User talk:Kotiwalo

NOTE - Because of many meat-o-verse affairs that need to be taken care of, Kotiwalo is not very actively contributing. He'll be back as soon as possible.

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #43

Dear vandals, I wouldn't recommend expressing your frustration or superior lack of better things to do here (use the Sandbox). Belive me, reverting is awfully quick, so you're really doing nothing more than piling feces for you ego to stand on. Of course repeated vandalism or personal attacks will lead to warnings and blocks, but probably won't offend me very much, so I wouldn't bother if I was you.

Yours truly, Kotiwalo (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I managed it, it looked like I was reverting a blanking when I did it but then something went terribly wrong. When I hit show preview after my last edit to make a correction it showed the page back so I thought I had fixed it. When I hit saved, the talk page was there. Very weird but I did screw it up accidently, so thank you for putting it back. I am doing vandal patrol and missed it was a talk page at first. Oh well, thanks for

No problem. If you check out my contribs you'll find about a dozen cases where I have been in edit conflict with myself due to initial problems I had with popups =) Kotiwalo (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's where I went wrong, arguing with myself in the edits. :) I should have corrected myself with the easier way that you did it by reverting back to the other editor. But I freaked a bit knowing I just blanked a page that I never edited before and thought someone was going to think I vandalized on purpose. I'm glad you understood that it was an inocent accident. Thanks again,--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Speedy Deletion request on the one character. May I request you do the same to Marta Matos - also added to the cast list of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and had a page created for them. I personally believe this is the name of the person doing the edits. They have used numerous names, and I have been trying to fix their bad edits without being caught by 3RR myself (as I could use several different names myself - but refuse to knowingly violate rules, even to repair vandalisation). Thank you very much. TristaBella (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can add speedy deletion tags yourself, too, but I checked Marta Matos. Neither character nor actress produced Google hits, which is unrealistic since CSI is very popular. I'll warn the users. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kotiwalo. This has been an ongoing problem, and I do try to revert the edits as quickly as possible. I am sure you know that some admins will ignore reports if they are not done perfectly - which makes people like myself want to give up. But I am committed to keeping the CSI pages a good resource, so I do keep trying. Cheers! TristaBella (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page.--Just James T/C 09:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop removing it if it bothers you, but M-W fails to mention that it was a word that was invented to make fun of uneducated people. I consider its use to be non encyclopedic do to this fact. M-W often includes words which are non-academic without usage notes. I could find several other dictionaries which would disagree that it is a word or at the very least mark it "informal". If your inclined to keep it, I would suggest that all uses of it on a page be "thus" or "thusly" but not both.--24.24.142.225 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I don't wish to be mean, but I, unlike you, am a native speaker. I happen to know that "thusly" is an Americanism and not even an accepted one for formal situations. Any use of the word "thusly" can be written equivalently with the word "thus" or the phrase "this way". I am not disinclined to accept that editors are going to use it. But realize that it sounds bad to many readers and also to pretty much anyone who didn't learn American English. "Thus" is already an adverb and there is no need for such a word as "thusly". I have read several modern style guides that recommend against using it even in informal cases in favor of "this way".--24.24.142.225 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, not an important point. We wouldn't even be having this discussion I guess if I hadn't used such an inflammatory edit summary. Also trying to change it on Wikipedia will be a losing battle considering how many pages use it. What it comes down to is sometimes it bothers me to encounter a certain usage in Wikipedia to the extent that I will go on a spree of changing pages if it is easily searched for. I'll limit it to more casual edits from now on so as not to arouse suspicion on the recent edits page.--24.24.142.225 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the references to Subaru and being patient and understanding over the minor edit skirmish. One thing you might want to do is take a look at {{Cite web}} which is a really useful template for formatting references. Ideally you should give the URL and TITLE (which are compulsory) but also the PUBLISHER and ACCESSDATE. Ping me if you have any questions. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I checked back far enough and you were right, he had been final-warned. I thought you might be complaining about him removing the warnings from the page, since some people think that's vandalism (

Hello Kotiwalo. Trista (Triste Tierra) here, I cannot log in at work.

