User talk:Smilo Don

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Hello there. Long time no see. Thanks for your additions to the "revival" article. Nice to see them well sourced - not many people do. As long as we are not using the additions to advance a position, and are being completely neutral and not giving one point of view excessive attention, we will all be laughing, so to speak. This article is indeed long over due for work. --Merbabu (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my second comment about deletion over at the first article. The second article has problems also and needs a banner too... maybe WP:COI and makring for deletion also... I would look forward to your help and I am prepared to baby sit it and do the work for you. Regards Mattjs (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are in Java at the moment? SatuSuro 05:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My wife indeed got the last one mentioned - not a pleasant experience (her doctor friends literally ran away from her - they didnt want the blame if she died :) - you are gonna have to put up with me giving you a really hard time on the articles - I am increasingly short on areas that have 'notions' rather than events - so you better be big and take it in good faith, as the indonesian project is increasingly looking like a vast collection of stubs and list of lists with red links (indonesan speakers with sedikit inggeris tambah tambahan setiap hari) and my re-working some arts that I have done is about to start again - so gird your sarong (?) and find a cite or put up - as for pushing my mate merle off a page - show me a foreigner with 40 years experience of central java who can outdo him and i'll listen with interest - seeing you are not identifying where you are - enjoy the afternoon rain - :) SatuSuro 06:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite concerned that the generalisations in the 'awakening' article are no where near the historical reality - however my tracking down cites means there will be some delay before I am prepared to comment on the issues there SatuSuro 01:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are stuck somewhere in java with a copy of vickers? I am sure poor adrian wouldnt like the exposure in that way - using one source (like using only one like ricklefs for a whole article) smells of all the same criticisms you have of Indonesia at the best of times - I am sure you are not a monomaniac - but it sure looks like it when you stack one author for a whole article? And to use a balinese specialist for an article about golkar smells even weirder SatuSuro 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to echoing New Years Day's comments above, my uninvited suggestion is to maybe show a tad more care on occasion in how you use a source. Simply adding a cite to an author's POV still makes it a POV, whether quoted or paraphrased. While Vickers is an esteemed expert (particularly on Bali) and the book in questions is excellent (I've used it myself a fair bit in wikipedia), it is loaded with a lot of opinion and one-sidedness. While these are indeed very reasonable opinions and sides, they are still opinions and view points and thus needed to be handled very carefully; perhaps a tad more carefully than you have in some places. Remember, wikipedia (unlike Vickers, or whoever) is not here to put forward a position, rather fact. It's not an essay or argument.

Also, you may want to be careful about simply copying the text out almost word for word. I know myself it's sometimes hard not too and not sound awkward, but its a serious copyright issue. I've noticed these issues over a few articles of late. regards --Merbabu (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having met adrian at a conference and having read most of his stuff in rima over the decades I will wonder about your response rather than reply to it - here we are once again stuck in java with a single book again - if you have the more obscure stuff maybe you should try some new arts we can have a look at and enjoy and perhaps comment on as well.

The thing is if, lets say for example sake just if you have read some of the ethnographers work of the last thirty years, you might realise that the javanese and the ethnographers have had as an interesting time as the balinese and their interlopers (there is nothing on wikipedia yet about the anthros and their experience of bali over time) (one is always cognisant of the larsen far side cartoon with the natives calling out - quick move the tv out the anthropologist is coming) to accept any one secondary source as a main source is fraught with issues - so i really dont think despite your assertion to merbabu and i - anywhere near off the hook yet - I'd say dig up your obscure texts and give us a go - I am not convinced yet at all - SatuSuro 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SBY and presidency - so do it - noting what and how the project has coped with sukarno and suharto and their various mens of mucking about over time - you have a precedent - remember to keep to V and RS otherwise it will get a lot of flack - no just using one source though - leaders in the lovely place that you are in are tantamount to be either saints or living gods so when you start tampering with their icons and their descriptions expect no mercy SatuSuro 08:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For heavens sake are you a deadhead hippie, totally lost academic or a misguided american tourist accidentally in Java dying of dengue? - please I do not use even half the lingo you are throwing at me - (1) I do not agree with your assertions that you can do what you like from one source - regardless of whether it expands an article (2) I had suggested you try what you claim are books of things more obscure (3) I am about to go off for at least 5 hours so will not be responding to any replies to this (4) If you want to try to do something for the WP Indonesia english project - either start new articles that dont exist yet - it would be more interesting than to have to cope with what is happening at the moment SatuSuro 08:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, i think you missed my point (or was it that I missed yours?). No one is doubting Vickers as a reliable source. As I said, I've used it a lot on WP and will most likely continue to do so. It is the way it is being used on occasion, not that it is used. Just because its sourced, doesn't automatically make it WP material. I think enough explanation has been given, maybe the explanations just needs to be reviewed. LP usage is another issue, that's been discussed before. No-one's pretending it's ideal, but it nothing provided was a disaster (to my knowledge), and it has had it's (very good) uses which made significant improvements, not panaceas.

