single category – especially since a community-wide RFC already happened and landed on a different conclusion. It's certainly possible that consensus could change, but that discussion you closed was not the proper venue for such change in consensus. Would you please reconsider your close, and consider whether enforcing the old consensus until a new broader consensus is established would make more sense – esp since you found "no consensus" in that discussion? I'm pinging @Timrollpickering: and @Good Olfactory:, two admins with deep experience in categorization and who participated in the 2011 discussion, here for their input as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: If you feel a community-wide RfC should be held, feel free to start one. Looking through the discussion, there was consensus not to exclude BLP's specifically (I have clarified my comments, as I agree they are ambiguous). In terms of overriding the previous RfC, as you said, consensus does change over time, so it may be time for a new RfC. I was asked to close this specific discussion, which is what I did. However, as this was not an RfC (as I thought when I closed it), I have also removed the "other similar" section. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, this closure, now applied to only one category, fails NPOV - since according to our current state of consensus, we can now tag anti-semites in the US, but we can't tag them in France or Spain. That is exactly why the unified approach was proposed, and accepted. That a small group of editors attempted to override that in one category is improper because it leads to inconsistency and violation of neutral treatment of subjects. Thus, I think those who want to change the longstanding consensus should start and frame the RFC, and I ask you again to reconsider your close (which also, fwiw, does not deal with biographies of dead people). It also doesn't give any hints, besides BURDEN, on who should be added to the category - how anti-semitic must a person be to merit inclusion?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If a person is referred to as being anti-Semitic in a BLP, then it is generally very well sourced. In terms of BDP's common sense should prevail - if it was a one-off, then maybe they should not be included. At the end of the day, my closure in this case is a guideline; While guidelines are show general consensus, at times, they should be ignored, however this should be applied to individual cases. Looking back though the discussion, there is nothing overall that changes my closure. IMO, there are some things that should be left down to induvidual editors to decide on, but this is rapidly decreasing nowadays. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

But did you take into account that several other anti-semitic people categories have all been deleted by consensus? In other words, there is a strong consensus to not label people as anti-semitic through categories, rather instead to use the article to cover that. the same applies to racist, homophobic, sexist, misogynistic, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Examples: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_27#Category:Anti-Semitic_people,

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_19#Category:People_who_have_made_or_published_anti-Semitic_statements,Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_22#Category:New_Anti-Semitic_people,Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_15#Category:Anti-semitic_people,Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_22#Category:Anti-Jewish_politicians. By allowing people into the parent, you are basically going around that consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

These categories have been a mess for years and individual discussions were returning different outcomes on this. They've been a general nightmare because sources are often mixed (it does not help to hold up Hitler or Phelps as remotely typical examples) and categories can't convey the nuances of the situation. Unfortunately not all categories have kept biographies out which can cause confusion as to what the no consensus status quo ante is - especially when some users are trying to bypass discussion and instead insist on adding the categories to biographis anew. The aim for a single inclusion/exclusion rule in the CFD I closed three years ago was aiming precisely to put a stop to the POV mess of local consensuses returning different outcomes - and effectively a consensus for a global approach is a consensus against local discussions being able to go their own way. And this particular discussion wasn't even on CFD but on a single category's talkpage. The result is we have one consensus that says all such categories should follow one approach and another that says a single one should go it's own way. That's not going to make things stabl. There probably needs to be fresh determination of whether the global approach consensus and/or the biography exclusion still stand - annoyingly the main objector has preferred to edit war (and get a series of blocks) for a year rather than start a new discussion to initiate that process. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)#

Personally, I have my own view on how this issue should be resolved, that may or may not be included in the closure; I find it far easier to leave my own prejudices behind when undertaking such closures. Overall, I feel my close was a summary of the comments on the page; If anyone disagrees, they are free to open a new RFC on the issue, advertise it on Central Discussions, in order to establish global consensus. As this issue is, frankly, of little interest to me (I have spent, and intend to spend, little time on categorizing BLP's), I will not open one myself, unless a few people request I do as I closed this discussion. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

07:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

[[

File:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Indian National Congress may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
= [[Mallikarjun Kharge]]<!--br />([[Leader of the Opposition (India)|Leader of Opposition]])--> |rajyasabha_leader = TBD<!--br />(Leader of Opposition)--> committees, chief spokesman and the Congress choice to become the [[Prime Minister of India]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aicc.org.in/Constitution%20FINAL%2012.6.08.pdf |title=CONSTITUTION &