Ok. Thanks! Kotiwalo (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you see any content about "Masked Rider Blade Knight" just revert the page to whatever it was before that IP's edits. MFD is really unnecessary in this case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion because it hasn't been used for anything but listing those Masked Rider Blade Knight things. If the information is notable, if can be used in the article about it, but talk pages are not meant for listing random information or doing anything unrelated to Wikipedia. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. It's just vandalism. Just revert it entirely. The subject "Masked Rider Blade Knight" does not exist in any form.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that on all other pages that had Masked Rider spam on them but the one Masked Rider page that was an Ip user's talk page hadn't been used for anything else at all. I nominated that one for deletion. So it should be speedied or PRODded then, or just blanked? Kotiwalo (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the fact that it's an IP user talk make any difference? Just revert it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't - the fact that it hasn't been used for anything but Masked Rider thing does. The ip user created it for Masked Rider thing and it has only been used for that since. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, seems like I made a mistake. The page User talk:210.24.200.33 had been used (even by me) for posting warnings before it became a spamhole. Apologies - Kotiwalo (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So just revert it in the future. Because another IP will inevitably show up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I would've done it in he first place but I had this strange impression that the page was created for that stuff. Thanks! Kotiwalo (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

86.130.175.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is apparently only using their address for vandalism, with no good edits I can find. I just reverted about 5 of them. Are you able to help? Thank you, Kotiwalo (and thank you for the cookie...it looks delicious!!) TristaBella (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll handle it. But you can warn them and report them to administration yourself - see this. It's got all the info you need to fight vandals. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you handling it. I did warn them and attempted to be polite, although Irish girls aren't so good with that (not having that filter between brain and mouth that most people have as standard equipment <grin>). I am not so good with the reporting, as there are a couple of admins lately that refuse to help if the report is not done just so. I haven't quire learned how to put in the incidents yet if you know what I mean - and get frustrated when I know the info is all there, but because it wasn't perfect, an admin basically tells you nothing will be done - regardless of how egregious the vandalism was. When you have a little time, can you tell me where I can learn how to get those little bits in so I needn't bother you all the time? I very much enjoy working with you, but realise you have other things to do. Cheers, Kotiwalo. TristaBella (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything important going on, so I'll be glad to help you. Vandals mostly need to be given the level 4 or level 4im (last or only) warning before admins will block them. That ensures that they won't get blocked if they acted in good faith - if they have had several warnings, they should know what not to do. It's pretty safe to use the warning templates level 1, then 2, then 3 and so on, and report if vandalism continues after level 4, but if the vandalism is blatant and very obviously bad faith, you can proceed like 1-3-4-report or 2-3-4-report. If the vandalism is extreme, like blanking several pages or such, and no warnings have been yet given, you can use the level4im template, and if it continues, then report. Registered users that have only vandalized (no good edits and several obviously bad ones) will often be blocked even without level 4 warning if reporting user specifies that the user is vandalism-only in their report. But remember - use your own judgement when dealing with vandalism - each case is individual and you'll decide what kind of warning you give. Remember to

assume good faith

though - the first offense should be considered unintentional unless it's very blatantly vandalism.

And now, a promotional message - I recommend that you install (well, more like toggle on)

Twinkle. It's an amazing anti-vandalism tool that allows quick and easy vandalism reverting, quick and easy warning of vandals, quick and easy reporting vandals to administration, quick and easy speedy deletion flagging, and so on. Twinkle boosts your performance against vandals, as routine tasks are, well, quick and easy. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

An aspiring filmmaker that needs to be "out there". Wikipedia is not being abused, nor are other pages, by this user. Two pages were created in the last hour, and hopefully...people will come across them and become interested in his work. It is only requested that the pages be removed from speedy deletion, and the film's page will be changed from (2010 film to independent). Thank you for your time, cooperation, and patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Wronkowski (talk • contribs) 07:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag the article with a hangon tag, I'll explain in the article's talk page. Kotiwalo (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, judging from your message "and hopefully...people will come across them and become interested in his work" you are trying to use Wikipedia for promoting your work. Sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -

not a soapbox. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

First, what article is being considered? and what changes one side wants that the other objects? But from the discussion above, I'd like to point a few things out. political science describes human institutions that implement policy, etc. It is a descriptive art, not a science. So scientific proof in impossible. So if a group self describes as such, that should be a enough for addition to the article, regardless if the description makes sense or not. Second, there is so much hypocrisy in people's political positions that the question here is trivial it doesn't matter if, in the opinion of opponents, in practice the position would be unworkable. Objections to the motivations, or agenda of the group is irrelevant, Every political position is motivated by the desires of the group. From what I understood, Communists, in the Marxist school, want to establish a proletariat state which would abolish social classes, and after that was done, the state would become optional or minimal. Whether this minimal state is anarchy, that is a matter of opinion, and so if that's what the article informs, then it should mention that this one of the many interpretations groups hold, not necessarily what each term on its own must mean from a dictionary definition. So the term Anarchic communism is not a mutually exclusive term , any more than anarchic capitalism would be. Presenting the term as both side understand is the best solution. One editor describes the term as he understands, the other below points out whatever inconsistencies he sees on the term. Deletion altogether is unwarranted, objection to the position is irrelevant, scientific proof is impossible, the term is only a description and that what wikipedia does: describes. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the dispute page. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I got a message from you regarding copyrighted material that is in Wheel hub motor

I just merged

Sorry for my confusion, I will research it in the help on this site tonight myself. Please send back a message if there is anything you can tell me. I will keep my eye on that article, and also watch for your message.

