User talk:Stamptrader

Hello, Stamptrader, and

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

Stamptrader, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Stamptrader! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 01:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing up the Quantum Theory cast entries. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	For your work in fixing up other people's mistakes, I hereby award you this Barnstar YSSYguy (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. When I reply to peoples' messages about ReferenceBot notifications at User talk:A930913, chances are you've already fixed the problem. Thanks a lot! Huon (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

APweb recommends that it be cited as "Stevens, P. F. (2001 onwards)" (see the home page). Although this page goes on to give the citation as "Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 12, July 2012", if you look you'll see that the header is actually "version 13". The website is indeed continuously updated, and as of now, the last update is given as "Page last updated: 01/28/2015 19:03:53". If you search the site there are references to papers dated 2015. So it's quite wrong to use "2001–2012" as the citation date.

• I regret that the maintainers of the citation templates have refused to allow open-ended dates, as recommended by a number of important online sources, not just APweb.
• There could be an argument for using the access year as the terminal year in the citation. However, this would, in my view, only be correct if the URL given is to an archived version. When the URL is to the current version, the citation should describe this version, and the only valid date is "2001 onwards".
• My preferred solution is not to use the citation templates – just use plain text, when the correct citation can be given. Many pages have been "corrected" in this way.
• The second best solution is just to delete the date altogether as it cannot be expressed meaningfully with the current citation templates.

Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the simple solution is to remove the date altogether, if a solution (beyond clearing errors, which was my only goal) is needed. It isn't a matter of expressing the date "2001 onwards" meaningfully, however, since there is no useful meaning inherent in an open-ended date. One of the errors I fixed was on Solanaceae - the accessdate parameter used on that citation allows you to know that the reference was current up to 2007. 20 years from now that limit will still hold and you would know that nothing is implied about any validity from 2008 to 2035. "2001 onwards" does nothing to help now or in the future - there's no way of knowing when the info was valid, other than "on some unknown date between 2001 and today". A date / copyright range is bad but at least limits the possibilities - an open-ended date is worse and limits nothing, and in that sense is the equivalent of having no date at all.

In that regard, the correct solution is to go through the edit history on every page that doesn't include an access date, figure out when the citation was added and update the citation to show that. That gives a fixed date when the citation was valid. But that's a large pain in the backside and I doubt anybody cares that much, given how long some of these errors have survived. I removed the ugly red error text because that's what was bothering me enough - perhaps someday I'll be bothered enough about date ranges without useful meaning and will remove those too (or will pinpoint them down to an exact date). Stamptrader (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. The access date is there to show when the source was consulted. The citation date is there to show when the source was written/published. The two dates have different purposes; that's the point of having two. As of now, all we know about the source that is linked (assuming that it hasn't been archived, as noted above) is that it was written and published from 2001 onwards. Being told this is not at all the equivalent of having no date. Knowing that the site started being written in 2001 tells someone knowledgeable a great deal (e.g. that it began by using the original APG system, published in 1998, not the later APG II and APG III systems). When the site ceases to be updated then of course a terminal date should be used in the citation date.

The red errors are caused by changes made to the citation templates without full consultation, e.g. through an RfC. Unless and until this is resolved, the best solution is to use the citation recommended by the author by using plain text. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the smallcaps parameter nolonger supported?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's for compliance with

Module_talk:Citation/CS1#name-list-format.3Dscap_now_producing_error for more info. Stamptrader (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

