User talk:Part

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. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Nomoskedasticity. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Philip Baker (obstetrician)‎ that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. "Nomo is biased and even intellectually dishonest", in [1] Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity you seem to be intellectually dishonest. I pointed out that the date is June and not July which is supported by the two references you cited. Am I not telling the truth about the date? Are you not being dishonest? Part (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Philip Baker (obstetrician)‎. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment of intellectual dishonesty is not a personal attack please see (Personal attack removed) I am sorry and apologize if you perceived it this way. Part (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept an apology that is framed in terms of something I have done. If you want to apologize, you can apologize for something you have done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is amazing, you reverted to a version that I pointed out is incorrect. Nomoskedasticity do you dispute this? I point out this is not proper (backed by evidence - which means this is not a personal attack), next thing you are slapping me with threats of being blocked from editing. I apologize for removing your first reference when I first came across the article, I have subsequently not quibbled about this since it was put back. I have no objection to you mentioning the admission in the article as long as what is written is factually correct. Part (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(

drop the stick. (And aren't you the one who said "I think I give up, I don't have time to continue this"?) In addition, while considering this a personal attack is debatable (and I'm not sure what "intellectually dishonest" is supposed to mean), it's ironic that you call Nomo biased when the person who really appears to be biased is you because you don't seem to want to keep any negative, well-sourced biographical information in the article. Mr. Baker messed up, so he resigned. Live with it and move on. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Erpert did you see this edit from an "anonymous" IP 64.222.64.38? very likely by Nomoskedasticity. You fail to mention that Nomoskedasticity has repeatedly reverted to a version that is incorrect, open vandalsim by Nomo. This is dishonest by Nomo. There is no where I disagreed with the admission, I was upfront about that. Part (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent editing history at Philip Baker (obstetrician) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 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.

Also, read

Thank you Ian.thomson. I stated why it was vandalism in the edit summary - "Unknown" IP reverted to a wrong date, etc. Otherwise I agree that IP edits are not necessarily vandalism, but in this case I gave reasons why and this can be checked/verified. 06:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on my talk page. In short: if your problem was just the date, you'd've only removed the word "July" instead of using it as an excuse to change other content and your latest edit to the page was a manual revert but still a revert. Not related to your block, but the source you're using can only, at best, be used to establish that Baker claims Gawande didn't take offense. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Part (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ian.thomson I'm sure you can see how Nomoskedasticity deliberately reverted to a wrong date repeatedly and possibly even using a different IP, Nomoskedasticity was smart enough to avoid being blocked by apparently using a different IP. I have added balance to the article. In addition NPOV states representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been ... The only part of the article with two references is the contentious issue. Is this then a proportionate representation of the subject? I see systematic bias creeping in and I think this is one of the major reasons Wikipedia is loosing editors by making it hard for inexperienced editors to navigate the complex rules, while experienced editors can apply technicalities and use IP addresses, etc. to mask their dishonest conduct and get away with it at the expense of loosing editors who might have something to contribute. Nomoskedasticity's initial article was not a fair representation of the subject according to NPOV and was not factually accurate. I respectfully request you unblock me. Part (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Absolutely none of that deals with the fact that you edit-warred, which is the reason for the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 15:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You might want to read

WP:NOTTHEM and revise your post. Also, WP:No personal attacks

includes allegations which lack evidence. You would need to provide evidence that the IP addresses that reverted you belonged to Nomoskedasticity when making accusations.

Multiple editors have explained for you that the source you cited fails

WP:RS

. Explaining that now will not get you unblocked, but you will need to do that if you want to avoid getting blocked if you use that source again.

The "this is what's wrong with Wikipedia" bit is pretty standard for requests that get rejected by admins. You might want to revise that part. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson thanks for your response. That's the point I can't prove it's him/her and he/she has used a sophisticated technical approach which is what you're doing to censure me. Never mind, the systematic bias is clear and you're part of it. I have no interest in editing that article anymore. Part (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Ian.thomson writes "Multiple editors have explained for you that the source you cited fails WP:RS.", while only one editor mentioned this Nomoskedasticity on one occasion. This is evidence of the systematic bias and use of technicalities to censure others while living others scot free. Part (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with