Thanks, John

Cool, thanks, John Spettro9 (talk)

Your comment is superfluous.--Ingowart (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It simply tells people to follow the rules - not modifying the category until the dispute is resolved. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not part of the category. Mainpaige is mainpage and talkpage is talkpage. There you can edit your opinions to article and so on.--Ingowart (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible comments are a medium for delivering information to other editors. And it's not superfluous either, as the category was removed without the dispute being closed, proving that a warning is needed. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in category is still superfluous. foyf--Ingowart (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read my last comment, it explains why it quite isn't. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you accused me of vandalism, which isn't the case since I operated in good faith and by the rules. Accusing others of vandalism when it isn't the case is not

very civil. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Best regards, ILIA TOLI, aka therepel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.134.143 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns, but Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. You are free to add/remove the information yourself, provided that it is sourced (websites, especially news, are good). Wikipedia has a strict policy on

neutral point of view, meaning that everything has to be based on facts, instead of opinions and viewpoints. Thus, if the article is biased, it must be fixed. I can't help you with this (I have very little knowledge on the subject) but you could try contacting the appropriate WikiProject (if there are any, they are listed on top of the article's talk page). Just click the WikiProject's link and you'll be taken to the Project's main page. Use the project's talk page to request help. I wish you well! Best regards, Kotiwalo (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thankyou. My comment was a bit over the top. I have struck the rubbish. Sorry. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, everyone makes mistakes. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MOSMAC2. It is common Wikipedia consensus to not use that name. If you keep making the changes that oppose our rules, you may be blocked from editing. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Kotiwalo thank you for your calm answer,

However, The official name of the country as per United Nations is "Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia". How can Wikipedia override United Nations' Decisions and Conventions? On which grounds?

This country was recognized as "Republic of Macedonia" by GW Bush administration, possibly the worst US President the world has ever known. In my opinion the latter says it all.

Inhabitants of this country don't know what the term "Macedonia" means, whereas in Greek,the term Macedons mean either those who are tall, either those who come from up (the north), this deriving from the root "mak" (makrys/macrys meaning long/tall.

Modern inhabitants of FYROM claim being ascendants of Ancient Macedons but they cannot read their scipts whereas we Greeks can. This falsification of history is something happening for the first time in Mankind. Please don't be a part of it.

Best Regards, Denpap

Denpap (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kotiwalo,

You say that you are sorry but United Nations is not Wikipedia's Authority. Then who is? GW Bush maybe?

In the UN there are talks being carried out for the last 15 years in regard to this country's naming without success and Wikipedia solved the matter just in 1 month's talk? Regrettably -in my humble opinion- this shows arrogance and a serious lack of credibility.

Denpap (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia decides what names to use - no one else. After a discussion, the

WP:MOSMAC2 was found to be the best and was made an official guideline. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you must go with the rules. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

How can an Encyclopedia decide on International Affairs and Politics' matters?

This is way beyond the scope of an Encyclopedia.

Something goes very very wrong here.

Brgds

Denpap (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't decide on any international affairs. It just decides what name it uses when referring to them. Since the name is disputed, and Wikipedia has a

neutral policy, there was a discussion to find the name that was the least ambiguous and most productive. If you don't like Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, don't use Wikipedia. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You talk in a very arrogant and aggressive manner. Imagine how you would behave if you had real authority in your hands.

Brgds. Denpap (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain your civility. I meant everything I said. Wikipedia is a collaborative project with thousands of people participating - everyone can't be happy with the rules, and that's why they are (almost) always decided via public discussion and consensus, so they are good to as many as possible and bad to as few as possible. Even if you're not happy with the rules, you're expected to obey them. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It didn't have an article then. Either the article was made soon after I checked the page or then I just made a mistake. The latter one is more likely, I think. I'll be more careful the next time. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it's a comments page, I should've noticed. Thanks for correcting me! Kotiwalo (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Sdofihodhfsodhouhf (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you and other editors who do a lot of listings at UAA know that the

