User talk:Fixuture

This is Fixuture's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Hello! Fixuture, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Hello, Fixuture.member, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Sorry for the schizophrenic warning/welcome template; it's the easiest way to give you all the links. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Culture in Decline (Web series), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fixuture.member. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Culture in Decline (Web series)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Culture in Decline (Web series)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Concerns over mass surveillance, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Statue of Edward Snowden, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a bust of Edward Snowden was erected next to a New York City monument to American Revolutionary War prisoners? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Edward Snowden. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Harrias ^talk 12:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, I’d appreciate looking a little deeper into good faith edits before dismissing them as vandalism. —Wiki Wikardo 04:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki Wikardo: Alright, sorry. There's been so many vandalistic edits on that page the last few days or so that I might have been to quick with that assumption. However do you have any sources for your edit? For instance the wiki article of Louis Pasteur says "the sculpture was designed by Harriet G. Moore and cast in 1984 by Artworks Foundry" and nothing about the "Work Projects Administration" (and neither does Google).

--Fixuture (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That passage is, clearly, referring to a different sculpture—how could “the Waldos” have met there in 1971 if it was not cast until 1984? The page on Commons lists the sculptor as noted Bay Area artist Beniamino Bufano (one of whose most famous pieces may be the sculpture of Sun Yat-Sen in Chinatown, but likely better known within Marin is the bear in front of Ross city hall) and googling his name along with `wpa' produces several relevent results, including pages about the work itself, an interview with the artist in which he states, “I made … the statue of Pasteur, which is on your side of the Bay at San Rafael,” and a manifesto that reads, in part, “Our art must become as democratic as science and the children in the playgrounds of our cities. That is why I have sculptured Pasteur for one of our high schools…” —Wiki Wikardo 17:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki Wikardo: Well again sorry for the mistake. However it would be nice if you added a reference to it when readding it, like this one: http://www.newdealartregistry.org/map/LouisPasteur/SanRafaelHighSchool/SanRafael/CA/, and not removed the "at San Rafael High School" part. --Fixuture (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It’s alright. I can imagine that there’s a severe uptick in unconstructive contributions around this time of the month. But it bothers me that many established editors and admins are very quick to revert whatever they don’t immediately recognize or understand. Having good-faith edits by longtime users tagged “vandalism” feels especially galling.

The reason I removed the reference to San Rafael High is that I wanted to include the information about artist and historical context of the piece, but with all that it then got unwieldy for a short blurb, and the statue’s particular location didn’t seem relevant to the image caption outside of some sort of school boosterism, being as it’s already mentioned in the article.

Take care. —Wiki Wikardo 22:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki Wikardo: So I just revisited this edit-conflict and I'm really not sure why you wrote "WPA-sponsored" as the statue is certainly not. Anyways I added sourced info on it being created by Benny Bufano. --Fixuture (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you proposed this merge. There are a couple additional steps in the process of proposing a merge. One is the add Template:Mergefrom to the target article. The other is to create a talk page thread along the lines of "Merger proposal" on the talk page for the target where discussion can take place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. I also added the expert-needed template (even though it inappropiately automatically links to the subject's WikiProjects [it's a subject that doesn't need an expert in the broad domain of for example the Technology Wikiproject - but specifically Darknets etc.]). There are already two sections on the talk page for the discussion of each so I linked those. --Fixuture (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all of the recent thank-you's for edits, even if it seems like people are just writing over them :P But hey, that's the spirit of the site!

Myconix (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was inserted into the article when there was dispute over whether they had remarried or not. If you look, there is no source to say they did in fact remarried, this is because the fact that they were invited to the White House dinner together was used as evidence that they were remarried. Now that we know they obviously were remarried, the White House point is, intact, irrelevant. wolf (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC) (Heuh0)[reply]

@Heuh0: Well I see your point now. However the White House dinner part should definitely stay in the article...if anything the context of that sentence needs to be changed instead of having it removed. However one could read that part of the section as within the context of the marriage as well as simply a chronologically ordered description of his personal life. But maybe there needs to be a whole new section in that article (for things like that) when thinking about it...something like "Reception" (maybe I should post an entry on the talk page for that; the "Awards and recognition" section could be a subsection of it). --Fixuture (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fixuture,

To explain this (and my subsequent reverting and undoing my own revert), ECW28 (talk · contribs) main purpose on Wikipedia has been adding 'open world' to articles and categories (scroll down their contributions to see what I mean). See for instance Bloodborne, Metro 2033 and Tomb Raider. I've told them several times that instead of adding their own opinion, they'll need to back that up with a valid source. When I noticed they were up to it again, I naturally assumed it was either incorrect and/or unsourced. But unlike the other articles, No Man's Sky actually *is* considered an open world game. Sorry for the reverting, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 13:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: No problem, thanks for the explanation. --Fixut͉͇̞͖͉̼̭͉͓͑̈̉́͑ȗ̹̲ͨͮ̂̂̄ṙ̫̥͚͚̜͙͍̰́̈́ė̺̩̞̗̓̉ͧͩ̿ͤ̎̆ (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your talk page signature obscures the text above and below, making it hard for to read. Do you intend this? Can you change it so it doesn't do that? It's kind of annoying. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I intended this. Not sure if I change it sometime...I find it easily readable - but I'm going to test it on some other browsers and settings later. For me that upper and lower glitch stuff disappears after hovering over it once (and it also hides one or two chars at most) so I'm not sure if changing it is really needed...(maybe I'll trim it a bit) --Fixut͉͇̞͖͉̼̭͉͓͑̈̉́͑ȗ̹̲ͨͮ̂̂̄ṙ̫̥͚͚̜͙͍̰́̈́ė̺̩̞̗̓̉ͧͩ̿ͤ̎̆ (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are guidelines on this: WP:SIGPROB. This extra distraction is isn't necessary for the purpose of identifying the user, so it really needs to go. To me it's a question of why we are here, to build an encyclopaedia. Not see who can make the most unusual sig. Also, on Chrome and Safari on iOS, there's no way to mouse over to get the junk out of the way. Not that I really want to have to mouse over a page in order to read what should be displayed plainly without having to do anything special. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I went long time without doing anything to my sig...then I saw more and more people doing fancy stuff with it and couldn't see what might speak against changing it...I really had no problems of reading the text even if the sig flows over into the text. I change it however when people mistake it as a sign of misdedication / unseriousness about editing/building Wikipedia. --Fixuture (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I would look over the archives at Talk:List of common misconceptions so you can review the discussions that took place to agree on the list criteria. Once you understand why they did it that way, you might be better able to suggest changing it. I don't think it will be easy to change many minds on that, but maybe you will be able to see something others missed in the original discussions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came to complain as well, but I see you already came to your senses :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why I was seeing zalgo on Wikipedia. Alakzi (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto TheDJ. Thank you as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god I'm not the only one that this. :P—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 08:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be that you are edit warring on the Peter Joseph article. As mostly a single purpose account editor who's very first edit on Wikipedia is Zeitgeist Joseph related, keep particular care not to exert a pov about the material. An experienced editor recently reverted your edits and it is a good idea to have a listen to what they said instead of reinserting the information. [1] <--Your editing history would seem to indicate neutral editing should take precedence over pov assuming you are a member of the Zeitgeist, so caution please. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixuture has popped up a lot recently in my watchlist on different kinds of pages, I wouldn't call them a single-purpose account. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. Bhutanese passport (meme), an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 17:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded here. Epic Genius (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the RCVR page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of science fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matrix. 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) 09:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

portmanteau: i knew there was a word for that FrodoBaggins (blackhat999) (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fixuture,

I'm REH7 and I recently created a page called Access Economy. You changed my references. I was using list-defined references, which is a recommended way to do them because it's easier to read the article in edit mode. You can find documentation of it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes#WP:LDR. The way I created my references was working fine, I think, and it's much tidier.

Please let me know if you know something I don't... otherwise I'd like to undo your change.

Thanks, REH7 (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@REH7: Well the references were screwed up even if you're using the list-defined references. You can undo it of course (no need to ask btw; just leave an explanation in the edit-description) but then please fix that afterwards. --Fixuture (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okeedoke. Thanks for all your other edits btw... they were all good. I thought the references were okay but I'm new to this (it is my first new article). REH7 (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Access economy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uber. 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) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just added an answer to the minds's talk page, on your subject. I let you see it there. R3sJAP155M (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
13		Science fiction opera (talk)						Add sources
177		Hacker (term) (talk)						Add sources
177		Timeline of computer security hacker history (talk)						Add sources
43		Japanese cyberpunk (talk)						Add sources
221		Timeline of events associated with Anonymous (talk)						Add sources
15		Bruce Bethke (talk)						Add sources
1,059		Science fiction (talk)						Cleanup
108		The Difference Engine (talk)						Cleanup
1,871		Hacker (computer security) (talk)						Cleanup
23		Psyker (talk)						Expand
49		New Wave science fiction (talk)						Expand
54		The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick (talk)						Expand
81		Online food ordering (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
351		Cyber-attack (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
169		Morlock (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
135		Smartglasses (talk)						Merge
1,725		Open source (talk)						Merge
1,232		Social networking service (talk)						Merge
23		A Song for Europe (Father Ted) (talk)						Wikify
17		National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers (talk)						Wikify
296		Cyberwarfare (talk)						Wikify
40		G. D. Falksen (talk)						Orphan
11		Outline of computer security (talk)						Orphan
2		SysCloud (talk)						Orphan
18		Tom Maddox (talk)						Stub
3,257		The Hidden Wiki (talk)						Stub
51		Cryogenic fuel (talk)						Stub
353		DeepDotWeb (talk)						Stub
58		Clearnet (networking) (talk)						Stub
57		The Hub (forum) (talk)						Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of science fiction themes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isolation. 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) 09:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the cleanup note thing in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_science_fiction&diff=673919662&oldid=673867219

Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback on this article. I've made some improvements based on your edit. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Photo sharing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perspective. 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) 10:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are getting quite confusing now. What is the difference between memory erasure and alteration in fiction and a Mindwipe? Is a mindwipe the official fictional term? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mindwipe just stands for memory erasure and doesn't include any other memory-alterations. "Mindwipe" is the science fiction term for (deliberate) memory erasure...and hence it is relevant to Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction. --Fixuture (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I've redirected the "Memory erasure in science fiction" term and categories to Mindwipe as shown in my recent edits. Is it planned to be have an annotated list? How will this fit in with amnesia in fiction? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

Is it planned to be have an annotated list?

