User talk:Y12J/2012

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Hello, Y12J. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for Jan 23

Hi. When you recently edited Glossary of equestrian terms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for Jan 30

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for Feb 8

Hi. When you recently edited Suspension training, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Hammond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for Feb 15

Hi. When you recently edited Rotator cuff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Robertson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSME until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Osarius Talk 23:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding too many levels to the taxoboxes. We keep the levels to a minimum: major taxa only, down to the major taxon just above the article's topic, then minor taxa down to the topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Y12J. You have new messages at UtherSRG's talk page.
Message added 07:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

UtherSRG (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Samson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Push and Pull

Hornswoggle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to See No Evil

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2012.

Thanks for your compliment on "Not this way baby". I have accepted the invitation to participate in mediation, but feel rather inadequate. I reckon that sorting the compelling threads from that tangle, with such intransigent attitudes to deal with, will be a challenge. Let's wish us (and WP) all luck! Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Winged unicorn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princess Luna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and understand

In regard to what you call canvassing, are you referring to replying to these posts by the MedComBot which already bring up the subject on the talk pages? Y12J (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to. The reason I gave diffs was to be explicitly clear.--Taylornate (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some passing familiarity with

WP:CAN. Which of the 4 forms of inappropriate notification are you accusing those 3 linked diffs of being? Spamming to individual users? Unconnected users? Non-neutral 'campaigning'? Stacking? Certainly not off-wiki stealth canvassing. Your first link is to my posting it on the talk page of a template that would be effected by this debate. That's completely neutral and not stacking in the slightest. People who benefit from the template deserve to be informed and I believe I did that in a neutral manner. The 2nd and 3rd diffs to Richfield and Ent were to people who had already been notified (by the bot) of the conversation, so I wasn't notifying someone already unaware, nor anyone unrelated. I think Canvassing policy's being interpreted a little too broadly here. Y12J (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

See

Wikipedia:RFC#Advertisement_of_RfCs for appropriate venues in which to advertise an RFC and how to do so neutrally. Article/template talk pages are not mentioned as appropriate. Note the warning to be especially careful about canvassing. Keep getting redirected to a stubby page is not neutral. Posting an addendum to the bot notification completely undermines the purpose of having a standardized, neutral bot message. Campaigning and stacking are the most applicable here. If you weren't trying to stack, why didn't you post similar encouragement to editors who stated support of my position?--Taylornate (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The reduced attention each muscle got seemed stublike by comparison to having full articles. Is stub a pejorative? I respect stubs, they have potential for expansion. I admit I said it in haste so I could have worded it more descriptively though. Just seemed faster than "to an article smaller than the sum of the other 11".

The reason I didn't post on other users' pages was because I didn't have any particular comments. I felt it would detract from the group discussion to reply simply to praise someone for their semantics, so I did that privately. The support wasn't for the position held but rather for the artfulness in expressing beliefs. Richfield had also already posted on the mediation discussion prior to my contacting him, so I believe that should be excluded as an example. I can't say the same about Ent though, and understand there may be a valid objection in that case. I was under the impression that someone already being involved & the Bot bringing it up made it acceptable though. Y12J (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble believing that you actually bother to read the WP policies that I give you links for.--Taylornate (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe bringing up the 4 types is evidence I read it. Y12J (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have elsewhere pointed you to

The 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
.