Thanks, I'll take a look. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kotiwalo, just dropping you a note to say that I didn't remove BloodRayne 2 from the zombie game list because she's a vampire, rather I removed it because the focus of the game is on vampires meaning that they would ideally be listed in the vampires section. The list is an a shambles at the minute and I'm a little snowed under trying to reign in the existing content, wikify and add additional games. If I extend BloodRayne to the BloodRayne series within the vampire section would you object if I removed BloodRayne 2 from the zombie section? Someoneanother 17:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that's what it was about! Yes, extending the BloodRayne to the series seems like a good idea, and in that case, BloodRayne 2 would be redundant. Just make sure that the BloodRayne then links to the series, not the game. Happy editing! Kotiwalo (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shall be done, many thanks. :) Someoneanother 17:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am too busy at this time to put hagon and i am currently trying to help our business (Genkitendo) grow. Please reverse this speedy deletion or consequences will commence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelIsCredop (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three things: First, I did not delete the article, I just nominated it for deletion and I can't reverse the deletion. Secondly,

blocked from editing. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I had a project that kept me up to the wee hours of the morning here in the middle part of the US, I took a break on RC Patrol and found myself in the wave of Aussie and NZ time-zone based vandalism. If I had been up later I would've certainly made the semi-protect myself. All the best. --Bobak (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. People shouldn't bring their opinions to Wikipedia so fanatically. They may think they're doing the world a favor (

righting great wrongs) but opinions are opinions, facts are facts. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I found and am sourcing some much better assertions of notability. The aleged connection to Hearst is only an interesting side-note. Lake was a major player in the

--bessmorris 10:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

Hello. Sorry for the late answer but I was away. Semi-protection means that new editors can't edit the article directly (they can ask someone else to do it on the article's talk page). New editors, in this case, mean either unregistered (ip) users or editors who haven't made at least ten edits and haven't been registered for four days. I hope this helps. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it does. I think I am now autoconfirmed (I have edited 15 times and my account has been active for longer than 4 dyas), so hopefully I can edit them if I wish to. I have another question - how do I embed a PDF link in the text? Thanks. --bessmorris 06:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

I haven't been doing this a lot but think it is done by placing the URL between brackets[], like normal web links. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote to me that I dont own the page. Taht is correct. But do you own it.??

I so please let me make the changes to clear my name as a performing artist.

I do NOT want to be associated with the band that is mentioned in the article about me.

Since you claim to "own" my name here in wikipedia i hope that you will help me to correct the error about me.

Best regards Henrik Brockmann

I don't claim to own it. But your association with the band is a fact, can be sourced, is relevant and thus should stay. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see

WP:BIOSELF. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Best regards Henrik Brockmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrik Brockmann (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the string "evil" is enough, but I'm not going to continue this discussion any longer (I have to get up early tomorrow). I'm rather sure that other editors share my views. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also you really helped me out--User:Wadex92

That's what I do =) Kotiwalo (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to get in your way there. I think I saw just the blank page when I tried to CSD it. Anyway, I'm sorry. Cheers, —

No problem. These things happen to me too =D Kotiwalo (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

Thanks for your message, and for tagging the page in question for deletion. It just came up as a page blanking in Huggle, and when you press revert, it normally picks up that the creator is blanking it, and suggests nomination instead. But apparently that didn't happen for this page. :)

Chrisch^Talk 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in almost every other case Huggle would've been right =). Maybe this was because there had been other contributors as well, me and another user who added advert, peacock and notability tags. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit you made to an anon talk page: Please don't be so quick with the vandalism warnings for edits that were made in good faith. The uw-unsourced2 tag would have been more appropriate here, and would not have elicited such an angry outburst at being accused of vandalism. =Axlq 13:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just seemed very bad faith to me since he added Rupert Murdoch as an example of evil character in real life. Potentially libelous, too. I had said to the user before (the comments were deleted) that the edits he made represent only his opinion, and are not eligible for Wikipedia, so the user knew that it shouldn't be done. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just ran across the conversation on his talk page, and it seemed like you issued a vandalism warning for an unsourced edit, in which case an unsourced warning would have made it clear that personal opinions don't belong. =Axlq 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the first vandalism warning was appropriate. The lack of sources wasn't the big issue, but the fact that the user claimed that Murdoch was evil (I don't like him that much either but NPOV must be maintained). The second edit could've (or should've) been dealt with an uw-unsourced. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The source you provided for

Hi, Wikipedians seem to believe that IMDB is unreliable as they do not have a strong record for fact checking. I have changed the ref to The New York Times which has a very strong reputation for factual reporting. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for sorting it out. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete his article, it's not hurting anyone,its has a source and a citation, how is being Scotland's oldest man not notable.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I don't make the decision, consensus does. Not hurting anyone is not a proper argument (it is even listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Simply being over 100 years old doesn't warrant notability in a separate article, but in my opinion it should allow an entry in a list of old people. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sir, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary

74.249.146.74 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for restoring the tag on the article Ria Sakurai--Notedgrant (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:D--Notedgrant (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...they were all confirmed as sockpuppets by Checkuser, and were blocked an hour ago. [3] --

Whoa. Seems like there's no power more great and mysterious than a human's hidden ability to detect sock puppets. I'm one of those mercy types who wants to give everyone another chance, but there are limits to that as well. It's only fair that users that misuse their editing privileges are blocked. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Statement at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard‎; "My attempt to start improving the article’s inbalance on the talk page (Talk:Josip Broz Tito) was eventually met with abuse and then deletion. If I have crossed any of Wikipedia’s protocol etiquette I apologise (I am new at this). I just wish to express my concerns to Wikipedia and also to try to improve the Wiki articles if I can". I wish to draw your attention to the fact that I actually did apologies to the Wiki community for any crossing of Wiki protocol.