Well I haven't planned making a list, but you could set one up if you want to. Lists' advantage over categories is that they allow for some more detailed info for its entries, that they also allow for entries which don't yet have wiki-articles and that they can be sorted by various criteria if they're tables (e.g. by year of the novel/film).

Would be nice if you left a note here if you set it up.

How will this fit in with amnesia in fiction?

Category:Amnesia in fiction is just a see-also in that category as amnesia is not human/technical deliberate manipulation of a person's memory but a natural disease. Entries in it are not in the scope of Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction aside if it includes someone intentionally causing amnesia in someone else by whatever means. Category:Amnesia in fiction is neither a sub nor a superordinate category to Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction...there could be a category "Category:Memory in fiction" which has both categories in it. Not sure if it's a good idea to create it though - but if you can think of any article being in the scope of that category but not the two other ones please go ahead and create it...

--Fixuture (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want to have to create a comprehensive list, as I've had to with Body swap appearances in media since the category is good enough for that. The most prominent examples should be in the Mindwipe article, and can be combined into the prose where it makes sense. Some of the entries are already there, just need the sources to back it up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article. It still needs more references in the early defining paragraphs, and some links to some science fiction encyclopedias or books that discuss the procedure as used in fiction. I could not find the term in the general dictionaries like Webster's. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the WALL-E page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Culture in Decline (Web series), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For years the gallery section of the National personification page looked terrible, with very big gaps between the pictures. it became worse and worse the more pictures were added. It was really an eye-sore, every time I looked at the page. I thought I found a simple solution which worked and made it look perfectly OK. You have promptly reversed what I did and restored the VERY bad old look. Is there a better solution than what I tried? If there is such a solution and you know it - fine, please implement it. Thanks! (Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your attempt of fixing this problem. Your edit didn't fix it on my side though – actually it made it look slightly worse (if you'd like to have a screenshot I could send you one).

I don't know how it can be fixed. I made a few attempts with the width and height parameters and actually also tried splitting it up into multiple smaller galleries but they didn't work out.

There's one more thing one could try though which is m

Well actually I just found a way that makes it look ok: splitted it up into multiple galleries – just 4 images each so that it should look ok on most smaller monitors / browser-windows – and set the alignment to center.

I guess you've already seen my post about it at Template talk:Gallery? --Fixuture (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 99. IP is a block-evading IP-only editor since at least 2012, although some blocks go back to 2010. You are welcome to restore it if you think it justified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Regulation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[Regulation of science]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fixuture

Although it seems a little circular I nonetheless want to thank you for your note of appreciation on my edit (wayback machine). Feedback here is so often of the negative variety, reversions and the like. It was appreciated and I'd like you to know that!

All the best here, and everywhere.

LookingGlass (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economics of digitization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uber. 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) 10:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Fixuture. I noticed that you added a couple of pages relating to Percy Jackson into the category Greek gods in fiction. Because they're already in Category:Greco-Roman mythology in popular culture and also suffering from a serious case of overcategorization, I am going to add the whole lot of them to your category, as a subcategory. This means "Greek gods in fiction" won't appear on these pages (solving the overcategorization issue), but they will ultimately remain in that parent category. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2ReinreB2: Alright, thank you! I'd also think that this would probably be the better choice...however I haven't read/watched much of the series and afaik not all of them issue or portray Greek gods (but all of them Greco-Roman mythology) which is why I just added the few ones I was sure of to feature/issue Greek gods. --Fixuture (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baramulla Bomber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller. 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) 09:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, please take a look at the article about Carina Jaarnek that I have created. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
20,365		Facebook (talk)						Add sources
110		Currency substitution (talk)						Add sources
1,246		Super Nintendo Entertainment System (talk)						Add sources
45		Retreat (survivalism) (talk)						Add sources
150		Technology life cycle (talk)						Add sources
971		Novel (talk)						Add sources
2,195		Virtual reality (talk)						Cleanup
28		Earth in science fiction (talk)						Cleanup
1,216		Hayley Williams (talk)						Cleanup
257		Characters of Malcolm in the Middle (talk)						Expand
20,369		Wikipedia (talk)						Expand
147		Lavabit (talk)						Expand
128		Online disinhibition effect (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
315		Cost per action (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,141		Transhumanism (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
3,243		Social media (talk)						Merge
110		Health technology (talk)						Merge
21		Online flower delivery (talk)						Merge
12		Croatian science fiction (talk)						Wikify
1,461		War (talk)						Wikify
56		SHAREit (talk)						Wikify
6		Caragh M. O'Brien (talk)						Orphan
24		National stereotypes (talk)						Orphan
5		C-5 sterol desaturase (talk)						Orphan
123		Malthusian growth model (talk)						Stub
48		Bioprocess engineering (talk)						Stub
38		Gender Parity Index (talk)						Stub
7		William Vogt (talk)						Stub
33		Emma Tillinger Koskoff (talk)						Stub
61		Self-limiting (biology) (talk)						Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Harej:

we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. [...] * Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)

Those 2 basic ideas for WikiProjects are great, for (1) that could be the tasks I described over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_X/Archive_2#Improving_WikiProject_participation. For (2) I very much agree that this would be useful: most things are already possible but are hidden and obstructed by them being extra bots, page, templates and whatnot - all of that should be taken together and set up for all WikiProjects in the always same, standardized manner (and for the WikiProjects that get newly created). It needs one WikiProject-control-dashboard in which all those many things can be configured.

One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.

Great - that's badly needed.

Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)

Could it be made possible that all articles and categories added there get the banner added automatically? For instance for WikiProject Science Fiction I'd like to add the banner to all articles of Category:Science fiction. Actually it would probably best to have all articles missing the banner in a specified category (and their subcategories!; this is the catch) listed somewhere so that they can be checked before the banner gets added automatically - many pages are miscategorized or are exceptions etc. so I'd really suggest it to be semi-automatically.

but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles

You might be interested in this relevant suggestion (pls see my comment there): m:2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Categories/Editing#Real_time_group_editing

Lastly you might also be interested in my suggestion on the Community Wishlist here: m:2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Categories/WikiProjects#Suggestions_for_WikiProjects_to_join. (I listed almost all my proposals concerning WikiProjects in the "Improving WikiProject participation" section I linked further up.)

Not sure if I should move my comment here to some other talk page or so. Anyways I hope this keeps on going, wishing you the best,

--Fixuture (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Self-replicating machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Universal constructor. 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) 14:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fixuture. While I generally appreciate your work on several under-appreciated WikiProjects, I noticed you have recently added a couple of articles to a "WikiProject Harry Potter" and saved without noticing this left a red link.

We currently do not have an independent Project about this Media Franchise. It is covered by WikiProject Novels, both as part of its fantasy task force and its Harry Potter taskforce. Please add to such articles the following template: "WikiProject Novels|class=|importance=|fantasy-task-force=yes|fantasy-importance=|harry-potter-task-force=yes|harry-potter-importance=" Dimadick (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Common concerns over mass surveillance, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Culture in Decline (Web series), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The project is not dead. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: I know that. Actually I'm pretty active in it myself. I removed the project because we first need to decide how to proceed with science fiction novels. As of right now common practice is to set the Science fiction task force on the novels project and not the WP:SF banner. --Fixuture (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The project covers anything science fiction-related. That means there will be some overlap between the project and the novels project. That's not a problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: Let's take this discussion to WikiProject science fiction. It's just your opinion that it's supposed to overlap like that. I think it would be more useful if the novels-task-force and the WikiProject are separated because by that you can get more narrowed down statistics and various options that aren't available when both are merged. I've been going through like a thousand(s?) sci-fi novel articles and just maybe 30 or so also have the SF banner set (even though they don't have an adaption of another media-type covered in the article). So as of right now it makes more sense to remove the SF banner off the few articles which have both set.

P.S.: maybe at some point it's possible to kind of dynamically combine task-forces of other WikiProjects (or even other WikiProjects in their entirety) with WikiProjects without having to set a banner on each article. --Fixuture (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, task forces can be combined. WP:JAPAN has several like that. Both banners can still be on the talk page, though, as it helps people find the projects. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: Good point about it helping people to find WikiProjects. However I think a better solution for that would be to modify the task-force text (e.g. to: This article is supported by the Science fiction task force (part of WikiProject Science Fiction).) Combined in which way? Do you have any info on that (a page maybe)? --Fixuture (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Task forces that are hosted by one of the projects, but fall under the purview of both: Japanese baseball, Japanese cinema, CJKV, Districts and municipalities, Japanese military history, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Japanese are all that way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: And how are these dynamically combined? Or are they just linked to from each other's page? --Fixuture (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go and look at them. Each one is done a little bit differently. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the CFD as keep rather than a split which I think is what you were actually proposed but is Category:Teleportation in fiction versus Category:Teleportation what you had in mind? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This month:

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matthew Mather, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatbot. 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) 15:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Chavdar Likov, I am Wikipedian devoting time to literary genres and musical artists, I saw you thanked my edits on Biopunk and Comic science fiction; well, can you find more literature projects to work on? I am qualified librarian and aspiring writer, so that's how I would like to contribute.