User:JamesBWatson he/she doesn't seem to appreciate that Nomoskedasticity clearly violated NPOV and deliberately reverted to an incorrect version (which prompted my editing). None of the other parties have said anything to censure Nomoskedasticity. Further evidence of systematic bias even by an administrator. 19:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Part (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The administrator writes "blocked Part ... with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: at Philip Baker (obstetrician), with claims of reverting vandalism to cover up content changes)" I did not claim vandalism, what occurred was real vandalism change to a wrong date and yes I also changed the content, but it still remained factually true and supported by the references. I make another unblock request to test the extent of systematic bias. 1. Is what I reverted not vandalism i.e. wrong date? Are the changes I made not factually true? Why was user Nomoskedasticity not censured in any way? I want to demonstrate that systematic bias exists and technical rules are unfairly applied to censure relatively inexperienced editors with limited capacity to navigate the complexity of the rules. Part (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'd call what you did there "whitewashing". You repeatedly removed well-sourced relevant content. That's edit-warring, and you're not addressing it at all. Huon (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks Huon, please give the specific examples of where I repeatedly removed well-sourced relevant content. I removed admitted and put accused which is factually true, perhaps you haven't read the articles, first there were accusations, then a resignation, then admission. I fully agree to that and that is supported by the references. The last edit I made which led to this block had accused and admitted and was the most comprehensive account of the event ever made on the page. And you too fail to comment on systematic bias Part (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Erpert for participating in a Wikipedia experiment whose results will appear next year (due to peer review and publishing lag). Part (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Baker admitted he plagiarized the speech, confirmed by The Star (whose wording strongly suggests that the admission predates the resignation, not postdates it). Removed here, here, here, here. The last time you claimed vandalism for no good reason that wouldn't also apply to your own edits. That's not even addressing the other problems with your conduct, which I find more and more troubling the deeper I look into the issue. The above claim of a "Wikipedia experiment" sounds like grounds for a

WP:NOTHERE indefinite block to me. The "systematic bias" claim is not accompanied by any evidence. Huon (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

An experiment/study has been conducted and and will be published from this experience. I have stated clearly if you read the initial talk page that I do not disagree with the admission. What does the first reference I quoted on the talk page state, even in title? That he resigned following accusations while an investigation was ongoing. I have provided evidence of systematic bias. Part (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The study will focus on my own conduct and the conduct of the highlighted editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias

Last edit here for complete publicly available audit trail. The study will contribute to further understanding the dynamics between Wikipedia editors and how this can be improved. Part (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the "social experiment" claim. Seen that one before. Never has any effect on or off the site, it seems. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is real Ian.thomson, at some point I realized this is a good opportunity to study the dynamics and get some insights. It didn't start out as such but rich data has been generated. Part (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be including your violation of site policies in the study? There's a reason that real social scientists usually remain independent of what they're studying -- they don't want to skew the results with their presence. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your recent remarks are clearly a childish attempt to intimidate, but let's leave that aside. Meanwhile, let me just point out that while you claim that I don't "seem to appreciate that Nomoskedasticity clearly violated NPOV and deliberately reverted to an incorrect version", you have fundamentally missed the point of what my role as an administrator was. I came to this page to review a request for an unblock on your account, and that's what I did. Whether anyone else was at fault is irrelevant, as the block is about your actions. "Yes, your honour, I did beat him up, but I shouldn't be convicted, because he murdered someone" is not a valid defence. Get it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "
  talk) 08:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The study will go through formal peer review and as I have mentioned my conduct will be objectively evaluated like all the parties involved

JamesBWatson Part (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy new year mate and all the best. Babakathy (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Part,
As you are a long time editor, you know Wikipedia's policies about living people.
Perhaps it would be best if we leave it at that.
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I do not know which policy or policies you are referring to, please provide the link and and explanation. You seem to be defending your actions by not being transparent about your reasons. Part (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you that I am partially defending my actions by not being transparent about my reasons, as you put it. I will not resile from continuing to not mention the subject of the article that you wrote, and that I deleted.

The reason for this is Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

From what I can see, if the article had not been deleted, would it have it gone through a

WP:BLP1E part of that policy. That process would take maybe two weeks. In that time, the article would have been addedd to various Wikipedia data scraping websites that Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation

has no control over. The indignity suffered by the subject of the that you wrote, and that I deleted, would then be there for anyone to see.

I admit that I did not go through the regular processes when I deleted that article. I assert that the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons trumps the essay Wikipedia:Process is important every time.

If you think I breached my

WP:ANI

about me.

(Technically

WP:ANI

is the default notice-board for everything.)

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response Part (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yondo Sister, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congolese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jamie Vardy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qed237 is not an Administrator. The Almightey Drill and I had requested an admin to arbitrate. Part (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator but that does not mean that you can keep edit warring on the article to insert your preferred version without consensus. Qed237 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Part reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ). Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Part (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Although technically I violated the three-revert rule, I was using the - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". This is part of my ongoing research (see above) to document systemic bias and how editors including administrators are involved in its perpetuation. Qed237, The Almightey Drill, Slakr. Part (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read further down the page you quote, to the part where it says "Don't try and use it to get around WP:CONSENSUS..." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Regarding your research: So... you're

here for reasons other than building an encyclopedia? I've seen that claim on occasion in unblock requests, but that's all that ever happens with it. Wikipedia as a whole generally isn't concerned about such research because it's invariably a bluff intended to coerce us into complying, which we don't take kindly to