In my defence I canvassed in order to get someone’s attention because I didn’t know any other way. Furthermore, can I express my opinion (or will I get block, or be accused of being a Sockpuppet, or Wikipedia will send me warning messages etc). Hopefully it will be accepted that I am not a shock puppet (Wiki’s own investigation confirmed this) but merely a contributor to the debate. Secondly he never apologized to me for deleting my comments (which is the worst form of censorship) or anyone else that I know of. Finally, I am clearly disappointed in Wikipedia. There is enough information out there to confirm that Wikipedia is not functioning properly as a disseminator of information (even the creators of Wikipedia have expressed this) especially as it doesn’t act to expose such bullies (and taking there side) as the Direktor. Is writing "You're wacky, you're a lot of fun I like that" & I'll delete everything you wrote Wikipedia's way of doing things, (this guy is being doing this for while) and then taking the guys side! Wiki should check his User Contributions Site he's there day and night working away pushing his POV and keeping it in check.

In our society freedom of speech is paramount and to delete another’s comments is not acceptable. I would not do that to the Direktor and I expect the same respect for my opinion even though it contradicts his. Thanks for the other information you have given me. That is helpful for the future if I choose to contribute any further.

My statement at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rex Dominator: One of the quality problems is, if I may express myself, that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/ hers or their POV. Well if this is the case which I think it is, so be it. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just do what I told you in my message and you'll be fine. It has most of the important things wrapped up nicely. And, as I said, DIREKTOR apologized for his inappropriate comments, you should too. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kotiwalo, your right things did wrapped up nicely. Could you could please show me where is DIREKTOR's apology I can't find it. Cheers Sir Floyd (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He apologized on help desk, I'll quote the entire comment here.

There you go. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well what a surprise it’s true, but this is what I found today at my talk page “You've been reported on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luigi 28. Regards, --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)!” Well I’m still considering your proposal of an apology to DIREKTOR. Thanks Sir Floyd (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting someone as a potential sockpuppet is appropriate if there is suspicion. Think positively - if you have done nothing wrong, your name will be cleared. DIREKTOR can't have you blocked you as a sock without consensus that you are one, and if you have done nothing wrong, you won't be blocked. False positives after investigation are extremely rare. So, since you're not a sock (according to yourself) you should be glad there is such a discussion because once you're acquitted you won't be blamed for other people's mistakes. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, again! It’s already archived and I opened the file & it said ‘Unrelated‘ which means I’m not a ‘Sockpuppet’, just as I’ve been saying, but my user page has gone all funny. What’s going on? Sir Floyd (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page has the sockpuppet investigation tag, but if the investigation has ceased it's okay to remove it I suppose. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion was that User:Sir Floyd is a sockpuppet of either User:Luigi 28 or User:Brunodam/Marygiove, now we've narrowed it down somewhat. Of course, it may prove that I'm wrong in my suspicion. Either way, considering the overwhelming number of sock accounts and IP socks I'm encountering that push the exact same POV as User:Sir Floyd, I don't think that suspicions of sockpuppetry constitute any sort of "personal attack" (as User:Sir Floyd would have them portrayed). Rather they are sensible and logical under the circumstances. I believe I am being 100% objective.

P.S. User:Sir Floyd's edits fit the "psychological profile" of User:Brunodam, as his hatred and personal agenda against me match perfectly. It seems unlikely that a new user with the same POV-pushing would harbor the same kind of antagonism towards me, all because of a few half-joking remarks and one rather short talkpage exchange. My remarks were taken in bad faith from the start, since this user's negative opinion of me was fully formed a long time ago. --

TALK) 17:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

True. But newcomers may misinterpret the request for investigation (in which case they should be told the way things go) and sock puppets most likely don't like being investigated - either way, Sir Floyd's response was natural. But as I told him, he should be glad, because going through the sock puppet investigation is the only sure way of confirming one's innocence. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Floyd is interpreting any action of mine as an insult, and is trying to portray it as such for the purpose of getting me banned. He did not remove the template from the page, as a newcomer misinterpreting the report would do - he cleverly tried to use it against me. Either way this speculation is pointless, we'll see. --