Kindest regards:

The Mad Hatter (talk)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Polandball. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion.--Otterathome (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning memes, KnowYourMeme is a highly informative website. It is hence very appropriate to link http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/polandball in the external link of the polandball article. --Fixuture (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This month:

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

• The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
• The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me double check with someone whether this can be included or not. The aviation editor I'm going to ask[2] is very knowledgeable on aviation. If they say yes, I'll re-add the article entry myself....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, great. It's just that I'm still not sure which criteria is potentially not met by the addition. Is it the definition of includable 'commercial' aircraft? Anyways, I'll just wait, thank you. --Fixuture (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor I asked worked on the 2016 Turøy helicopter crash and he is also familiar with the list. So they are a good selection. Your entry is too wordy per list guidelines for sure. Small aircraft, like helicopters don't always meet list criteria. They have to be of at least a certain size....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and thanks for the explanation! --Fixuture (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots said it meets the qualifications so I re-added[3] an entry for the crash. The style I used if you look at other entries on the list, is more concise. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fixture, I was noticing that you're showing an interest in webcomics. I was wondering if you might want to have a look at the (mostly inactive) webcomics WikiProject - I have been rather busy with school lately, but I'm still trying to raise some interest in the field. Any comment is appreciated, or you could simply follow the page ^_^ Besides that, I noticed you added the "Internet Culture" WikiProject template to the some webcomics-related talkpages (like here), but you don't always add quality and importance parameters (in the example given, I added "list" and "low"; class rating across templates of different projects should generally be the same). I might be useful to keep track of that :) _{(I put this page on my watchlist temporarily)} ~Mable (chat) 12:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (fictional), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tablet. 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) 09:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with your constant readding of 77 Brigade to this list. Most importantly, there are no reliable references saying that the brigade, or, more correctly, what used to be 15 Psychological Operations Group within it, are doing false-identity operations - the kind of false-flag stuff the article implies its doing. 15 POG and other psyops units try to do influence operations, including with FAcebook etc, but these units usually do 'white' overt things, being open about their identities. Pretending they are someone else is *not referenced*!! There are no references to say they are doing sockpuppet stuff!! So stop adding '77 Brigade' to the list. By all means find a reference that 15 POG or whateven the column number now is is doing deceptive, sockpuppet operations if you can, but (a) so far there is no reference for this, (b) the brigade does a large number of things, only one of which is psychological operations. Just trying to use that single once-over-lightly newspaper story doesn't give the full picture - one cannot assume sockpuppetry from that story. Should note that I believe GCHQ does this kind of thing, but that's not a reason to keep readding the whole of 77 Brigade to this list. Hope this clarifies the situation. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you very much for the explanation! Sorry that I did not understand your point right away (from your edit summary it looked to me like you were saying they weren't doing anything on the Internet at all). --Fixuture (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider self-reverting this. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states that an article should only link to one official website. - Brianhe (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. However with Minds being an alternative to Facebook and many users currently just being Facebook users etc. it might be justified to have it there (that's not listed in the exceptions though). --Fixuture (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Timeline of religion page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Time travel in fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minority Report. 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) 09:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The app is open source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Is this a question or a statement? I couldn't find the source code. --Fixuture (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all the source code is open and on github. Made by the people at Wikimedia CH. We just launched the Chinese version today and hope to come out with more languages soon.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: As long as I don't see a GitHub link where I can read/download the source code it's not open source. And you can be sure that if I don't find the source code most of your users won't either - nor do they take notice that the app is open source. I even searched on GitHub & Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App. Please open source it as it has been developed by Wikimedia. --Fixuture (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Programming part is done by Wikimedia CH. We are managing the content part. I will ask them were the code is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: That's kiwix, not Medical Wikipedia. I already knew that kiwix was open source and that Medical Wikipedia is based on it. --Fixuture (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who are doing Kiwix are the ones doing the programming of the app. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I guess I have to pm them instead then. Thanks for your help so far! --Fixuture (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am co ordinating the content side of things. If you want a version in German happy to help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nigeria tourism stubs has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Dawynn (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acknowledging my edits on that template. I've been trying to request semi-protection on that template because that IP keeps returning and putting social science fiction into categories instead of subgenres. See what can be done about that. Thanks again.--Taeyebar 19:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Absolute Infinite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transfinite. 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) 10:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the Pickard edit. Perhaps you can advise me how to avoid the error. Thank youBarnrazor (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion for that title seems fine. I started that page because I had told User: Mad Hatter had been adding examples of media titles to fantasy and science fiction subgenre pages and I informed him that it's not possible to do that with maritime science fiction as that article is a stub, so I decided to create that list and invited him to contribute too, but he is obviously away and I also am not a full time editor here, so we are left with a mostly unsourced list. See space opera and high fantasy as examples. He has done some impressive work there by adding notable examples. Obviously the same can't be done for maritime sci-fi as it's currently a stub.

Do you know how to create draft articles or lists? We can create a draft and invite others to contribute. One serious problem we might probably face is this subgenre goes by different names such as "nautical science fiction" "marine science fiction" but for grammatical reasons and a good source calling it such, I added maritime science fiction. I personally think we should stick with that.--Taeyebar 18:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[6] this could be a good source to start with for a list. Thanks.--Taeyebar 18:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Taeyebar: Thanks for doing so - great work! And yes I know how to create draft articles/lists, however I don't think that it would be necessary here. We could simply add new entries we don't yet have a reference for to the talk page or to the article with a citation needed tag. Synonyms can (and should) be named in the lead and redirect to the article - the article's title should be the most correct and/or commonly used one. One easy way to check which name is better to use is to check the count of Google results per term. Goodreads lists often make good list-starters - only that they themselves aren't reliable sources so while they make it easy to start and to find out which books to google for.

--Fixuture (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that at this level of Wikipedia - yes, can be created maritime science fiction list, but I think, we should be limited to boxes inserted into the articles, because it overlaps actually with Naval fiction and it can't go on the big list, as actually, I don't think it is that big. Exemple in box in the article maritime science fiction. That's all I can advise on the topic.

Regards:The Mad Hatter (talk)

Thank you for your responses Fixtiture and Mad Hatter. Tell me what to do and I will follow your instruction. But Mad Hatter, can we fit such a box in a stub? It was the reason I created the list and it seems to look good. And Fixuture, the reason why I proposed the draft is because List of maritime science fiction media is being nominated for deletion, even though it has sources. I have saved the content so we can draft it in case it gets deleted.--Taeyebar 04:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fixature, we lost the list apparently. I have the content saved in and also managed to rescue the image (see below) user:Shawn in Montreal suggested another title for the list and somebody else suggested we change to "List of maritime science fiction works". If you wish the content, I can email it to you and we can start a draft, but maybe we should go by the previously suggested title. Any questions or suggestions, you all can message or email me. Thanks--Taeyebar 22:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, there. I'm sorry your list was deleted but it looks as if the main article and category might be kept. I suggest you wait and see how those turn out. Also, if you recreate the same list with a different name I suppose it could be considered a repost of deleted material and speedily removed. Or brought right back to Afd. I frankly don't understand how this list could be deleted while the category seems to be have a real chance at surviving Cfd. anyway, good luck Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shawn, I am not here too much anyway, so it'll have to wait it out just as well. And Fixuture, it might be a good idea to also draft maritime science fiction to work on later in case it gets deleted. I think a draft should be made that editors can view contribute to. Thanks again!--Taeyebar 01:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Taeyebar: When articles get AfD'd I typically save them to a .txt file to later restore them as a draft. You could do the same here. As a sidenote (once I got other things done and have some time at hand) I'm planning to suggest a global policy of never fully deleting articles besides for copyright violations or the like and instead moving them to another sitespace (not necessarily the draft space) so that they can be improved upon etc. --Fixuture (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fixature. How do I do that? I emailed you the list (image not included I added to your talk page) if you can draft it that'll be great. Just message me or email me if you require me to do anything.---Taeyebar 19:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Taeyebar: Thanks, I created the draft here: Draft:List of maritime science fiction works. Creating drafts is really easy: just type in "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:" and the intended name of your draft into your browser's address bar and create the page. See: Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts (alternatively use the TextBox of that page). I also saved a backup of the maritime science fiction article and if you don't want to create it yourself I can also create a draft for that one as well. --Fixuture (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fixature I'm gonna share it with all the other editors who contributed that page tomorrow if I can. Thanks very much and for explaining how to make drafts.--Taeyebar 23:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixature, do you have the draft to the main article as well? I seem to have lost it. Thanks--Taeyebar 00:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Taeyebar: I created the draft here: Draft:Maritime science fiction. --Fixuture (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry if this sounds a bit blunt, im genuinely friendly! Unless I am missing something a literal translation means a translation of the very words themselves. Er ist Wieder da = er (he) ist (is) Wieder (again) da (There). Of course the sense of Er is wieder da corresponds with the English phrase 'He's back' but thats not the literal translation. So either the article should say: translated as 'He's back' or 'the literal translation is 'There he is again' corresponding to the English phrase 'He's back' Don't you think? All the best. IchistWiederda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.155.36.14 (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@87.155.36.14: Alright, I changed it to "translation" for now. The article for the novel says the same so I guess that's ok. --Fixuture (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How similar they are depends on the setting/mythos. But I'd posted something asking for comments several *months* ago, on the talk page, and never got any comments. So I decided to go ahead and make the change. Feel free to add any other works to the page, it needs more. Tamtrible (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamtrible: Didn't see that entry (you probably made it before I watchlisted the page), sorry. I do think that the table should be categorized by mythos (especially with such a long history) and not by similarities that have arisen in recent fictional adoptions of these mythoses. Demons and angels are originally fundamentally different. Going to make a post at the talk page soon as well. Please don't feel disencouraged to just going ahead (especially if you made a talk page entry before) by this though. It's a really great article. I might add some more once I have some time and if I find some good sources because I agree that the list really could do well with some more entries (btw. you could also make an entry on the talk page of WikiProject Mythology). --Fixuture (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might have already done so, not sure. I've also randomly asked people for help. I put in... probably 9/10 of the entries on the page thus far.

and... weren't demons originally fallen angels, at least in Christian mythology?... Tamtrible (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Common concerns over mass surveillance".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted two edits I made. In both cases I was removing content sourced to predatory open access journals. These are not reliable sources. Many of our links to these journals are actually citation spam. Check my talk page for more details on this activity. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: How is this an "predatory open access journal"? It's not even a journal. And as far as I can see it's good enough. Instead of removing some true and useful information because you think badly of the source used while there are far worse sources used in other articles you could simply tag it with {{Unreliable source|date=September 2016}} or {{Better source|reason=|date=September 2016}}. For the other revert: I added a source there so it's not warranted to remove it, instead you could remove the source only or tag it as well.