MOSCAPS does not say that it cannot be used in references, so that is a bad reason. I find it extremely frustrating that a couple of template editors make changes like this without consulting with the community and the content creators who actually use the templates. I know this is not your fault.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to reverse the decision to deprecate small caps for author names by changing the MOS. So perhaps you want to stop implementing this for now, so we wont have to add all the smallcaps again if I succeed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can hold off on further edits. But I see you now have a conflict with your list of changes to the all caps rules - the specific mention of Latin text is now both allowed and excluded. Stamptrader (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I fear I may be repeating errors though lack of knowledge. What was the error in the parameters that you corrected in this edit? thanks. Nurg (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30+ categories of CS1 errors that can pop up, but there are only 5 of them which have been marked by default as being not visible - you have to set code in a CSS stylesheet in order to see these hidden errors. Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL is one of those errors and that's what I've fixed on the page you show. Help:CS1 errors#|accessdate= requires |url= is the help page for this specific error - in essence, you need to have a URL specified in your citation in order to use the accessdate parameter. If you don't have a URL then accessdate will trigger an error. It's a minor error, and since it's marked as hidden by default I assume you can't even see it.

If you dig back through the archives on Help talk:Citation Style 1 and Help talk:CS1 errors you can find repeated debates on this error. In fact, it cropped up again just 2 days ago. I'm of the opinion that the extra accessdate parameter should simply be deleted, but others think it could maybe be a clue to a URL that once was included in the citation but has since been deleted. They think that leaving the accessdate there could help somebody to find that URL later on. There are 47,000+ errors in that category and I think this edge case is rare enough that it could simply be ignored (as I have been doing up to now), and in any case I doubt anybody is ever planning to go through the list to search for these potential URLs on the old versions of the pages. But without data it's just another opinion, so I'm now going through pages in a pseudo-random fashion and actually testing out this "lost URL" edge case. I'm expecting to find a very small amount of success, probably 2% or less, but I'll wait until I've been through 500 pages (maybe 1000, we'll see how long it takes) before I post my findings. Stamptrader (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have now added the code to my CSS stylesheet. Nurg (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just learnt something new! Thanks very much for this explanation and tidying up my references on Aleen Cust. I'll be mindful of not making this mistake again :) thanks again Smirkybec (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, certainly - glad to be of help and thanks for the positive note. Stamptrader (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For my own notes, my accessdate error data findings have been posted at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#Error data - accessdate without URL.

Hi. I just noticed that some of the CS1 error fixes you have been doing are not quite right, though I want to take a closer look before getting into any deep discussions. Until we can discuss this, would you consider slacking off a bit? At least on the Global Warming articles. I'll try to get back to you on this in a couple of days. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're referring to

harvnb

}} template has caused CS1 errors. My fix was just meant to clear errors, which I why I also mentioned in the edit summary that further work would probably be needed to clean it up correctly.

The citation method that had been used was this, causing a missing title CS1 error:

<ref>{{citation | author=IPCC | at=[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html Understanding and Attributing Climate Change] | chapter=Summary for Policymakers}}, in {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}.</ref>

IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Understanding and Attributing Climate Change {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help), in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR4_WG12007 (help).

I removed the missing title error message this way (I probably should have used both chapter= and chapter-url= rather than keeping it the way it was) - now that there's a title= parameter in use, the title is italicized and the element order is changed, however:

<ref>{{citation|author=IPCC|chapter=[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html Understanding and Attributing Climate Change] | title=Summary for Policymakers}}, in {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}.</ref>

IPCC, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change", Summary for Policymakers {{citation}}: External link in |chapter= (help), in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR4_WG12007 (help).

Trying to use the {{

harvnb

}} template in the title= parameter solves the missing title error, of course, but I figured that was probably too far away from how the original editor was trying to make things look:

<ref>{{citation|author=IPCC|at=[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html Understanding and Attributing Climate Change]|chapter=Summary for Policymakers|title={{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}}}.</ref>

IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR4_WG12007 (help), Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.

If the requirement is to keep the same text order & format seen in the original citation without generating a CS1 error, then I expect the citation will have to be written freehand. I don't think there's a way to make it work as desired using the {{citation}} template.

<ref>IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html Understanding and Attributing Climate Change], in {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}.</ref>

IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR4_WG12007 (help).