TALK) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

We'll see. I hope this gets settled soon. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallow to the authorized of Wikipedia I am karim popal the afghan policy writher . I have a small problem of writhing and grammatical. first I write to the Microsoft office 2007 and after paste to Wikipedia. I am changed the discussion of afghan policy .but remember if the united state cannot stop the afghan war is start of word 3 war .war coming to your house .for defense our house and our child witch they have not responsibility for this war . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afghanpolicy27 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am no more authorized than you are. Everyone has the same rules -

This is an encyclopedia. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry about that; I reverted too far and accidentally removed Batman's name. I'm a big supporter of using sourced info - even when others don't agree. :) 67.175.176.178 (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologize myself, there was another IP who was extremely fanatical of Batman being not lawful good (the same IP also wanted Rupert Murdoch to be mentioned as lawful evil), and I took the "last warning" tone because of this. Cheers! Kotiwalo (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

In response to the below post:

Now that the sockpuppet flood has ceased, I'll be glad to announce my wish to keep the article for now, with the following things that should be noted: First, he is notable because he has had a lot of media coverage. I would personally see him as a one-eventer, but he does meet the notability guideline. Secondly, we absolutely positively need to establish a consensus whether longevity warrants notability, simply to help with similar cases to come. Thirdly, we must consider whether other people outliving him (very likely in the near future) are notable as well and do they take away mr Taggart's notability. I personally would see little point in having an article about some guy who had the longevity record twenty years ago, if there is nothing else notable about the person. On the other hand, notability is not temporary... confusing. We need to establish a common set of rules for cases like this. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Longevity warrants notability...this is clearly not an issue. Articles on longevity, and even maximum life span, can be found in traditional encyclopedias, not just Wikipedia.

2. The second question is whether individuals are notable. As we have seen with Henry Allingham, the answer is a clear 'yes.'

3. The real question that the Bob Taggart article raised is what level of longevity is needed for a case to be significant. This is similar to sports. What level of ability is needed to have an article on a baseball player? Generally, the standard is quite low: anyone who has ever played in the major leagues is considered 'notable.' Our culture clearly over-values sports and youth.

For the very aged, there is no "sports league" to determine. There IS a listing of verified 110-year-olds, worldwide, at www.grg.org. Yet some seek anonymity, while others seek attention. Should the level of media coverage be the deciding factor? Sadly, this may be the default standard.

However, in the long run, we must ask "what value" do these articles bring? There are several answers:

A. Most importantly, the lifespan of mammals seems to be limited by biology. In the same way that track and field records mark the outer limits of human peak strength, so longevity records mark the limits of human endurance. Unlike trees, which continue to grow and can live indefinitely, there is a certain cutoff...the record for mice is 4; for dogs, 29; for cats, 38. There's no such thing as a 40-year-old dog. Further, while ONE observation (such as Jeanne Calment) may be a bit outstanding (an outlier), a larger number of observations over time suggests that the 'average maximum' age is currently 115. Since Dec 31 1999, the official world's oldest person has never been younger than 114 or older than 116. This is a remarkably stable record. We also see differences between males and females: the female record of 122 is higher than the (scientific) male record of 115. Studies have shown that 90% of people 110 and older (supercentenarians) are female. This makes it imperative that we have separate records for male and female, the same way sports divides along gender lines.

B. History. Some persons, such as Harry Patch, become a symbol of the past. The last man alive who fought in the trenches in WWI made him notable, as it reminds us that current events eventually pass from living memory. Very aged persons can be our last, tenuous links with the past: Gertrude Baines is noted as being the daughter of a slave who voted for Obama.

C. Case details. Often, claims to extreme age have been found to be false, after more scrutiny was shone upon them. For those presented as true, it is imperative that sufficient detail be in the public vein that the public has confidence that the age attributed is accurate, and can even check themselves.

D. Education/role models. Supercentenarians have changed the mindset of many about just what it means to be "old." One woman told me that her 95-year-old mother had wanted to die, but after hearing about someone turning 110, decided that she was still young enough to keep going.

E. Health/role models. Supercentenarians have served as lifestyle role models, or in some cases as persons who "beat the odds" and smoked or drank or whatever and lived to 110+ anyway.

F. Nationalistic/local pride. Probably the least valuable argument, this seems to be a major reason for press coverage. Like cheering for your team (even when they lose), Scottish people for example would rather identify with Bob Taggart, 109, than with the oldest man in France, England, or Japan.

