User talk:This is Paul/Archive28
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:This is Paul. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
May 2017
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Mo Ansar: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. There were some significant WP:BLP issues with the vandalism, so it really helps to record that on the IP's talk page, in terms of future policing of their activity. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Murph9000: I do know about them, but overlooked it on this occasion. Meanwhile, we should have concerns about the username of YeetBot v3 (talk · contribs). They reverted the ip's edits to that page, and the rest of their edits are in good faith, but one could be misled into believing this user is a Bot, particularly if they put something on their user page. This is Paul (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem. Your recent contribs didn't show much anti-vandalism (which is not a criticism, we all contribute in our own ways), so I couldn't be sure if you knew about the warnings. Yes, I've listed that username at WP:UAA. The edits from it seem ok, but the name is an issue, probably being an undisclosed alt is an issue, and it does not leave warnings. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like they've been blocked so perhaps they'll request a name change or just start another account as they only have a few edits. I mostly tend to catch vandalism when it's something on my watchlist so I do tend to be a bit sporadic. I'll remember to add a warning next time. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem. Your recent contribs didn't show much anti-vandalism (which is not a criticism, we all contribute in our own ways), so I couldn't be sure if you knew about the warnings. Yes, I've listed that username at WP:UAA. The edits from it seem ok, but the name is an issue, probably being an undisclosed alt is an issue, and it does not leave warnings. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
- NOTE: The above post was added by Dresken (talk · contribs) at 20:45, 1 May 2017. I am adding my signature here so that the bot will archive it. This is Paul (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Cheryl
 Hi, This is Paul! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Cheryl, a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Cheryl. Thanks and best regards! Linguisttalk|contribs 20:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC) |
What a great idea, I'm in. Some years ago I was asked if I could take Cheryl's article to GA. I made a start and sent it to peer review, but people kept adding spurious stuff and it seemed like too much of a mammoth task to keep it tidy. Hopefully a project could help coordinate stuff like that. This is Paul (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Precious four years!
 | |
| Four years! |
|---|
The Signpost: 9 June 2017
- From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!
- News and notes: Global Elections
- Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis
- Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured
- In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?
- Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press
- Technology report: Tech news catch-up
- Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10
Pinickio listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pinickio. Since you had some involvement with the Pinickio redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 18:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 22
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017
- New and expanded research accounts
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
- Bytes in brief
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Comparethemarket.com for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparethemarket.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparethemarket.com 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Jonnymoon96 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 June 2017
- News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)
- In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
- Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take
- Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues
- Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth
- Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all
Breaking consensus
The 2017 Finsbury attack in London has an archieved talk page, where the matter on whether 'suspected terror/terrorist' attack was discussed. Several users were involved and the consensus was reached. Suspected terror attack. --Erzan (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- You are misrepresenting what has been agreed. I also believe you are abusing multiple accounts, since your revert to the page is your first since December 2016. This is Paul (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- You are very welcome to believe whatever you like. The reasons for my very rare edits are because of a very hostile atmosphere created by seasoned users. So when I saw 'do not do this again' I thought It is bullying and made a decision to get involved. --Erzan (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I've mentioned you here, so we'll see what the experts have to say, shall we? This is Paul (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly edited my pages over several months. You either have the strange ability to be interested in the same topics as I am or you are purposefully stalking my contributions and changing them. That is harassment and bullying. Rather than engage in the talk page you contributed to the edit war and called other users for being dramatic. Despite the edit already being discussed rather maturely and peacefully. While I understand there are rules and procedures in place in Wikipedia, there is no need for passive aggressive behaviour. You should welcoming contributions and adding to a positive atmosphere, not bullying people who are not so adept at navigating Wikipedia. Erzan (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Since your edits to 2017 Finsbury Park attack are your first in six months, I wonder about who exactly is doing the stalking. Either you have an unhealthy interest in my edit history, or I just happened to run across your alternative account. Whatever the case, an SPI report is now open on you, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erzan for further details. This is Paul (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly edited my pages over several months. You either have the strange ability to be interested in the same topics as I am or you are purposefully stalking my contributions and changing them. That is harassment and bullying. Rather than engage in the talk page you contributed to the edit war and called other users for being dramatic. Despite the edit already being discussed rather maturely and peacefully. While I understand there are rules and procedures in place in Wikipedia, there is no need for passive aggressive behaviour. You should welcoming contributions and adding to a positive atmosphere, not bullying people who are not so adept at navigating Wikipedia. Erzan (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I've mentioned you here, so we'll see what the experts have to say, shall we? This is Paul (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- You are very welcome to believe whatever you like. The reasons for my very rare edits are because of a very hostile atmosphere created by seasoned users. So when I saw 'do not do this again' I thought It is bullying and made a decision to get involved. --Erzan (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Off on holiday
 | I'm off to the seaside for a well-deserved holiday, so won't be around for a few days. But I'll be back sometime on Friday 30 June. |
And that time is now. I'm back, feeling good after my break, and ready for more editing. This is Paul (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Erzan (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nice to see you actually engaging in the process instead of edit warring. Hope it lasts. This is Paul (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
United Kingdom coalition government 2010–present listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom coalition government 2010–present. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom coalition government 2010–present redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The article Did You See has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NSONG, no significant evidence of notability, besides chart positions (which doesn't even establish notability itself).