. This is not how professional academic or journalistic research is conducted these days, so the furthest it could go is a blog that maybe a few friends read, some more click "like" for social purposes, maybe the next person claiming to do "research" cites as part of some claim that "admins are out to get us"... but the rest of the world largely remains unaware of. When anthropologists go into the field, they attempt to fit in with the group how they can instead of disrupting the local customs for purposes of showing some supposed injustice within that community. Now, if a member of ArbCom (i.e. some of the best editors we have) wrote something about systematic bias and revealed that they'd be gathering research for years to show that there's some network of admins out to get people, that'd have an effect outside of Wikipedia.

As for "Ignore all rules": IAR applies to itself, it is not a trump card that lets whoever says it first win the argument. But let's say for a moment that we did apply WP:IAR to WP:3RR in this case. We have multiple users who have reached a consensus on the talk page for why the material you added should not be included, for reasons based on long-standing, site-wide consensuses (i.e. policies and guidelines). If we let everyone reverting, the article will mostly retain the form without your addition (IAR does not apply only to you). Still, that's unnecessarily disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. That's why it's easier to just enforce 3RR. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research can improve the building of an encyclopedia - I of course did not expect to be unblocked. I am collecting data Boing! said Zebedee and Ian.thomson. Part (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

]

Please help me - family tree

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am trying to also separately draw a family tree in addition to the ancestry diagram which would include wives and children for Nelson Mandela similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Obama_family_tree.

I was going to suggest asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).--Launchballer 13:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Part. You have new messages at VarunFEB2003's talk page.
Message added VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 14:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am having challenges with the infobox for Maria Mutola.

An improperly-closed wikilink was causing trouble with the template. Fixed. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Midnightblueowl deleted ancestry information from Nelson Mandela that s/he believes is fairly trivial although other page(s) on Wikipedia have this information. This is very likely systemic bias. I reverted the edit. Part (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... please use the {{admin help}} template you need the help of an administrator. Mkdw^talk 00:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unreferenced ancestry chart that only mentions Mandela's two parents and no one else in his family. In its current state it's really bad, although has the potential to be improved if done properly. There is already a Talk Page discussion open to debate the merit of such a chart. Rather than edit warring to add this controversial section in to the article, I would ask Part to engage with the Talk Page discussion, which they have not at present done. That would be the appropriate way to go about things and would allow us to build constructively on their concerns. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Midnightblueowl did not only delete the chart. S/he deleted referenced scientific ancestry information and perhaps fails to recognise that Mandela came from a culture with predominantly oral transmission of ancestry information precluding detailed written knowledge of his grandparents. Besides, the body of the article supports the information in the chart with solid references. Also Midnightblueowl creates the impression I have not engaged in debate on the merits of such a chart. I have here ancestry section and the consensus was the chart was appropriate. I contend that systemic bias is at play. Part (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. that information was cited to an article in SouthAfrica.info, which doesn't look like a top quality source. If we had an article in a peer-reviewed journal discussing the same information (which may be the case) then I would be happy to include information on Mandela's genetic ancestry. Anyway, we already do have a section on Talk:Nelson Mandela devoted to this issue, so why not come discuss it there? There's really not much point having a separate discussion here on your own User Talk Page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I was the one who added all of the "solid references" that you refer to into the article in the first place! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Wikipedia article on List of haplogroups of historic people lists the same information that Midnightblueowl has again reverted and says is not from a top quality source although the information was broadcast on South African national TV by prominent scientists and is extensively referenced. I now see from Midnightblueowl that she is from Western Europe. I thus continue gathering data on systemic bias (see above) and will revert her edit. Part (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? You accuse me of some racial or geographical bias against Southern Africa because I insist on using good quality sources in the Nelson Mandela article? What utter nonsense. I've told you on multiple occasions that I removed that section because a) much of it is too basic and unreferenced, and b) the other bit links to a website that may not be a reliable source. I've pointed out to you that this is an issue being discussed over at Talk:Nelson Mandela and invited you to contribute there, but you have ignored my suggestion. Instead you have continued to edit war and here you falsely accuse me of vandalism. You are way out of line here, Part. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely Midnightblueowl, I accuse you of systemic bias. Your world view is that "If we had an article in a peer-reviewed journal..." and you fail to tolerate any other credible view point/information source. All the information you deleted is perfectly true as highlighted by the links I provided. Part (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa has peer-reviewed journals, Part... What I ask for is that when discussing scientific issues, we use scientific publications (i.e. peer-reviewed journals) as opposed to online news services which so often pervert the information presented by scientific researchers. (and that goes as much for Southern African news services as it does for European, Asian, American ones etc). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of haplogroups of historic people, which includes Nelson Mandela has four credible references. Part (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to debate this here any more. Take it to Talk: Nelson Mandela. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Midnightblueowl. I have taken it there. Part (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mkdw Ok thanks. Part (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mkdw^talk 06:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mkdw for letting me know. Part (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to get hold of the protocol-chair. The study has been stopped with immediate effect. We apologise unreservedly for these unforeseen and unintended consequences and we would like to reiterate that confidentiality and anonymity were key aspects in the study's design. Part (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have done what we can to rectify our mistakes. We accept the consequences. Part (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Part I suggest you read how to use the template {{outdent}}. You shouldn't start every comment with it. It's meant to carry on a conversation that has been indented several times. Mkdw^talk 14:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To reiterate what was summarized at ANI#Editor not here to build an encyclopedia, the community has reached a consensus that your presence on Wikipedia has been disruptive and unethical. Examples and issues have been raised as far back as October 2015 which have included two blocks and lengthy discussions. Your affiliation with this purported "research group" has been of deep concern to many editors, especially since you have actively engaged and sometimes seemingly antagonized editors and then made claims that these discussions will be published as part of a study. You have provided very few details about the study and even fewer assurances. In many cases, editors expressed their non-consent to the study and you loosely cited the creative commons license. You have hereby been blocked indefinitely. If you wish to return to editing, we strongly suggest you contact arbcom at [email protected] to fully disclose the details of the study, what will be done with the information that has already been collected, and the contact information of your protocol-chair. I will also mirror the comments from several of the editors at the ANI report that you are responsible for your own actions and there is a discomfort in you operating on behalf of this "research group". Mkdw^talk 14:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per

