User talk:Meewam

Welcome!

Hello, Meewam, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

I am looking for more help at the

Hello Meewam. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

Hey Meewam, just wanted to let you know that I closed the AFD:

WP:RFD. It can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_25#Windows_Rot. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on my talk page! Thanks. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry, but it appears that you are confusing

I have found the sentence with your RfD justification and amended my second comment accordingly. I will not be recommending a speedy keep as you do have a valid basis for the nomination. B.Wind (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You moved the Windows Tax section (I'm OK with that), but I just realized: isn't it just a duplicate of the "Licensing agreements" section? Shouldn;t they be merged? --DanielPharos (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your speedy tag on

Twinkle did that. One wrong click and it's off doing it's business - Meewam (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the

The

UK Singles Chart article does not cite any references. Could you please add a reference to the 200 position singles chart? Looking at the OFFICIAL UK SINGLES TOP 100 shows only 100 positions. Am I looking at the wrong chart? - Meewam (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

it has been a 200 position chart for about 20years. most places only publish the top 40, 75 or 100. but positions 101-200 are only available to subscribers of

ChartsPlus magazine. Mister sparky (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Discuss

here - Meewam (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of

Reponse - Meewam (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meewam, I suggest you have a look at the guidance on requesting moves, with particular attention to the bit which says "Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate" It’s no good just plonking a RM tag on a page without saying why you think it’s a good idea. And directing comments to an old discussion isn’t a good idea either.
Now I’ve copied your original comments to the discussion, with a summary of the rest; if you are unhappy with that I suggest you re-write it to reflect what you actually mean. And I’ve changed the page tag again, so newcomers to the discussion know where they are supposed to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for being a big help in clearing things up regarding the structure at the talk page, and also for giving some directions on how to request a move. I'll certainly look into to that the next time I consider placing a {{

movenotice

}} on a page.

I didn't know about the Requested Moves list, but now that the discussion is listed there, it will hopefully attract more people to engage.

I placed a {{

movenotice

}} does not require me to do so, except in case of a complicated move, e.g. the move target is already taken, or if a wider community input is needed to form a consensus. The last phrase does encourage me to post the discussion at the Requested Moves list, but I somehow overlooked that possibility.

Things went a bit out of hand when

movenotice

}}. So I'm at bit surprised at how things got so messed up - until you came along a set it straight :)

Thanks again - Meewam (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: it’s (typically!) more complicated than it first appeared. And I’m sorry if I came over to you as being testy; I assumed when I first saw it that it was a

hit-and-run tag, which tend to wind me up. I'd also assumed that you'd put it there: My apologies! Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

July 2012

Your recent editing history at

reverts

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

Hello, Meewam. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]