Stamptrader (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I'm looking at. (Which I reverted, pending a better resolution.) There are a couple of points of confusion we need to straighten out, particularly regarding "title". It should be noted that the general context here is the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report ("AR4"). This (like the other ARs) consists of four "reports" from the three Working Groups plus a Synthesis Report. Each of these four reports is a work, in that they are comprised of chapters (or "contributions") of separate authorship. So there are multiple levels of citation. E.g.: IPCC > AR4 > WG1 > [some chapter].

The approach here is to cite the chapters in detail, with a link to the citation with the details of the containing work. . E.g.: Le Treut et al., "Chapter 1" [...], in IPCC AR4 WG1. This avoids having to repeat a lot of redundant detail. What you will notice is that "IPCC AR4 WG1" is not a proper title; it is a succinct identifier that links to the full citation for that work. As such it properly follows the citation of the chapter. (Particularly as the Harv template should not be used inside of a citation template.) Also (please pardon me for being a bit pedantic here, but it does make a difference), the title of a chapter contained within a work should go into the |chapter= parameter, |title= being reserved for the work. Also, note that the various |at= parameters, which you shifted into |chapter=, do not reference/link to chapters, they link to individual sections.

So back to the original problem: the new error messages now emitted by CS1. I very much doubt that "freehand" (i.e., removing the templates) is necessary, which would also be very objectionable. However, fixing that is going to take some looking into. I'll let you know what I find. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a method of clearing a missing title CS1 error using any sort of citation template without populating |title=, let me know about it, please. I don't think there's anything except for the case of |journal= set while using a magic word |title=none (and without |chapter= set, since that would cause a further CS1 error). Again, I think these citations without |title= set will need to be written freehand to make them look like they used to. I note that 5 other "Summary for Policymakers" citations are already written freehand in that article. Stamptrader (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Freehand" would be massively unacceptable, existing instances being evidence not of acceptability, but of the inconsistency and poor quality of many of those citations. But I am confident something can be worked out. (If nothing else, I will go back to the CS1 coders and complain about the error.) I'll let you know what I find. Hopefully you are okay with leaving IPCC citations alone for the time being? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can hold off on further editing of these citations. I don't know if you'll have much success in trying to revert the changes to the citation templates, though - there was a specific intent to address the former lack of an error message if |title= had been left blank. See the CS1 talk page archived here.[1] Stamptrader (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just looking at that. I've started a new thread at Help talk:Citation Style 1#.22Missing or empty .7Ctitle.3D.22_error_message. Don't worry about the GW articles, I'll take care of those (eventually); they have other problems I might as well fix while I'm at it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your citation correction in

You're welcome! Stamptrader (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when you edit references. You stumbled onto some references in After School Nightmare that where corrupted with this edit. Generally except for minor edits such as date format changes you should treat reference edits as re-referencing ie. checking the references, looking for needed replacements, adding {{Dead link}}, etc. Any references that you can not fix properly should either be left in place or taken to the article talk page. – Allen4names (contributions) 00:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the errors you corrected at the Aum Shinrikyo article. It seems you only removed the authors name and accessdates on two citations and the format parameter on another. Would you explain the error? I've reverted for now. Thanks. JodyB _talk 22:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The four |accessdate= CS1 errors were due to a lack of a URL in the citation - this populated the article in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL. Further information on this particular error (not currently visible to users unless they have altered their CSS stylesheet) can be found earlier on my talk page at User talk:Stamptrader#Nature of errors, in which I answer the same question from another editor. Similarly, the |format= CS1 error is due to a lack of a URL in the citation - this populated the article in Category:Pages using citations with format and no URL. And the |first= and |last= parameters were cleared because they weren't author names - the Yomiuri Shimbun is the largest newspaper by circulation in the world, not an author by the name of "Shimbun, Yomiuri" as was originally cited. Stamptrader (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see now. I've been around here for years and had not seen that. Thanks. The author name was my error from reading a LexisNexis wrongly. JodyB _talk 16:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange! I am not sure what happened. I clicked on thank you for your edit. Unlike what it usually asks, it asked me if I wanted to make it public. I clicked on Yes (thinking you must have set some switch I do not know about). I was thanking you for your edit not wanting to revert it! -- PBS (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice - a {{