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Examining the objections, it is clear that no valid objections to the BOT have been raised. I cannot close the RFBA myself, but I retain the hope that someone in BAG will read the arguments, discard the invalid ones, and approve the bot.—Kww(talk) 13:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: I fail to see what you mean by "no valid objections". Personally, I feel the objections from Rich Farmbrough and Hasteur sum up the feeling of the oppose comments in the BRFA. The RfC close also says that care should be taken over the removal of link; I can not see how the bot will meet this criteria. However, I will start to manually run through the links and replace where possible; I have a lot of time on my hands at the moment. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

When I say "there have been no valid objections", I mean precisely that. You are not a BAG member, and you do not have any authority to force a close. I reverted your close awaiting an actual BAG member. I am reverting it again awaiting an actual BAG member. If you want to reclose it, please go through the process to become a BAG member before you do so.—Kww(talk) 13:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not a BAG member, but I have already addressed that in the closure message (WP:NOTBURO). As I said, there have been perfectly valid issues raised, and reverting a close (including the closure message) will likely achieve little in the long run. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not, but slender hope is better than no hope. The objections you point at run counter to the RFC close. In fact, your opinion runs counter to the RFC close, which was to remove all links. Keeping track of which have been removed and posting the links on a central list and on the article talk page is quite sufficient to allow anyone that chooses to restore links to have the necessary data. Remember, as you run through the links and "replace where possible", the RFC consensus is to remove when it is not possible to restore, not to keep them lingering around forever.—Kww(talk) 13:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but looking through so far, most of the archive.is links I have found are still live, so it is simple enough to run it though WebCite or the Wayback machine and get a new one generated. I have previously tried to get a similar bot running that would add archive links, but the code I found and tried to fix was patchy to say the least (!) --Mdann52talk to me! 13:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Autoarchiving isn't possible to do reliably with bots. That's why keeping the external lists to allow people to manually process them is necessary. Keeping the links inline isn't necessary, and that's what people seem to be arguing when they argue that deleting the links would lose data.—Kww(talk) 13:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you are now my go-to expert on mirrors, I think potiori may be one.

Example:

• Panther Hollow--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:  Confirmed mirror, however this one acknowledges Wikipedia as a source (albeit in German!) While I am pursuing the other to follow suit, this one requires no further action. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, my bad for not scrolling to the bottom. Will you add it to the list, or should I?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I shall; I am currently doing a bit more digging to tell if it is a "live" mirror or not. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, greetings. I am in process of developing this particular article. Left message about this on article's talk page. Article is in very bad condition and rest assured will add controversies in due time once I find sources that would depict real depth of question "Does the Indian National Congress really behind those controversies ?" Hope you are getting what I am trying to say.(It would be nice if you could reply on my talk page) Thank you. Cheers --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 16:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC: The controversies seem to be to do with the party as opposed to just one person, therefore I feel they belong in the article, as do other users on the articles talk page. Therefore, there is not a consensus to remove them from the article. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the guidance. appreciate it. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 06:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mdann52,

Appreciate the help with this:

Title is :St Mary's University, Twickenham

Link to new logo is http://www.smuc.ac.uk/images/sm-logo-crest-2014-rgb.jpg

StMarysMarketing (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@StMarysMarketing:  Done. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Have a great weekend.

StMarysMarketing (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Wikiproject Bangladesh Premier League member. I hope you are having a great time. As you know, it was agreed at the time of the advent of the project that there shall be an election to elect Coordinator and Vice Coordinator every six months. Since the time has arrived now, we hope to conduct an election to elect the new Coordinator and Vice Coordinator. All the people hoping to contest to the posts can leave a message in the project talkpage. The election will end by 01 July 2014 00:00 (UTC) starting from 24 June 2014 00:00 (UTC). We sincerely hope you participate in the elections and thereby help improve the quality of Wikiproject Bangladesh Premier League and it's organisation. Cheers --Pratyya ^(Hello!) and ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at #2014062310009321. For some reason I couldn't find a merge target, but I'm assuming there's one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: It is in the -q queue, so I can't touch it either to merge it. I'm assuming you are aware of the ticket it related to (?). --Mdann52talk to me! 19:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice you mentioned it in your summary. I've moved it to courtesy and merged. It's not actionable from a verification standpoint, but that's what they were told to do in their talk page. In any case we don't need them to verify their identity if they are OK with the changes made to the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)