/shortlist

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Non-magnified optic on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sylwester ZawadzkiEdit

Which Sylwester Zawadzki are you pointing to? This is a link to a disambiguation page. The Banner talk 17:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC) @The Banner: Yes it is. And I am pointing to it; See similar items in the page Zawadski. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to add the info twice: once in de disambiguation page and again in Zawadzki. The Banner talk 23:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOLDEdit

Please stop edit warring. Your bold moves have been reverted, and need to be discussed first. I was actually in the process of writing a note here explaining this, but you decided to edit war instead. I'll be reporting you to AN3 if this continues. See Talk:Sikorsky for a fuller explanation, as requested. Cheers. BilCat (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020Edit

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sikorski; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

  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 and 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. BilCat (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Answered in Talk:Sikorsky. Your reverts without any ma\eaningful explanation is just the same edit war you are acccusing mne of. I hope now the conflliuct will be resolved. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Sikorski for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sikorski 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/Sikorski until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. BilCat (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"Sylwester Zawadzki (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sylwester Zawadzki (disambiguation). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 14#Sylwester Zawadzki (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The Banner talk 21:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Taler (cryptocurrency)Edit

 

The article Taler (cryptocurrency) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability not established, no reputable sources are cited, all sources are government propaganda from either Russia or Belarus. The only reliable source, dsnews, mentions Taler only in the last paragraph, and does not cover it in depth, as required by WP:CORPDEPTH.

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. Ysangkok (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about the source to make some changes in an articleEdit

Hello Lembit Staan, Can you please confirm if this article: http://biznes.pap.pl/en/news/recommended/info/3003953,premiera-nowej-gry-ci-games-w-i-kw--przyszlego-roku is the reliable source to make changes in article about CI Games?

I would like to ask to change a number of employees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CI_Games - now it's mentioned 62 and in the interview at biznes.pap.pl is information that curretly it's more than 100.

Best, Izefoa Izefoa (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Izefoa: Since the info in question is not related to politics, the source may be considered reliable. By the way, when reporting changeable numbers like this one you have to indicate the date, e.g., (as of November 2020) Lembit Staan (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan: Thank you very much for your help and confirmation. Izefoa (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies 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/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Bookku (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request ServiceEdit

  FYI – The section has been moved here from User talk : Staszek Lem. --CiaPan (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Staszek Lem! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

  1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
  2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
  3. Paste {{Frs user|Staszek Lem|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
  4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


DYK nomination of True PoleEdit

  FYI – The section has been moved here from User talk : Staszek Lem. --CiaPan (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of True Pole at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. We are about to close this nomination because the hook fact lacks an inline cite in the article. If you can take care of this, this week, it would be appreciated. Yoninah (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Controversial movesEdit

The rule you were looking for is here. "Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page." Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sussi clothEdit

Lembit Staan, Greetings! As per our discussion yesterday on my talk page. The subject article is posted. Kindly review. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December NewsletterEdit

Hello Lembit Staan,

 

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Signpost articleEdit

I tool a look at the article you proposed for The Signpost. It looks good. I did a first pass at copy editing it and added some suggestions at User:Smallbones/Signpost draft, because I think with a little work it can be much better. Feel free to ignore my suggestions (and improve it in other ways!) One thing - I like to keep that "Signpost draft" page to myself so I can more easily copy it when needed, so please just copy (without credit!) whatever parts you'd like and continue your draft at User:Lembit Staan/My experience with women in Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I am not sure I like this "WP:FORK" work. Also, I know nothing else about women and I don't like the idea of displacing my personality; I don't think I was shoving it "into your face". Lembit Staan (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, we always try to make articles better. It does help to have an editor make suggestions. And we always copy edit. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I meant I don't like the idea of painstakingly copying your copyedits from your page into my page. I responded to your suggestions, other than that it is all yours. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Probably I was not clear: the suggested article title was "My experience with women in Wikipedia". The whole writing was kinda joke (ha ha only serious). Lembit Staan (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Taler (cryptocurrency) for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taler (cryptocurrency) 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/Taler (cryptocurrency) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. HiddenLemon // talk 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for True PoleEdit

 On 29 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article True Pole, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a stereotypical True Pole is a Roman Catholic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/True Pole. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, True Pole), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Bobr v. Bobr IIEdit

Hello Lembit. Let me explain how I see it. We do, in WP:en, use the actual and formal name, with a prefix or parenthetical disambiguation where, as is common, the same name is used for different vessels, ie <prefix><italicized name><(hull or pennant number or disambiguation)>, per WP:NCSHIP. The dab is usually by pennant/hull number (not applicable in this case) or year of commissioning - see WP:SHIPDAB. That is the format I gave to the two EML Lembits. It is the same for the Russian era ship. It seems clear from the available sources that the actual name was Bobr. I see that WP:et agrees. WP:rs seems to concur in the article text - the only appearance of Bobr II is in the title, but they may have adopted a different titling style for their own project. I hope this helps. Davidships (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Done my best - like the other, it is not that neat, but it is the only way I found to combine the "ship" and "ill" templates. Davidships (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)