histmerge}} tag has been added to Ivo Ferriani, an article I similarly cut & pasted about a year ago to fix a misspelling in the title. Stamptrader (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Please refrain from doing redirects as you did here. All cap redirects do redirect to an actual page, but it look awful when it comes to PDF, since it appears all caps when you hower your mouse over. Worse of all such edits can't be undone, so please be careful next time. Thank you.--Mishae (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help talk:Citation Style 1#Update complete for the reason for this redirect, and Help talk:Citation Style 1#Where should |format= be used? for the decision to capitalize the contents of the |format= parameter (the reason for the redirect). Updates to the CS1 module code are irregular but have been coming about once per month lately - the capitalization of parameter contents has been reversed in the sandbox and will go live the next time the CS1 module is updated, and [[PORTABLE DOCUMENT FORMAT|PDF]] wikilinks will no longer be created by the CS1 module after the update. Stamptrader (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which will be when?--Mishae (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, the updates of the CS1 module are irregular. There have been approx. 1 month intervals between the last three updates - the last one before that had about a 3 month gap without updates. The last update was just made on Saturday. Stamptrader (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per your series pf recent edits, what is a "CS1 error" and what is the point of removing access dates inthis edit? They can be useful when a link goes dead, to find the version used at the Internet Archive, or to verify that some source said what the edit claims it did at the time it was consulted. Thanks. Edison (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The three |accessdate= Citation Style 1 errors were due to a lack of a URL in the citation - this populated the article in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL. Further information on this error (not currently visible to users unless they have altered their CSS stylesheet) can be found earlier on my talk page at User talk:Stamptrader#Nature of errors, in which I answer the same question from another editor. Stamptrader (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)I created a new section to contact you, but now I see the previous thread, and "CS1" apparently has to do with Help talk:Citation Style 1. No one but someone who follows such an obscure page would have a clue what "CS1" is. In fact I thought it said "CSI error" and that someone doubted the medical claims about Medina, childhood pregnancy. In your edit summary, could you link to the section of the talk page which explains what you are doing? It would eliminate some confusion. Thanks. Edison (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who originally added the "access date" referred to 30 to 65 year old journals. They probably accessed them online and omitted the URL, since it would be odd to visit a research library, read old paper journals, and then add an access date as if the words on the paper might change. On the other hand, i have often seen news stories change while keeping the same date, at news websites. Please keep up the good work, but again please provide a clearer ref to the arcane page of Wikipedia which guided your edit, so that when it pops up on someone's watch list it is less puzzling. Note that three experienced editors have found the edits puzzling, and a clearer edit summary would have saved everyone some time which could have been otherwise invested in the project. The edit summary is an explanation to others, not a "note to self." Regards. Edison (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 33 different categories of CS1 errors and another 8 categories of CS1 maintenance tags - pages often contain errors of multiple types and I'd be spending three times as long writing error summaries as I would fixing errors. It will be vastly more time efficient to simply answer questions as they come. Also, see Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#Error data - accessdate without URL for links to a history of the endless discussion of this error and my justification for dealing with it as I do. Stamptrader (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "I'd be spending three times as long writing error summaries as I would fixing errors." you are basically saying that your editing time is MUCH more precious than my editing time or that of the other editors who have contacted you. A better edit summary than your cryptic "CS1" would have prevented much wasted time. Please abandon the view that your time is more valuable than that of other editors who are puzzled by your cryptic edit summaries, and who have to waste time figuring out what is the point of your edits. Even well-intentioned edits may become disruptive when you waste the time of other editors and dismiss their suggestions. Regards, Edison (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google the term "CS1 error", the first hit is Help:CS1 errors. I don't see this as being a difficult puzzle for anybody to solve. Stamptrader (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stamptrader. I think this relates to the discussion immediately above ("Lina Medina and CS1").