--Fixuture (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was one of the other cite spamming efforts. It's self-published. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Fixuture, i liked your Wikipedia profile. You have good contribution on Wikipedia. Can you halp me to remove Wikipedia error tag on Kasha Mann. As i am new to remove any Wikipedia error tag and don't know how to remove Wiki tags. Mindcap (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mindcap: Well, glad you like it - thanks. Do you mean the tag saying "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it."? Just leave it up - it's just saying that no other article links to your Kasha Mann article. To fix it you'd first need to link to it from other articles. Currently there's no other article with a reference to "Kasha Mann" so if anything you'd need to add info about her elsewhere or add a link to the article in a list. Note that that entry / info needs to be relevant and notable enough for inclusion there.

Once you done that simply click edit in your article and remove the orphan tag at the top.

--Fixuture (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your revert & explain the orphan tag in detailed.Mindcap (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, as a member of Wikiproject transhumanism, I thought you might want to check out the latest on H+Pedia which now has a revamped home page as an introduction point. :) https://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Deku-shrub (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fixuture. You keep removing my entry on List of Wikipedia mobile applications indicating that the Wikimed app is open source. I guess you have a good reason to justify why the Wikimed app does not match the definition of open source software like explained here Open-source_software#Definitions. I would be happy to hear it. Regards Kelson (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelson: As stated in the edit summary of my revert: WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia simply isn't open source. Open source is when a any user can search, find and view/download the source code - and that simply isn't the case here. Kiwix upon which WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia is based is indeed open source and is a separate entry.

I would truly appreciate if the source code would be made open - it shouldn't be that hard (just get it on GitHub or sth).

--Fixuture (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixuture: You say, "Open source is when a any user can search, find and view/download the source code", that's wrong. If you want to know more about what is open-source read Open-source_software#Definitions and The_Open_Source_Definition. If you do so and stop inventing your own definition of words, you will understand your error. Everything the Kiwix project has ever published is open-source, you just have to go to the official web site, read it and you will find the link to the source code repository, with all the necessary information to build the Wikimed apps. It seems you have difficulties to find it by yourself, so I give it to you: here it is. Please do the necessary on List of Wikipedia mobile applications or justify seriously with solid reference about your new definition of the term "open-source sofware". Kelson (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelson: Yes - you're right but it doesn't matter. WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia is not open source, Kiwix is. Everything the Kiwix project ever published should be open-source but apparently isn't. None of the repositories has the full, relevant source code. Really, it isn't hard: provide a link with the source code of "WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia" (yes "WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia" and nothing else) otherwise it simply isn't open source. And even if the source code of the app is 1:1 the same as Kiwix except a few strings in some config file (which I doubt) you'd need to publish these minor differences for this app to also be considered "open source". Easy. --Fixuture (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, at that point I'm going to raise the problem to a broader audience. For the Nth time, I tell you that everything is published as open source and available on the Github. If you are too lazy to read the web site, the README in the source code repository, it's OK for me but this is an other problem. Kelson (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The README describes how to make the app from the code provided. The provided code is open. Not getting the issue Fixuture is raising? Happy to see you make more versions of the app either pertaining to medicine in other languages or other topics. Are trying and unable to do so based on the instructions provided? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about the status of the draft, the draft was declined on 18 September and has been resubmitted. From my standpoint, a strong burden needs to be met in order to get the article accepted, because a previous version of the article was deleted, and it is necessary to establish that the version now being reviewed is better than the deleted version. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Well I do think that this approach is problematic: a previous version of an article getting deleted shouldn't raise the inclusion-bar higher than for any other article. Please consider that the previous deletion discussion didn't have many participants and could have led to a faulty decision. In fact I do think that this is the case here and that the previous discussion missed the coverage I posted as a comment on the draft-page. The subject is notable enough to warrant an article. --Fixuture (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. The deletion discussion did not lead to a faulty decision. There was a deletion review that affirmed the deletion discussion. If you disagree with my decision, I suggest that you discuss it at the Teahouse or some other discussion forum rather than just with me. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: As said I think that the discussion overlooked the coverage I posted on the draft page. If there is information missing in the deletion discussion even a deletion review won't help. By including that coverage in the new version of the article it should imo be suitable for inclusion. Or is it required to make a post about the old deletion discussion in some other discussion forum instead of discussing (& editing) the new draft (on its talk page)? --Fixuture (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Murder of JonBenét Ramsey page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yahoo! data breach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon. 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) 12:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fixuture sorry to bother you like this but we might need to draft two articles which another user keeps redirecting even though signficant coverage exists and it's been reviewed. Here is the latest drafts before it was redirected [7] [8]. If you agree they are worthy then at least we can draft them. Thanks a lot.--Taeyebar 19:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Taeyebar: I'm not sure if they're worthy. But either way please do that yourself - just type in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ARTICLENAME (replace articlename of course) and create that page with the content from whatever revision you'd like to draftify.--Fixuture (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fixature! I'll do that one. Have a nice day!--Taeyebar 23:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Biopunk has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: You reverted my edit saying "you cannot copy/paste out of a source, and that is not a great source. Please see your Talk page". However I did not copy paste from the source. I just used the source as a reference which of course implies that the content also says what the source says - isn't that how Wikipedia('s referencing) works!? The source says:

Biopunk generally examines the dangers and darker side of genetic engineering and presents the underground side of biotechnology. Common ideas of this sub-genre are the availability of biotech to those with money, and those without, the value of life, misuse of biotech for social control and profit.

and the sentence in the article says:

Common ideas of this subgenre are biotechnologies in the context of the gap between the rich and poor, the value and nature of life and humanity, human enhancement, misusage of biotechnologies for social control and profit.

That's distinct enough. Also if there are certain things biopunk is about it's not a copyvio to name those things even if another source already did so. Not sure what your problem is here actually...

--Fixuture (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text you added was "the value and nature of life and humanity, human enhancement, misusage of biotechnologies for social control and profit" was copied directly from the source with very minor tweaks. See WP:Close paraphrasing. The source is also poor and spammy. Also please never update only the WP:LEAD; the lead just summarizes the body of the article. Any new material should be added to the body and only if rises to the importance of being part of the summary, should it be added there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you. If that is what biopunk is about then those should be named. Also it's just one sentence and very roughly paraphrased so it really should be ok. It's in the lead because it summarizes biopunk / describes what it's about.

I've created a dispute resolution request here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#User_talk:Fixuture#COPYVIO.

--Fixuture (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a) too soon for that board, and we have had only one exchange thus far, and b) you seem to be looking for a judgement at DRN, and that is not what it is for. Please slow down, and let's deal with one thing at a time, starting with how leads function in WP. Please read WP:LEAD and then let me know if you still view the lead the same way. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what else can I say? (Also I don't have that much time and don't think a lengthy discussion with you here would resolve anything if what I've said so far didn't suffice.) If there is another place to resolve this please let me know.

And yes I still view the lead the same way. Please see these parts of WP:LEAD:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies

&

Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

I've italicized the relevant parts. The lead should definitely include a definition of the article's topic. And the sentence is about the defining content of biopunk works.

There could be more information (there already is some) on the content of biopunk (as a subgenre) works in the rest of the article but that's no reason to exclude it from the lead.

--Fixuture (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working out disputes is the price you pay for being part of the community. Not working out active disputes, is not an option.

You have cherry picked the parts from WP:LEAD that fit what you want to do, and left out the key part - the first sentence. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. - really - nothing should be in the lead that is not discussed in the body. There is nothing in the body of the article about "the nature of life and humanity" nor about "transhumanism", nor about "misusage of biotechnologies for social control". There is content in there about the use of biotech for "profit". The lead summarizes the body. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this page and moved it to draft space as you asked for. Please do not move it back to the main namespace unless you have significantly improved it to address the concerns raised in the AfD, specifically the quality of sources cited. If you do move it back without improvement then it will just be deleted again and I won't be as willing to restore it again. Hut 8.5 20:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: Alright, thank you! --Fixuture (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your advice about the Rater.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you doing at P:FS? What is the logic in naming the portal after something it isn't about?--Monochrome_Monitor 20:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Apologies for the hostility. I get flustered when my edits are reverted without discussion.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Ugh and now I sound passive aggressive.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Monochrome Monitor: Well I reverted your unilateral decision to move the portal to "Free software". On its talk page "Free and open-source software" was the name we went with. Also it is what the portal is about and more correct than the former name. --Fixuture (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the portal page. It is based on free software, not open source software- that's why the list of distros doesn't include stuff like Red Hat. The most ridiculous part is that there is already an Open Source Portal. And Free software came before open source! Yes, Linux and the OSI have better media relations and no one knows about GNU or the FSF. This just compounds that injury with insult.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for combining the two, but having a portal called "apples" and a portal called "apples and oranges" is just silly.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Monochrome Monitor: It's about FOSS software. That's not the same as open source software. I already stated in the move rationale that the open source portal should be deleted or merged into the current portal (that was also suggested by another user on the talk page and I suggest making a new entry there for going ahead with the merge; I might do so later if nobody else does so). I agree that having both portals is silly. --Fixuture (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, that's was my main objection then. I'm curious, why not FLOSS?--Monochrome_Monitor 21:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Monochrome Monitor: I created a discussion about it here. For why FOSS over FLOSS: it's shorter, already describes what it's about and is more commonly used. --Fixuture (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the consensus to remove all entries from category:virtual reality games when they were also a member of a specific platform's category? The duplication was due to its status as a Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategories czar 23:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: What do you mean? Members of subcategories such as category:Oculus Rift games shouldn't also be in the parent category. Why should the few games that were still in the subordinate category stay there and the rest be properly subcategorized? What's different in these games that would warrant it? --Fixuture (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm challenging what you're calling "properly subcategorized". A game being developed for the Oculus Rift does not also preclude it from being classified as a virtual reality game—that's how non-diffusing categories work. czar 18:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Well then all the categories entries need to also be in the parent category and not just a selected few. Also nowhere on that category page is it declared that it's a "non-diffusing category" - how are people supposed to know (and where's the consensus for it being such)? --Fixuture (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was asking you czar 18:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Didn't get that as a question - you said it already had that status. So my answer is that there is no consensus for it to be a "non-diffusing category", nor does it look like one from its entries. You could change that however. I don't think that would be useful though. --Fixuture (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said that it had been used as a non-diffusing category previously (even though it was not explicitly tagged as such), meaning that it has been cleaned out without consensus. I'll bring it to discussion. czar 19:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Alright. Also note that it wasn't used that way prior to my involvement though - I just moved 6 games while the category has over 80 items in total. --Fixuture (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was and I know because I started the Rift and Vive subcats. czar 20:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the RepRap project page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help updating Legality of cannabis by country. Would you be interested in helping expand Cannabis in Argentina? In particular, it could use some clarity as to when cannabis was first banned there, and any other key historical changes in law. Thanks for your help! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney: Sorry, but no - I can't do that: I got too little expertise & interest in that area and got way too much other things to do. Imo Argentinians should get onto this. I made the edeit for Germany as I'm German and read some news about it. But it's a good thing to reach out to potential editors. --Fixuture (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films distributed via Indie Screenings, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2016 Yahoo hack. Since you had some involvement with the 2016 Yahoo hack redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ^Falling_Gravity 18:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixuture can you please keep an eye on the fantasy article? There are some problem IPs mixing up the related genres and subgenres. I don't weather it's gothicfilm or someone else, but can you please keep an eye on the article as these troublesome users mess these genre and subgenre pages while I'm gone. This way there'll be less of a chance for these problems to come up. Thanks--Taeyebar 08:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