In the case of Taggart, looking at these reasons: reason A doesn't do much for his case (not a world recordholder or even close to it), except for the gender issue. By establishing that the oldest male in Scotland was 109 and the oldest female was 110, the "gender gap" was just one year at his passing. For B, the Taggart article provided "some" human interest, but was not compelling more than a local news obituary. For C, the age claim is not on the cusp of believability, so details may not be needed. For D, his age may have a positive benefit on the mindset of some. For E, his health habits were not much-discussed. For F, this seems to be the real motivating factor for this article. Both the "gender issue" and the "nationalist issue" could be served with an article such as "list of oldest persons from Scotland" that merges him into a list. Such a merge would retain the small value this case has, without further extending the depth of encyclopedic coverage on extremely longevous individuals. Thus, the current solution should be "keep for now" with a possible merge later. I'm sure the trolls will go away with a second consideration of the article later.131.96.205.184 (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of that, although I don't want to agree with very old people being comparable to sporting champions (although similarities are great). I agree with the merge thing (I supported it in the first place) but I don't think having an extra article harms Wikipedia in any way. On the other hand, there are several similar cases (people whose notability derives solely from age and whose articles have little content), so having a list article for them would be convenient. I still think that we need an extension of the notability guideline for old age, to establish a common set of rules - what age qualifies as exceptional enough to warrant notability, how much national issues weigh and so on. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary

see, Bob Taggart will always have nobility. 74.249.146.74 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For this edit he's been reported to

Yeah, I noticed (it's a noticeboard, after all). I can't understand these trolls, they do this even though it's evident that they never can outedit

Twinkle! Kotiwalo (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a heads-up, I just sent a message to an admin who recently (within the last 20 minutes) blocked an anon-ip. Hoping that he can take care of this guy as he shouldn't be on here...waaaayyyy too much of a hassle to keep him around! Frmatt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about the user page he originally vandalized, User talk:Sasuke664‎ as it seems to be a social extension to YouTube (yes I am a userpage nazi). It seems to attract these people from less encyclopedic websites to socialize and vandalize. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just filed an AIV about User:Sasuke664 as it appears to be vandalism only...let the admins sort it out. Frmatt (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentifisto just blocked him with much thanks from me! Frmatt (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Mentifisto is one of the good guys =). I'll get back to patrolling now that everything it's clear. Many thanks. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kotiwalo, when I try to find "goddess I" on Google, I am not referred to the Wikipedia article. Why doesn't this work? And if I were to change the article's name, what should I do?77.162.130.139 (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, while I am studying information technology, I have very little insight on the internal workings of Google. I did run a search on "Goddess I" (without quote marks) and the article was second from the top, and with quote markers it was the third. The article shows correctly, but Google engine evaluates the other pages as more relevant. You should ask

our help desk for further info because it's likely someone there knows more about Wikipedia's and Google's relations. Thanks for your work on the article by the way! Best regards, Kotiwalo (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Tom Harris Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.122.136 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you're called a lobbyist here depends solely on community consensus. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked: "How do we go about removing the word "lobbyist" from the postings associated with my name? I am not now, nor have I even been a lobbyist, although I worked for High Park Group for a short time who, among many other things, engaged in lobbying."

Finnish Wiki editor Kotiwalo responded, "Whether or not you're called a lobbyist here depends solely on community consensus."

My response: No, a word means what the word means and, Wikipedia itself defines lobbyist in a way that indicates I am, as I said, not a lobbyist and so I ask again, "How do we go about removing the word "lobbyist" from the postings associated with my name?" It is a mistake, pure and simple, as much as if I was called a politician or an airline pilot no matter what some people in some hypothetical community may say. How do you determine "community consensus" anyways (not that it should matter)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.122.136 (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus means that if there are more than one opinion on whether you are called a lobbyist, the matter should be discussed until consensus is found. I personally don't care what you are called, but you should try discussing on the article's talk page, because someone might actually oppose. I reverted your edit on the disambiguation page simply because the current article name is lobbyist and we don't want the disambiguation directing to a redlink (a nonexistent page). Thank you and good luck. Kotiwalo (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to format our discussion the way it's usually done, by the way. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read talk:Buddhism and redirect your warning, thank you Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I won't. You breached the three revert rule, so you deserved the warning. The other user's edits aren't blatant vandalism - they might be edit warring, but it is my personal preference to not warn before three revert rule is breached. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

verifiable and reliable sources were cited in the content I was trying to add. a list of references is added at the end of the article and the information written there is verifyed with experts in the fields of evolution and game theory. It would be great if you´ll approve our article.