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hayman30 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hayman30: This appears to be something recently created off the back of a redirect I created several years ago to another article, so nothing to do with me. I agree it's not notable so have reinstated the redirect. Hope that's ok. This is Paul (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh I'm sorry for that. Hayman30 (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- No worries. This is Paul (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh I'm sorry for that. Hayman30 (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Re UK General Election seat count (318 vs 317 Tories)
Hi,
I have no idea why this is causing so much hassle, over one vote. All major respected media outlets (BBC, The Guardian etc etc) have reported the result as 318 Conservative seats. The reason is just plain common sense and tradition, John Bercow was originally voted MP of Buckingham as a Conservative MP, so if he is re-elected it is recorded as a Conservative hold. I think the subtle issue about the status of his independence could be mentioned in more detail in the article text later on, but to go against all traditions and major media reports and highlight a rather unimportant fact in the summary stats, with an asterisk and footnote is just silly.
I assume some political motivation, since the Tory majority ended up so small — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.135.27 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- The Speaker always stands as an Independent. Betty Boothroyd certainly did, as did Michael Martin, both of who were Labour MPs before they became Speaker, so this has nothing to do with anybody's party politics. The Speaker always stands as an independent, and traditionally none of the other major political parties field candidates against them, so the position is non-partisan, and should be reflected as such in the article. You're the only one who seems to have a problem with this. I suggest it's time for you to get over yourself, or you could end up being blocked for edit warring. This is Paul (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 July 2017
- News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes
- Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more
- In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce
- Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers
- Gallery: A mix of patterns
- Humour: The Infobox Game
- Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday
- Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts
- Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up
Unblock request for 86.157.46.209
Just fined an unblock request for the above ip address as it was preventing me from editing. However, the problem seems to be fixed now, so either it's been done or I've hopped ip addresses again. This is Paul (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
To do list for 29 July 2017
Run the following pages through Reflinks once it's up and working again:
To do list for 30 July 2017
Run the following pages through Reflinks once it's up and working again:
2016 Brussels bombings
Hello, I'm Quisqualis. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.Quisqualis (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Quisqualis, could you elucidate please, especially as the edits you claim were undone haven't been. Did you perhaps mean to post this message to 93.40.200.64, who made several edits like this yesterday, which I didn't personally think were constructive. This is Paul (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I must apologize for this mistake. Honestly, I'm not sure which unconstructive editor I intended to warn. --Quisqualis (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- No worries. This is Paul (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I must apologize for this mistake. Honestly, I'm not sure which unconstructive editor I intended to warn. --Quisqualis (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
To do list for 1 August 2017
Run the following through Reflinks once it's up and running again:
To do list for 2 August 2017
Run the following through Reflinks once it's up and running again:
To do list for 3 August 2017
Run the following through Reflinks once it's up and running again:
Subject of mass mailing: Women's Football / Soccer Task Force News: August 2017
|
Women's Football / Soccer Task Force News: August 2017 |
|
Should the women's football task force become WikiProject: WOSO? |
 According to an op-ed in the recent Signpost, some editors think task forces and subgroups are dying in 2017. What do you think about forming our own WikiProject separate from WP:FOOTY? There's an on-going discussion of the potential pros and cons on the task force talk page. Input is welcome. |
New initiatives have been created for:
While WP:FPL lists only two women's top-division leagues as notable due to its "fully professional" criteria, did you know you can create an article on any player in any league as long as the references meet WP:GNG guidelines? Make sure to tag the new article talk page with: {{WP Women's sport|footy=yes}}. Have some new articles in mind or see some that need improvement? Add them to the Open Tasks page if you'd like and other editors may be able to help. Need tips, assistance, or resources from other WOSO editors? Leave a message on the task force talk page. |
|
Thank you for your continued contributions to articles related to women's football / soccer (WOSO)! |
 Women's Football / Soccer Task Force |
(To subscribe, Women's football task force/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women's football task force/Opt-out list) – Hmlarson (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 5 August 2017
- Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality
- WikiProject report: Comic relief
- In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity
- Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list
- Featured content: Everywhere in the lead
- Technology report: Introducing TechCom
- Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs
To do list for 5 August 2017
Run the following pages through Reflinks once it's up and running again:
To do list for 6 August 2017
Run the following pages through Reflinks once it's up and working again:
To do list for 7 August 2017
Run the following pages through Reflinks when it's up and running again:
To do list for 10 August 2017
Run the following through Reflinks once it's up and running again:
To do list for 11 August 2017
Run the following through Reflinks once it's up and running again:
August 2017
Your recent editing history at Murder of Jo Cox 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. AusLondonder (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- AusLondonder, I do hope you're going to issue the same warning to Sceptre, who has also reached this level and has a long history of this behaviour, because if you don't then there are serious questions to answer about your neutrality. This is Paul (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding whether the murder of Jo Cox can be classed as a terrorist incident. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Murder of Jo Cox".The discussion is about the topic Murder of Jo Cox. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --This is Paul (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
To do list for 13 August 2017
Run the following articles through Reflinks once it's up and running again:
Discussion at Anwen Muston#First elected trans councillor
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Anwen Muston#First elected trans councillor. ~Excesses~ (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
To do lisf tor 18 August 2017
Run the following articles through Reflinks when it's up and running again:
To do list for 22 August 2017
Run the following articles through Reflinks once it's up and running again:
Books and Bytes - Issue 23
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017
- Library card
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
- Bytes in brief
Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
To do list for 26 August 2017
Run the following pages through Reflinks once it's up and running again:
This is Paul (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Done, albeit by someone else. This is Paul (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)