With regard to your edits and the addition of content about transhumanism throughout WP:

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I know that and I don't think that I'm violating these policies. --Fixuture (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get it that transhumanism is a big deal to some people but please be careful to give appropriate WEIGHT to content about it. In most subjects it will deserve little to none when you look at all the refs about whatever the subject is. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development into Horizon 2020. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Alright, I just added the {{Split article}} note to both article's talk pages. Sorry that I did not link to the article in the edit summary (in it I just said that I split it off into a stand-alone article with a link to it only in the diff) and added that note right away (I kind of forgot to do that so thanks for your reminder!). Btw do you know if there's a difference between the {{Split article}} and the {{Copied}} template? And if not should they be merged? --Fixuture (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the two templates serve the same function and could potentially be merged. Not sure how that would be accomplished, though :) Perhaps at WP:TFD. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that list when I created the article. Serendi^podous 18:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: Good question. For some reason I thought that List of stories set in a future now past was just about literature. But probably it would be best to merge them, yes - I'd suggest creating a merge discussion at the talk page of the latter. In any way that table needs a new "description" column. And maybe it would be a good idea to move it to sth like List of works set in a future now past / List of science fiction works set in a future now past / List of works of science fiction set in a future now past. Furthermore the table could also be split up into century-sections (with your article redirecting to the appropriate one) and could potentially be expanded to include content on the topic in general (analysis of such stories etc) and then be moved to sth like Science fiction set in a future now past. --Fixuture (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and did it. Merged the past dates in 21st century in fiction too. Serendi^podous 16:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at CRISPR 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. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring you to ANI for POV-pushing transhumanism if you keep edit warring content like this into WP. It will be mindlessly simple to show your commitment to giving UNDUE weight to transhumanism, and that you are here to promote that viewpoint and WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. As a clear advocate you need to be mindful to use DR and not try to force your way. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a really cool and interesting article. I've used the sources you supplied to expand the article, as you know. It may need some copyediting - nothing seemed super obvious to me, but that often happens with me if I've been a bit too close to it. I'll come back a little later, unless you find things first.

I know that there are more sources out there... but I couldn't easily find a source that says that either the original ball or the drone are in use. Do you know if they are?

Also, I am a little confused about the timing of the testing with the activities of the Dutch Ministry of Defence - were they testing the ball or the drone? Or, maybe both? (One of the articles, maybe BBC, made it sound like they may have tested the ball - I wasn't sure though.)

Thanks!—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Thank you for helping out with the article so much! Really glad you like the article (btw I'm also planning for some other new drone-related articles). I do not know if they are in use but I guess they're still in development and only used for testing purposes. Here is their latest update (from 8 December 2016) with info on their recent activities.

Also, I am a little confused about the timing of the testing with the activities of the Dutch Ministry of Defence - were they testing the ball or the drone? Or, maybe both?

Good question. From this article: [9] it seems they were testing the ball. This source states that they were collaborating on the drone: [10] but it's not really a WP:RS (the former is). On their website: [11] they just use the word "Mine Kafon" but still seem to be referring to the drone to make things more complicated.

I guess I'll email them and ask them about this. I'll also write them that having two unrelated (except that both are for demining) projects with almost the same name is confusing and that they should make clear what they mean on their website. And I'll also ask them why they don't collaborate with the other 2 drone projects for demining. However I don't have time for that right now and it'll probably take some until they respond. Note that if you'd like to you could ask them as well (besides if you find out otherwise of course).

--Fixuture (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the information - and it's been my pleasure working on the article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple bad sources (the daily mail for pete's sake) do not magically add up to a MEDRS source. Not anywhere in WP.

Your recent editing history at Electrical brain stimulation 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. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you raised the importance of Robotic process automation which appears to be a neologism designed to sell the software and professional services of the various companies mentioned in the article (viz., Xchanging, Verint, NICE, Automation Anywhere, Kofax, and Openspan). Was this intentional? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielPenfield: Yes, this was intentional. It might be a neologism, but the issue is mainstream and is talked about under various names and of high importance to economics in general. Indeed I would probably have rated it high if you wouldn't have rated it low so mid is a conciliation. Also I'd suggest moving the article to a less neologism-like name - going to suggest that on the talk page at some point - e.g. it could be called "Process computerization" or alike (btw I already noted on the talk page that the term "robotic" is very misleading here as, at least as of right now, the article is not about robots). Furthermore I don't think an article's content should influence its importance rating - it's just the topic and any marketing/advertising/spam issues in the article should be fixed (it would good enough already if you created a talk page entry about this if you noticed such an issue in the article btw) and only influence the quality rating of the article and not the importance one.
We could discuss each other's viewpoint of why this article is un/important here if you like to. I think an article more or less about what a study said was going to automate around half of the world's current jobs (see e.g.: [12]) is of incredibly high importance. --Fixuture (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement	My response
It might be a neologism, but the issue is mainstream	No, it's not a "mainstream issue". It's a marketing term that one or more of Xchanging, Verint, NICE, Automation Anywhere, Kofax, and Openspan have paid Gartner or Forrester to legitimize as a service that other companies can buy. The "mainstream issue" is already covered at a high level in Technological unemployment.
and is talked about under various names	Talked about by whom? Under what names?
and of high importance to economics in general	Technological unemployment is of high importance. A handful of companies developing their own Category:Automation software (or possibly just ripping off AutoIt) under a name some marketing guy made up and then trying to sell that software and integration services is of low importance.
Also I'd suggest moving the article to a less neologism-like name - going to suggest that on the talk page at some point	So you're going to make up your own name for this established marketing term? Sounds like you intend to violate the "naturalness" criteron of WP:Article titles and start down the road of adding original research to Wikipedia.
e.g. it could be called "Process computerization" or alike	Sounds like an immediate redirect to Macro recorder or Scripting language#GUI scripting.
(btw I already noted on the talk page that the term "robotic" is very misleading here as, at least as of right now, the article is not about robots).	I see that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter what you believe to be "a better name". "Robotic process automation" is the name under which those companies are selling their software and integration services, that's the name for which their customers are going to search, so that's probably the name that the Wikipedia article should have.
Furthermore I don't think an article's content should influence its importance rating	I never said that it should. You want to assign a "high" importance because you think Robotic process automation should cover a topic it currently doesn't because you somehow don't believe that Technological unemployment and possibly other articles already cover the broader demographic change.
it's just the topic and any marketing/advertising/spam issues in the article should be fixed	It can't be fixed. "Robotic process automation" is the term under which Gartner/Forrester and Xchanging, Verint, NICE, Automation Anywhere, Kofax, and Openspan, et al. have agreed to sell their software and integration services.
I think an article more or less about what a study said was going to automate around half of the world's current jobs (see e.g.: [12]) is of incredibly high importance.	I think this is the crux of the problem. You saw "Robotic process automation#Impact of RPA on employment"—which is part of the marketing pitch/media sensationalism, by the way, and immediately decided 1) you should change the topic of the article to cover a very narrow sliver of the demographic phenomenon described in Technological unemployment and 2) you should invent a new name for the repurposed article. I don't believe you should do either.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielPenfield:

No, it's not a "mainstream issue". It's a marketing term that one or more of Xchanging, Verint, NICE, Automation Anywhere, Kofax, and Openspan have paid Gartner or Forrester to legitimize as a service that other companies can buy.
The "mainstream issue" is already covered at a high level in Technological unemployment.

That might be true in the specific implementation of the article: hence it should be a) improved and probably b) moved to a new title. As said, I would recommend you make a talk page entry about this issue or simply go ahead with a) or b).

No it's not fully covered at Technological unemployment: that article - just like its title implies - only delves into the unemployment effects of such and other automation. And yes - there is much more to it than its unemployment effects hence there should be an article about the general issue. And if the current article is marketing-ridden garbage we should either improve it or drop it and recreate such an article from scratch.

Maybe the whole problem here is that such an article apparently doesn't exist, making this the article the one closest to it.

Talked about by whom? Under what names?

Don't just ask that me. Maybe more people could participate in a move-discussion. But all kinds of economists, think tanks, organisations political leaders etc etc talk about it. For the name something along the lines of "computerization", "software automation" (I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to split the issue up so clearly into software / hardware because there's many hardware/robotics/physical aspects of the software-driven automation), "software-driven automation", "process computerization", "computerized automation" etc.

A handful of companies developing their own Category:Automation software (or possibly just ripping off AutoIt) under a name some marketing guy made up and then trying to sell that software and integration services is of low importance.

You might have a point here. As I write this and the more I read the article the more I think that it really just needs a new article on the topic with this one potentially being an AfD candidate with all the few useful parts of it being open for merging into the new article. Or, if not, it should be made clearer how it differs from a general "AI workers"-automation.

It could be that a general article on the topic already exists and I just missed it. I really don't want to create an article on a topic of such importance and with that many sources on it (expectations for such an article would be high and you'd drown in sources).

Automation would be the closest article to it when excluding this article, however that's about all kinds of automation and doesn't focus on the software-driven one.

I guess you should set it back to low - thanks for your extensive reply.