The CS1 template is generating spurious accessdate errors when the URL is specified indirectly, through a parameter such as jstor= (and based on your Lina Medina edit discussed above, isbn=). I've opened a discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 8#accessdate and indirectly-specified URLs. I've partially reverted one of your edits here.

If you're making similar edits on other articles (and it looks like you are), please add the url= parameter using the value that is indirectly indicated via the jstor= or similar parameter, rather than losing the access date, which is important citation information. See, e.g. here.

Thanks! TJRC (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're making hundreds of these edits, perhaps with an automated tool. Can you please hold off until the issue can be addressed at the template level? If you have an automated means of reverting the edits, that would be great. TJRC (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use a tool for editing - all my edits are done by hand (and they aren't limited to |accessdate= errors, I go through all CS1 error categories). As noted above, Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#Error data - accessdate without URL contains links to a large number of previous discussions regarding the |accessdate= errors, and it's been noted multiple times in the past that the |accessdate= parameter is superfluous for such identifier-based parameters as |doi=, |jstor=, |pmid=, etc. These identifier-based pages retain content without changing and the |accessdate= parameter is not needed.

In the specific case of your |jstor= example, if jstor.org were to fold and live URLs were no longer available, it wouldn't be possible to use the Wayback Machine to retrieve any JSTOR pages because nothing can be archived - "Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt." (See [2]). The same is true for |bibcode=, |pmid=, |pmc=, |arxiv= and who knows how many other less-common object identifiers. I don't know what the case is with |doi=, I only get a blank screen when searching for archived pages associated with a DOI identifier. Stamptrader (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For my own notes - the most recent affirmation of the lack of need for |accessdate= parameter usage in citations without URLs but with identifier-based parameters is found here.[3] Stamptrader (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You "fixed" a cs1 error on this page concerning the number of editors and the display-editors argument. I am not sure I see the error or the rational in what you did. I did change it back, but also did add the display-editor=et al as there officially were more editors than I listed. If this is the only point that you were attempting to fix, np. Otherwise, please let me know what it was, as I am not seeing the problem. Thanks speednat (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article had a CS1 error which caused it to populate the Category:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al. in editors category. Older versions of the citation template rendering code would only permit a maximum of four editor names and when that restriction was removed, every existing instance of a citation with exactly four editors was placed in this error category - each reference needs to be checked to find out whether there were in fact exactly four editors (in which case the |displayeditors= parameter needs to be set to 4) or whether there were more that are missing due to the former lack of editor name space in the template. The front cover of the book in question shows an editor-in-chief and 2 senior editors in one type size, and 4 editors, 1 associate editor and 1 assistant editor in a smaller type size. It makes sense to either list 1 editor (editor-in-chief) + et al. or 3 editors (include the senior editors) + et al. But 4 editors + et al. is arbitrary; if you include one editor from the next sub-class then the other 3 out of that sub-class should also be included, at which point you'd have 7 editors + et al. I chose to limit it to the first 3. Stamptrader (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough/good point. I went ahead and added that last class "editors" of editors. speednat (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Stamptrader. You're invited to join members. --Bananasoldier (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

Why are you removing editors from citations? This reduces their accuracy and hence value. If the list of editors is incomplete, it should be completed, not reduced. Please stop. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles were populating CS1 error category Category:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al. in editors. The list of editors is now complete. Stamptrader (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the correction you made in to my source Swinslokw (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Swinslokw[reply]

You're welcome! Stamptrader (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the articles about Per Holknekt and Oba Chandler. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stamptrader. 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]

Hello, Stamptrader. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 01:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Greenland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stamptrader. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Hi Stamptrader, I removed an edit you made on this page. Even if it appears obvious, please do not link a userid to a real name unless the user has specifically declared the link on-wiki themselves first. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Largest cities of Somalia templates has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]