More information on bans can be found at

@NeilN: @Mkdw: Please may you un-ban me? I was wrong and made a mistake. I have now educated myself on the relevant policies and guidelines and promise not to repeat a similar thing again. I will stick to encyclopaedic activities. Please consider it a mitigating factor that I expressed remorse for my actions and have been otherwise around for almost ten years without incident. Part (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were banned by community consensus two months ago. It is very unlikely that the community would reverse their decision in such a short period of time. I would recommend you wait 6-12 months before contemplating an appeal to the community. [I should also mention that you will likely face significant inquiry into your involvement in these studies. Something that will likely require full disclosure and an opportunity from ArbCom to speak with them to verify]. Mkdw^talk 21:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw:. Ok. Part (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:@NeilN: @Mkdw: Please may you un-ban me? I made a mistake, I'm very sorry. Part (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the ban is a community ban, the community has to decide to unban you. A single admin alone cannot undo it.

If you are serious, you should explain what mistakes you made in detail, so we know for sure that you know what you did wrong; as well as what you plan to do in the future to avoid those mistakes.

Do not try to blame it on other people, that'll only make you look like you're not really sorry. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ian.thomson: I was wrong, I have educated myself on the policies. I was/am inexperienced with research. I will stick to encyclopaedic activities. Part (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to follow

WP:CBAN. Mkdw ^talk 16:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy holidays mate @Babakathy:. I suppose my editing days are over. Bye. Part (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Been inactive for ages, just read this now. Sorry to hear of everything that went wrong mate. Hope they will be able to reconsider in due course.Babakathy (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message mate. Just reading this now @Babakathy:. Nice to see you back. I too hope in due course they will reconsider. Part (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Part. 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]

Happy new year @Babakathy:. Part (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year @Part:. Babakathy (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The South African Wikimedia chapter is awarding a limited number of full and partial scholarships to attend Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town to SADC and South African based Wikimedians. The due date for applications is 30 May. You can get more information by clicking here. Don't waste time APPLY NOW! (Google docs form provided by WMZA) 20:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia South Africa will be hosting Asaf Bartov from the Wikimedia Foundation for 5 days where he will be conducting a series of Capacity Building Workshops in Johannesburg and Cape Town. The workshops are aimed at addressing challenges faced by African Wikimedians and share tools that will enable them to better increase African content. In Johannesburg the workshops will take place on 25 - 26 May 2018 at the Goethe Institut, and in Cape Town Asaf will be meeting Wikimedians on 29 May 2018. Come and join us either in Johannesburg or Cape Town, we can pay for your travel to attend in either of these cities. You can click here to see more information or you can contact [email protected]. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC), delivered on behalf of Bobbyshabangu[reply]

The due date for applying to be part of the WikiIndaba steering committee (WISCom) is this Friday the 22nd. Apply now and be part of the African Wikimedia Movement. (Message from Bobbyshabangu 10:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Country Winners
• Diversity winner
• High quality contributors
• Gender-gap fillers
• Page improvers
• Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year @Babakathy:. Part (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been a member of

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You have been a member of

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk), 2021.01

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list