--Fixuture (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Edits such as this are likely to get overwritten by the bot that updates/maintains the page/report. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcBride: Thank you for notifying. I indeed thought about that but I'm not sure if there's a way to add the categories without them getting overwritten by every update. I guess for that the bot's code needs to be changed? I'll check which of the category's pages are regularly updated by bots later and ask their owners to change the code accordingly. --Fixuture (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother. Ask yourself: is my categorisation really necessary? Otherwise you end up finding that edits like this are a waste of time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:

Ask yourself: is my categorisation really necessary?

What do you mean by that? If you're referring to the pages very likely being regularly updated pages where the categories are lost: I expected that to be the case at least for the example you linked here - but I intended to go through my contribution-history later and ask the bot-owner to add it. It's just that I somehow need to track all the relevant categories and the associated categories so I decided to just quickly go through them even if the cats are lost once the bot updates (also there's a chance that the bot-owner watches it and things get cleared up on their own without me having to create a talk page entry). --Fixuture (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is: why are you categorising subpages, when there could be many of them? What is the idea behind your categorisation? But you say you "somehow need to track all the relevant categories and the associated categories" which doesn't make sense. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:

why are you categorising subpages, when there could be many of them?

Please be clearer - I'm not sure what you mean. Why would there being many subpages be an issue for their categorization? Many times categorization only makes sense when there are many pages to categorize to begin with.

What is the idea behind your categorisation

Which categorization? Are you asking what the point of categorizing is? The main point is making things findable. Pages are useless if they can't be found.

But you say you "somehow need to track all the relevant categories and the associated categories" which doesn't make sense.

I stated before that I wasn't sure what you meant and assumed that you were referring to the pages I categorized very likely being regularly updated pages where the categories are lost once the bot updates them.

--Fixuture (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000 is one of several subpages of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. All of them are either transcluded into or linked from that page. There is no need to categorise them as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:

Now I understand what you mean. For the sake of completion they should still be in the category though. It's like that for all categories: one doesn't exclude pages just because they're linked to from a page. Doing so would also make things harder to be found as they could be linked from a page and one would have to check through all the pages and look for links. Category-pages are overseeable − one doesn't have to scroll through inches of text ( and can inspect what exists by just a quick glance. Also it could be come more practical to just add the category instead of linking to every report from that page in some cases or at some point (not that it's done now) etc.

--Fixuture (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this will always be neutralised by the relevant bot. There's simply no point in editing bot-built pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Thanks again. I think I didn't notice that this page was maintained by a bot at the time plus even if it's reverted it allows me to see which pages I intend to add which categories from my contribution history so that I or the bot-owner can make use of that later. I already made a talk page entry about it on the bot's talk page here. --Fixuture (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Hardware backdoor, Fixuture!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Very good article, nice work.

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Criticism of democracy page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Corporate warfare, Fixuture!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Useful article, I'm surprised it did not exist already, good work!

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Very glad to hear that! Thanks. Since recently I'm in a kind of perpetual state of perplexity of what information isn't featured on here.

Also: how did you create this talk page entry? Something went wrong again: it created two section titles of the same name. I guess this should be reported at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation / phabricator but maybe you just added a redundant section-title manually? --Fixuture (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used the page curation toolbar, when reviewing an article it gives the option to send a message, but there is a bug in it at the moment that doubles the header bar, I submitted a bug report already, and they said they knew about it already and were working on it.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, perfect. --Fixuture (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the following template Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement for the short version of WP:ARBPIA, and be warned that violations in this area lead to immediate and severe sanctions. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 19:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[13] - Hi, what do you think about this two new articles? Best wishes. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawid2009: I don't think that they can become articles. Simply because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and you need reliable sources explaining the subject. --Fixuture (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see any potential development of these these articles? Spotted is gradually popular in a lot of countries and has got influence to reality. Confidence trick are usage as an addiction in other mmo games Dawid2009 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawid2009: Yes. If anything you might be able to add a short mention of it to some appropriate article but I don't think an entire article would be possible. I might be wrong though, maybe there are quite a number of WP:RS on it, but I pretty much doubt it and haven't found any in a quick research. --Fixuture (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material you included in the above article was copied from https://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/04/fbi-smart-meter-hacks-likely-to-spread/, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Alright, I've changed it further. It should be ok now. Note that I didn't copy directly from the source - no entire sentence was copied 1:1, it was just 2 sentences in total and the source was given. I sometimes find it hard to paraphrase sources and staying exactly on-point. Do you know of any meta-page that describes how one best avoids such copyright problems without leaving out important info or altering precise info? --Fixuture (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look after this. I've done some more re-wording of the passage. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. For resources on this topic, there's some reading material at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. Please feel free to ask me via email if you are stuck and are not sure how to effectively re-word a passage. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thank you! The tips and links have been very helpful. For summarizing rather than paraphrasing that's how I usually do it but if the relevant parts of the source-text are already short or are already a perfect summary one often can't summarize further without leaving out important info. I'll try my best following your tips. --Fixuture (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seems as pro programmer, can you please help me with Template:Infobox political party? I am a noob, I can't find where I can add string to | country = . Can you add Czechoslovakia there, so it will show:
Politics of Czechoslovakia
Political parties
Elections
I will create that pages afterwards.
Thanks, ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ThecentreCZ: Hi there - copy the code from the "Basic" box out of there to the top of your article and then simply add the string after the =. If the pages don't yet exist they won't show as redlinks so this is probably what confused you. You could test it with "Czech Republic" for which those articles exist. --Fixuture (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fixuture, thank you so much, regarding Wikipedia:Threats to Wikipedia issues, I admire your concerns for Wikipedia so I felt I should thank you, for your visionary step to protect and improve Wikipedia, best regards.Junosoon (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Junosoon: This really means much to me - thank you! --Fixuture (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for your concerns about Wikipedia your raised on Jimbo's talk page and the article you wrote. I put it on my watchlist. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Glad you liked my contributions! And thanks for putting an eye on that...I feel there aren't many engaged with this here and I should get the word out. --Fixuture (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did a great job with surveillance capitalism. I can imagine that article becoming a reference point at the center of a family of other articles. I had wondered about a term for that concept and you found it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Thank you! Also you might be interested to learn that it's the subject of a current deletion discussion... --Fixuture (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thanking me for doing that. But they took that down. You should undo their undid revision of it. Wikideas1 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Fixuture -- I realize that your edits are being made in good faith, but I have a PhD in the field of philosophy. I wrote my dissertation on and, during my career (a retired university professor now), always maintained a concentration in contemporary Continental philosophy. I've read Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Buber, Sartre, Marcel, Dostoyevsky, Camus, and many others, and I understand and appreciate their thought. Extraterrestrial life just wasn't a consideration for them. Death -- in the sense of personal, individual death -- was a major theme in existentialism, but human extinction scenarios were not.

The existentialist philosophical movement had pretty much petered out by the 1970s, but it influenced the postmodernist movement which succeeded it. And existentialism influenced many authors from the mid-20th-century onward, like Joseph Heller and Jack Kerouac, and including science fiction/fantasy writers like Kurt Vonnegut, Arthur C. Clark, and, it seems, the fellow you cite, Nick Nielsen (whose work I confess I do not know), and Ted Chiang (author of "Story of your Life", the basis for the film Arrival). Although these writers use accounts of extraterrestrials and mass extinction scenarios in their fictions, these are tropes and metaphors and are not intrinsic to existentialism itself. Adding "Extraterrestrial life" and "Human extinction" to the Existentialism article's "See also" section is no more appropriate than adding "World War II" (because of Heller's writing) or "Beat Generation" or "Road trip" (because of Kerouac's writing). You really should remove them. Respectfully -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• this was ridiculous. this was WP:DISRUPTIVE. I have warned you to stop POV-pushing transhumanist stuff. Please stop skewing WP just because you can. It you don't restrain yourself, the community will restrain you. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPedant:

I've read Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Buber, Sartre, Marcel, Dostoyevsky, Camus, and many others, and I understand and appreciate their thought. Extraterrestrial life just wasn't a consideration for them. Death -- in the sense of personal, individual death -- was a major theme in existentialism, but human extinction scenarios were not.

Um why would that matter here? Is this page just about that movement and not existentialism itself? Existentialism has been called a philosophical theory or approach. And who said that this theory or approach can't keep developing and that the words of those dead philosophers is all there is to it?

these are tropes and metaphors and are not intrinsic to existentialism itself

Yes they're not intrinsic to existentialism but they're highly relevant to it.

Adding "Extraterrestrial life" and "Human extinction" to the Existentialism article's "See also" section is no more appropriate than adding "World War II"

That one is already linked in the lead.

Not sure what I'll do about this. Maybe I'll create a talk page entry later.

@Jytdog:

This isn't even "transhumanist stuff" (albeit remotely related to it). Maybe you confuse it for such as it often seems to me to that transhumanists are often more capable in engaging modern and relevant philosophy.

--Fixuture (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the two links are not uncommon themes in transhumanist discussions, as you must know. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help Fixuture,

The mention of the "slippery slope toward totalitarianism" was deleted. Why bother to join the Panopticon? Here is no fair treatment, due process, solidarity or integrity. --87.156.238.82 (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@87.156.238.82: Well, disagreement between editors happens all the time. Simply make a talk page entry about it. FallingGravity reverted it with the rationale of "unrelated to Vault 7". The relevant policy to check this addition against would probably be WP:DUE. It might be more appropriate in another, more general article but there would be good reasons to include it if somebody stated that specifically in the context of the vault 7 disclosures. See what other editors think of this. --Fixuture (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of photo and video apps 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/List of photo and video apps 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. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Surveillance capitalism 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/Surveillance capitalism 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. TheDracologist (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyber self-defense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EFF. 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) 09:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It might not seem so, but I've been involved with ITN off and on for a long time. Some friendly advice: don't challenge everyones !vote. Many will be nonsensical, but the posting admins largely ignore them. What will happen is an impenetrable wall of text in your nomination which will discourage participation and make consensus harder to determine. Just trust me, I've been there.