Regards, Gady Goldsobel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadale (talk • contribs) 17:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I must've missed them. In any case, deleting properly sourced content should be avoided. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hallow mr. gentleman. i wrote on one year afghan policy. the collection of those matter was too difficult. i had so more then 10000 opinions in wikipedia.but it is not opsit to your policy you are accepted .afghan policy showing the British gov .broken and destroyed how many country and how many million people in the word.

afghan policy writer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afghanpolicy27 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies forbid using Wikipedia for publishing essays, supporting political or religious goals or anything like that, even if your case is good and charitable. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kotiwalo, I'm having a tough time on the Josip Broz Tito Talk Page (Talk:Josip Broz Tito). I was wondering can I go for the option of third opinion here and do you think it's wise, or to early? Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Floyd (talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest not to automatically accept third opinion as

dispute resolution methods. I hope you can settle this out. Best regards, Kotiwalo (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sir Floyd would like to list periods of economic insecurity in Yugoslavia in the

Yugoslav economy

in a biographical article, but that if we're gonna talk about the Yugoslav economy than we shall certainly not list only the "bad things", but economic successes as well. Its a texbook cheap shot at POV-pushing.

Because of those two sentences, objections such as this and everything else anyone writes is dismissed as "their opinion", and User:Sir Floyd typically started to annoy people both at talkpages (

TALK) 13:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

These situations are very complicated because it's impossible to tell who is being neutral and who is not so I can only say what is (most likely) already clear to both of you:

synthesis or otherwise, so you'll have to find a reliable source that explicitly puts the blame on Tito. Even in that case, however, it would be best to assert this as a minority viewpoint until proven significant. I hope this analysis helps you two resolve this debate. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Kotiwalo that was very helpful.Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Kotiwalo (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side Note

Hello,

Just a friendly side note, it would help a lot of the new page patrollers if you could mark the pages you tag as patrolled. It just helps to increase the amount of pages that get patrolled and to get it done more efficiently.

I see you are using an automated tool, so it may be helpful to find another that marks new pages as patrolled for you also. =]

Yours,

Talk to Me 07:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. The problem is that I actually patrol recent changes more. I do check new pages that look like inappropriate, but when entering pages via RC, the Mark page as patrolled - option isn't given. But thanks for advice anyway! Kotiwalo (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the response. No problem, just a friendly note. Yours,

Talk to Me 07:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem. I'm really glad to see that there are people who still care about the little things that make life a bit easier for the others. Kotiwalo (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Appropriate Wiki Etiquette?

Hi Kotiwalo, just need to know is this appropriate Wiki etiquette on behave of the Direktor?

'You stated you suffer from "a form of dyslexia", my sympathies. May I ask what "form of dyslexia" you suffer from? (If I'm not being too personal) -DIREKTOR 27 August 2009

DIREKTOR, concerning my dyslexia, that’s my private life, and it does not concern anybody. I am prepared to say one thing however, one can get their written work proof read & then there is always old faithful, spell check on my Apple Mac. Regards -Sir Floyd 29 August 2009

You do realize that no type of dyslexia would cause you to make a mistake like "Wikipedic article"? -DIREKTOR 31 August 2009''

I mean I don't mind the interaction on the Talk:Josip Broz Tito, but for me this is getting a little to personal & weird. lf I have crossed any Wiki etiquette myself please just tell me. Thanks! Sir Floyd (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you removed the smiley in order to make the post look more "sinister"? :) Nice... I'm constantly amazed at just how badly you want me banned - you're trying to report me for everything I say. And no, its not "weird". You stated that the mistakes you make are caused by dyslexia, yet, as a medical student who's covered his bases in basic neuropsychology I can assure everyone here that such mistakes are absolutely not caused by "normal" types of dyslexia. (I have only encountered such mistakes with people who's English is less than perfect - you've invented a whole new adjective.) This is why I asked you, I'm curious what form of dyslexia you suffer from.

Also, I'd like to ask you to please stop with your transparent attempts at manipulation. --

TALK) 10:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Creating a personal sandbox

Hi Kotiwalo. You have given me instruction in the past as to how to set up a user sandbox for my account but I still can't seem to be able to do it. Can you help me again? I don't know what I am doing wrong. Is it possible for you to create it for me?

Thanks --bessmorris 03:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

please read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary 74.249.146.74 (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Hi I wonder if you can help me. I have created a new page entitled Cannabis in Australia (similar in structure and content to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States) in my sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bessmorris/Sandbox). I am keen for other editors to have a look at the article and then to help me upload it.

Thanks bessmorris 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

Revision to

Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

articles

I noticed that you have revised either

Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire

.

I intend to revise those articles following the

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines

. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello cousin

Hei there, just noticed that I have a near-namesake here. I am Kotivalo and mostly active on fi-w (30000+ edits) and commons, but also on en-wiki. I guess neither of us needs to do anything about our nicks, just be aware that we might get mixed up. Terveisin –Kotivalo (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic)

Hi. I was wondering if you would be interested in contributing articles to

Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic)? It needs contributors to increase diversity of content from different countries and bring about large scale improvements. The idea at some point will be to host a National Contest related to your country of interest. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The

Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards,

Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]