Cheers,

--CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CosmicAdventure: Thank you for your friendly advice. However I think that our opinion on this differs: the main reason I'm answering to as many points as I can is that I hope for Wikipedia to make decisions based on the meaning/content (significance/depth) of arguments which requires arguments to not stand isolated but getting met with appropriate counter-arguments etc and non-arguments to be revealed as such. This is also required for evaluation by posting admins. I don't think that long texts due to proper back-and-forth argumentation discourage participation...at least at ITN/C - people don't need to read all the prior text before casting their vote / arguments. If they fail to incorporate points made earlier as they haven't read it I'll also comment to their post to get them to the debate's state of the art so to say.

--Fixuture (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe sechs Jahre Deutsch studiert, und bin nach Bayern gegangen. Mein Grossvater war halb Deutsch, aber sein besser Halb war Daenisch.

Die Wissenschaft braucht keine Sturmtruppen. Das verstehe ich ohne Hilfe. Du sollsts auch.

Ich sah den Fall der Mauer. Ich weinte bei einem solchen Wunder. Ich weine jetzt.

:)

μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: Ja, die Wissenschaft selbst wohl nicht - die Gesellschaft, in welcher Wissenschaft angewendet wird und deren Erkenntnisse verwendet werden, anscheinend allerdings schon.

Ich weiß nicht wieso du hier das Wort "Sturmtruppen" benutzt beziehungsweise was du damit sagen möchtest.

Und ich weine jetzt im Hinblick auf die vielen, verhinderbaren Toten, die der Klimawandel und unser gegenwärtiger Umgang mit der Erde unweigerlich zur Folge haben werden.

Nein, bloße Wissenschaft, ohne Beachtung ihrer umliegenden, integrierenden, aufgreifenden und formenden Strukturen, ist nicht genug.

Es ist Zeit aufzustehen.

--Fixuture (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fixuture, please be cautious to not delete sourced content when you move content around. If doing so, please explain why so I can improve the section if needed. --Yug (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yug: Yes I am cautious of that and would of course explain that in the edit summary. But I'm pretty sure I didn't delete any content by the section move you linked, or did I? --Fixuture (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did, the end of a paragraph. But it looked weird as part of the paragraph was kept, the end of it and the reference removed, and your profile indicate a long term contributor. So I restored the content (and added a source). Yug (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yug: Oh indeed - didn't notice that. It's strange, really, as it's not at the end of the paragraph and I didn't intend to leave out anything. --Fixuture (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All good it's fixed :D --Yug (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed Category:Economics because the article is not very broadly about economics as a social science. Possibly a category much lower in the tree will fit. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I found that you thanked my edit Special:Diff/765703961, why did you do it?

ShadowYC (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShadowYC: I try to always thank people when I find their edits to be very constructive. In this case this site being blocked in China should certainly be featured in the list if that is the case. It needs a good reference to be added to the list though and I was hoping for somebody to research it. --Fixuture (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixuture: It IS the case, and maybe we can use results from GreatFire as a reference. --ShadowYC (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShadowYC: I just saw that it's apparently already featured in the list. I added some more refs I found to it. --Fixuture (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate some of your efforts on WannaCry cyber attack, but I think you need to take a closer look at the edit history of that page. I made about 20 edits to that page with edit summaries. I also marked down every problematic edit that I had reversed or changed in the talk page. The massive revert is from him. He reverted all of these edits with zero discussion. I reversed his massive revert. You mistakenly accused me of making a massive deletion without discussion. I did not. I made dozens of piecemeal changes, most of which have obvious rationale. If you have a problem with any of those separate 20 edits, I'd like to know.

Note that the version that I reverted to actually has expanded and updated sources compared to what you've reverted to. This is because I made a number of sourcing updates while fixing his issues. Again, all of these were reverted, by him, without explanation, in a single edit. Because he got offended that someone changed his writing. 73.61.20.20 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@73.61.20.20 and 73.61.20.253: I'm not getting that impression from going through the edit history. In fact it seems this edit was your first one which basically was a full revamp of the whole page. Also in the first subedit that makes up most of it you only called unspecified edits to be "amateurish/incorrect". Why would this be the case? I do not agree. They are WP:DUE and have WP:RS. That also goes for the content that I added and you removed there.

And of course you can add additional references or referenced content.

--Fixuture (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that latest edit is much better! Snori (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for editing me :-) Achapman102002 (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really like your work, but I think you are being a bit too decisive. Victuallers (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers: Glad you like it. Edits on Wikipedia are never as decisive as they might seem. They can easily be discussed and reverted depending what the counterarguments are. In particular here you argue that "Praguepedia" & "Odessapedia" & "Sayadapedia" should be featured in the "Projects" section of WP:SMARTCITY. However there isn't even a page on Wikipedia or meta.wikimedia for these projects. I'd consider an existent page an absolute minimum as inclusion criteria there (note that an image as the one on the right is not enough). --Fixuture (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep you were just being bold. Although a significant Wikipedia project in Ukrainian may not have a page because no one has written it in English. Wiki has rules that prevent interested Wikipedians from writing articles about their own projects. The number of wiki projects that have left a lasting mark on their city that they were based in are fairly rare.... Victuallers (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers: You could readd it if you find the project page in Ukrainian or for whatever other language any other projects are written in. (As of right now?) the inclusion criteria doesn't require them to be in English. --Fixuture (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I might agree with you that items are sometimes closed too early, you are not winning any friends by the way you have approached things at ITN. On a site operated by consensus, the most important skill is persuading others to your point of view. When your first nomination fails (and it seems pretty clear it would have failed, even if it had been left open for days), nominating it again under a different guise while accusing those who opposed it the first time of a cabal-ish bias is not going to win them over - prefacing the accusation with "I do try to and still do maintain good faith" only looks disingenuous, especially since one of those named didn't even comment on your earlier nomination (and certainly doesn't live in the USA). It's not a personal attack I'm going to block you for, but it's on the path to being one, and I think an admin who did block you for it would probably not come off too badly at block review. Then taking the whole thing to the talk page is, again, not a way to win friends.

I understand that your intentions here are good; I'm just trying to explain how it looks to someone who came across the discussion after the fact, and so how you've probably come across to the others involved in the discussion.

The way the nomination(s) were framed, I probably would have opposed them too. Next time you bring this sort of thing, rather than harp on the importance of the subject (which is probably a bit marginal, TBH - not the oceans, but the conference about them), it's worth trying to work in some of the less-commonly-used points in the purpose of ITN - such as showcasing quality wikipedia content on current events and pointing readers to subjects they might not be looking for but which might nonetheless interest them. Ocean health is an interesting and important subject and a well-written, balanced article that links in well with other content on the topic could well be posted at ITN on the basis that the conference is a current event with a quality article that is interesting to readers. Bringing a promotional, unencyclopaedic article with multiple maintenance tags, that needs heavy editing to get it up to scratch and that doesn't link in well with other articles about ocean health means you then have only depth of coverage and importance of the subject to argue with - and those opposing the nomination were pretty solid in their opposition on those grounds. I'm not promising future things here, just suggesting a strategy that might have more chance of success. Good luck. GoldenRing (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:

On a site operated by consensus, the most important skill is persuading others to your point of view.

Well the discussions were closed too quickly for that. Also my points were not followed upon and either dismissed/ignored or users weren't able to respond due to the early closure.

while accusing those who opposed it the first time of a cabal-ish bias is not going to win them over

This is probably true. I still felt compelled to also include this consideration of mine for the improvement and protection of the site. But it shouldn't be reason to dismiss all my other arguments. I probably shouldn't have written that there - keeping that to myself, formulating it better or a separate discussion elsewhere would have been more appropriate.

especially since one of those named didn't even comment on your earlier nomination

If you want to know the origin of this consideration of mine: it stems from engagement that hindered Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to be added to the ITN news section (neither as blurb nor as Ongoing) even though it was all over the news all over the world and was of obvious signficance. The ITN-section never featured that article.

It's not that important that one (or even some) of those doesn't come from the US. I even put a small "mainly?" before it to make it clearer.

Then taking the whole thing to the talk page is, again, not a way to win friends.

Why? Talk pages are for discussion so how could this be a problem? This is exactly what they're made for.

I'm not here to win friends but to improve Wikipedia.

I understand that your intentions here are good; I'm just trying to explain how it looks to someone who came across the discussion after the fact, and so how you've probably come across to the others involved in the discussion.

I see, thanks.

rather than harp on the importance of the subject (which is probably a bit marginal, TBH - not the oceans, but the conference about them)

But I didn't just do that. I also made some other points. I see your point and I addressed it in the description of the 2nd nomination.

Bringing a promotional, unencyclopaedic article with multiple maintenance tags, that needs heavy editing to get it up to scratch and that doesn't link in well with other articles about ocean health means you then have only depth of coverage and importance of the subject to argue with

I don't think it's a promotional, unencyclopaedic article that needs heavy editing. Why do you think it is? It works in important and relevant statements and facts which shouldn't make it "promotional". And it's all referenced and relevant so I don't see how it could be "unencyclopaedic". Why wouldn't it "link in well with other articles about ocean health"? My nomination on-point was that it's "global, highly notable news which got sufficient news coverage around the world and is more than appropriate here" with me asking for good arguments for why not to feature it.

those opposing the nomination were pretty solid in their opposition on those grounds

How that? I addressed their arguments in my 2nd nomination and based upon that I don't think they're solid.

Thanks for your help and comments.

I'll try to incorporate your suggestions in my future conduct on the site (as a sidenote there's one caveat: I don't have that much time).

--Fixuture (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixuture:

• First and foremost, allow me to preface this by acknowledging that I am a novice editor. You have several thousand more edits than I, and have made a far more substantial impact on this encyclopedia. I am a new editor who aspires to your level on the site, and so have immense respect for you.

I wish to formally apologise for closing the discussion on your nomination at In the News, as my doing-so appears to have disturbed and perturbed you. There is an argument to be made that I jumped the gun a shade in this action, and if you feel that it was unwarranted, I sincerely apologise. I was merely following procedure, and shutting down an unpopular suggestion in line with the rules of the forum.

You have repeatedly stated that there is systematic bias in the way things are dealt with in ITN, and seem to want change. While this is not a viewpoint which I share (I feel the status quo is the optimal manner of handling such a forum), I can understand your perspective. You are clearly passionate about climate change and stewardship of the environment, and I commend you for this passion. I myself endorse the idea that actions on ocean pollution are important, and the walls of my home are adorned with the Pale Blue Dot which you embedded in this article and the transcript of the Carl Sagan speech about said image.

I cannot speak for the intentions of the other editors, but I for one can comfortably state that I harbour no intentional bias against climate change and the topics therein, and I feel that they should be broadcast as loudly and widely as possible. None of my actions were made in a deliberate effort to silence you or your opinions on climate change. Nonetheless, a procedural UN conference does not warrant ITN attention, as it does not adhere to the (strict) qualifications set out for candidates. I opposed and closed on the grounds, established in WP:SNOW, that the item was lacking consensus and didn't have a chance of posting in ITN. It was not done as a power-grab, or consolidation of control, or deliberate bias against climate change. I was merely exercising my duty as an editor, a role I hope you can understand.

I hope that this message will help smooth what has been a terse and somewhat tense dialogue. We are all seeking to advance this communal project and construct a rigid and reliable online encyclopedia - we are all on the same side. I merely strive to dissuade your fears that there is a unit on ITN seeking to suppress others like yourself via bias, as this is not an accurate assessment of my contributions to the project, and I don't believe it reflects fairly upon the other editors who you have called out. I hope that this issue, to indulge in a horrible ocean-related pun, will pacify itself.

Sincerest apologies and regards. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply at the talk page entry there. --Fixuture (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stormy clouds: Oh well, seeing that it was closed as well I will reply here:

Thank you very much for the kind words!

but I for one can comfortably state that I harbour no intentional bias against climate change and the topics therein

I just would like to note that this wasn't the bias I was considering. Furthermore bias was not the (only?) issue I had with ITN (and I'm not sure it's biased): it's also suboptimality so to say.

None of my actions were made in a deliberate effort to silence you or your opinions on climate change.

I did not assume that and I didn't intend to comment about my "opinions on climate change" but wanted to have further discussion by which I could address arguments made and suggest potential changes and alike.

a procedural UN conference does not warrant ITN attention, as it does not adhere to the (strict) qualifications set out for candidates

I do not agree and think that's false. And even if that would be true I'd suggest some changes to these qualifications.

It was not done as a power-grab, or consolidation of control, or deliberate bias against climate change. I was merely exercising my duty as an editor, a role I hope you can understand.

I see.

Thanks for your elaborations. --Fixuture (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is not directly related to ITN, I am posting here instead. You seem to be under the impression that you have certain fundamental rights on Wikipedia. This is incorrect. Wikipedia is not an internet forum; nor is it a democratic society. Therefore, it is not a forum for unregulated free speech. When you register an account, you have a number of avenues available to you to improve the encyclopedia. Nominating items at ITN, and commenting on ITN, are two of these avenues. However, should your activity there be deemed a net negative by the community, the community can topic ban you from that space. The same holds true of any space, including ultimately your talk page. Continuing to argue what other folks see to be a lost cause is something the community does not look favorably upon, in general; hence my warning to you. I cannot prohibit you from making nominations, nor from arguing about them. But if you are seen as not dropping the stick, the community can, and possibly will, prohibit you from doing these things. You should be aware of that. Vanamonde (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Environmental Barnstar
		Hi, I'm the IP who suggested the blurb for your UN Ocean Conference nom that was eventually posted to ITN. I'd like to award this barnstar as a courtesy to recognize your efforts and perseverance despite a lack of initial popularity over the concept. 183.184.98.175 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fixature can you please check Grünbein, Durs Die Bars von Atlantis to see if it's any good to add as further reading or external link in the maritime science fiction articles. It's in a language that you speak, so you can decide best on that.

I think these drafts will be ready for publication in the next few months with the sources we have found and keep adding. But before we submit it, I want you, me, Randy Kryn, Mad Hatter and J 1982 to all agree that it's ready for publication. Even if it comes out as stub. Thanks Fixature.!--Taeyebar 20:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was imperative. A lot of the advice was already mentioned in a different and encyclopedic tone on the actual ransomware article, so I kept most of the sources but redistributed them into the existing wording. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your improvements to that section of the ransomware article. Simply moving it there as I did was indeed not appropriate; it had to be merged in better with the existing content. However, I'm not sure if it had an imperative tone - it started with "have been advised to" and listed the relevant advises. Such are information of high relevance and interest to the reader. Inclusion/removal of any specific advises can be decided upon via the usual wiki-ways of course. --Fixuture (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fixuture. It was my error that hid most of the "Wikipedia categories" which you restored. I am aware of my mistake and won't be repeating it. Thank you for your help.--John Cline (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; have a nice day. --Fixuture (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I see you're working on the global governance article. Having dealt a little with this article last month I realized that a lot of it comes from an essay with less-than-perfect uploaded by a single account in 2009 (see talk page comment which I made in the "Writing Style" section). Since you're interested in the topic, I'd like to know your opinion on where the article should ideally go and how much of an overhaul it needs. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I only noticed the subtle aspersions that you made regarding violations of the WP:PAID policy which may have occurred over at WP:ITN/C and the topic of the 2017 G20 Hamburg summit. I closed the original nomination due to a consensus against posting, and, as ever, inviting other editors to reverse the decision if it failed to adhere to WP:AGF. I honestly have no idea if you feel that I am a paid editor or not, so this message is entirely precautionary in nature. I have come to categorically, 100% dissuade any notions that I have engaged in paid editing of any kind on the site. I am a staunch opponent of such practices (to the point where I created a User-box to oppose them). My only aim in editing Wikipedia and engaging with ITN is to further the site as an encyclopedia, and it is a purely recreational activity for me.

I hope that this can dissuade your fears, and demonstrate that I have not engaged in paid editing on ITN/C or elsewhere, ever, on the site, nor will I. Apologies for bothering you. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	larsen c ice shelf fan
	thanks for the fracture photo :) melikamp (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Raw capitalism, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

EEng 18:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of video games featuring drones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Trivial information, "x in video games" is not a necessary, let alone informative. Largely unsourced, besides one IGN user submitted gameguide.

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. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Common concerns over mass surveillance, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Common concerns over mass surveillance".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of video games featuring drones 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/List of video games featuring drones 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. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bass music#Merge of Bass music and Future bass. - TheUser talk:120.147.37.23 17:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Infrastructure and technology development aid".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Controlled opposition".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Internet facilitated direct user-public figure interaction".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Information compression".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Algorithm hacking".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Instigation and support of revolutions by intelligence agencies".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [14] --Nemo 13:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economic, social and political strategies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Digital infrastructure, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Security of the Internet of things".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Linguist^unEins^uno 11:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biorobots in fiction, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Language progression".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fixuture,

I'm Ed Sussman. I noticed you added content to the article on Computer Security so I thought this topic might be of interest to you.

I am working with one of the leading computer security firms, AlienVault. We want to make some updates to the article and under Wikipedia policy, since we are the subject of the article, we need to ask an independent editor to review the changes. We can't just directly add them to the article.

Would you possibly have time to take a look? The proposed updates are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AlienVault&action=edit&section=3

Thanks BC1278 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fiction about the internet before the Internet".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 14:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit made by you was in July. Thus, I added you to the list of missing editors. Is there a cause behind your lapse? Just asking out of curiosity. Hope to see you return, so I can take your name back off. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fixuture, I came across the page you initiated related to global Government Digital Transformation initiatives. Since the Republic of Panama has had a 15 year commitment in this matter, now at a stage of our Digital Agenda PANAMA 4.0, we would like to add a contribution to this page in the format you have established for the other countries.

Look forward to your consent,

Irvin A. Halman Administrator General National Authority for Government Innovation (AIG) Republic of Panama www.innovacion.gob.pa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight012 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Progression of art".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Maritime science fiction".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of maritime science fiction works, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of maritime science fiction works and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:List of maritime science fiction works during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thanks for your postive mention of the GoogleTrans gadget in the content translation system. I've used to the feature to translate 230 french to english wiki articles. Most of the articles weren't difficult, being most often female French track athletes biops.

I think that machine translation has a place in wiki translation when appropriate (and often a lot of) postediting takes place to massage the machine text into something the public can understand, especially for easy to medium level difficulty articles.

However, Google translation has gotten better over the last several years.

I think that the Wikipedia is a power trip for some people, and for various reasons machine translation has gotten onto their target-screens. You're welcome to use the GoogleTrans gadget. When I last checked last month it was still working with the Content Translation system.

Endo999 (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greentext has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blockstack 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/Blockstack 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. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

• Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
• I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
  • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
• Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of maritime science fiction works".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Common concerns over mass surveillance".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedia-related websites, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedia-related websites and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedia-related websites during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed the link for UnitedStatesian (old link). ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 17:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Debate summary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Sports originating in the 2010s back to 1970s Hugo999 (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

• A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
• We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

• Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
• WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sports by decade of origin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fixuture. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of maritime science fiction works".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 15:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regulation by regulated region, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Lmatt (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pageview investigation board, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Pageview investigation board and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Pageview investigation board during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia investigations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Bsherr (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Robotic automation software—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Stonkaments (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional time periods 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. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Climate change in fiction has been nominated for merging. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels about sociopathy has been nominated for renaming over Category:Novels about psychopathy. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_7#Category:Novels_about_sociopathy. – Fayenatic London 20:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! NYC Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon! April 22nd!

Sure We Can and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to join us for: 2022 Earth Day Edit-a-thon 2pm - 4pm EST (April 22nd) online via Zoom and in person This Edit-a-Thon is part of a larger Earth Day celebration, hosted by Brooklyn based recycling and community center Sure We Can, that runs from 1PM-7PM and is open to the public! See this flyer for more information: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcGr4FyuqEa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

-- Environment of New York City Task Force

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neanderthals in fiction has been nominated for renaming. 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Memory in fiction has been nominated for renaming. 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels about war and conflict has been nominated for merging. 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cybernetted society in fiction has been nominated for renaming. 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of religious ideas in fantasy fiction, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious ideas in fantasy fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction about brain-to-brain communication has been nominated for merging. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social reputation in fiction has been nominated for merging. 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Smartglasses in fiction has been nominated for merging. 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 19 § Category:Multiple time paths in fiction on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reassessed this as C class. A class requires two impartial reviews. Schierbecker (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guerilla art and hacking art has been nominated for renaming to Category:Guerrilla art and hacking art. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]