Also, no need to spread a conversation over 3 user pages. Just use this page. Don't worry, it will be checked. :-)

PS, who said anything about an "ivory tower"? Experienced editor's know to take other editor's pronouncements of their background with a grain of salt. (and that's with or without evidence that undermines such pronouncements). --Merbabu (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Merbabu. I think we're good. My block Vickers block quote on Pertamina was hasty and sloppy, and I think you edited it properly. I do think that on, say, Pertamina, it's vital to detail its history at the center of Indonesia's biggest ever financial scandal--it is one of INdonesia's most significant fiscal events of all time (hard for us 1st worlders to appreciate, as our nation's are more capable of absorbing/). And similarly, I think Golkar needs to have stuff on thuggery and the like. It's a part of Golkar's history, whatever one feels about it.

I guess I agree too about LP: one uses what decent sources one has at hand... if others come forward with better sources, than so much the better. Putting some Vickers down is helps in the short run, at least, particularly on an un-ref'd, poorly written article like Golkar. I think I helped get that piece out of the ditch.

I guess my final thought, before I grab some take-out and head home, is that you might have some more faith in my edits in terms of POV. With articles like Pertamina and Golkar, corruption isn't POV-pushing, it's basic to the history, right? If I understand you correctly, you might agree with that, provided the form/citations/style are proper. I just haven't heard you agree that, in these two cases, corruption is a basic to the history. So, for my taste, you might say "true about KKN, but bad quote chosen" or something like that. Anyway, have a nice evening. Smilo Don (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to read the revert, as no doubt your curiosity will lead you to it.

Wikipedia thrives on the potential of a cooperative community and the potential and promises that good negotiations skills can create - I am prepared to leave you alone on your odd language usage and your irregularities from correct WP principles. However...

(1) as for asking Merbabu whether your usage of a single source is ok with him - he is not the final arbiter in the matter at all - correct MOS of WP English is that we use various sources and we make every effort not to rely on any one source - it is a community based standard - not one editors

You have no idea about what I personally know or dont know about Java - please do not make any fanciful assumptions - just get on with editing and help make wikipedia a better place.

I will endevour to not try what is obvious alien sense of humour with you at all again - it clearly misses the mark.

Best of luck - I genuinely wanted to see if you were going to do with your more obscure books texts you said you had - but SatuSuro 13:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. However, assuming that the older sentence "He also studied at the University of Tashkent for a time." is correct, then I'd take for granted that it actually refered to KUTV. --Soman (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smilo,

You are correct in your assertions that a WP entry is not supposed to be a "puff piece". That said, from what I've read, articles are to remain neutral, Giving "equal validity". As opposed to editing an article with a fair and balanced intention, it appears as though you are only interested in citing negative publicity with the intent to harm.

Your postings have been strictly negative material including irrelevant and false accusations of the subject. Furthermore, you purposely deleted citations of favorable press, including a new york times article related to a significant event in the subjects history. Perhaps you can cite the good stuff as well? When you cite that someone has a felony, and lump it in with allegations that had already been deemed by a court of law to be untrue, it can confuse a reader. The one and only conviction of Mr. Guterman was for violating the "selective service" laws as a 20yr old in protest of Vietnam. There is no issue with the truth being told, including the sections with regards to the subjects financial struggles. I actually believe in this case that it tells an interesting story of perseverance even in a "perfect storm" type situation. there is an issue however with it being told in a slanted way.

As a noob to wikipedia, I am learning the process and apologize ahead of time for any unintentional violations if i had any at all. In making my edits to different sections, I think i missed most of the edit summaries etc. I think you will find that the vast majority of your additions and edits were left in, some reformatted and i also added wiki formatting to the page. I think? :-/ Or at least I tried to do it correctly.

Please let me know if there's anything i can do to better follow guidelines to edits etc. I will be more than happy to listen to constructive criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So where is your reasoning apart from edit summary? SatuSuro 08:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on the IndoProject page... Merbabu approved, no one else commented... Your thoughts? Smilo Don (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me where I approved? --Merbabu (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies i simply saw the move - at this stage too many threads to even comprehend/read the noticebard that if it has been discussed - I just hope there is adequate redirects and or in article explanation of the various labels given to the era - I personally prefer to not give it to a rulers name - I'd be for the less specific reformasi - but as long as you have a good redirect or two and a brief mention I have no serious problem with it - but id never put it like that myself - however viva la whatever SatuSuro 08:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. As I noted, I really, really don't want to "tar" the present with Suharto's name, but "reformasi" is a real stretch. Maybe a better title could be found?? Smilo Don (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i would encourage that if there is any possibility whatsoever - it truly is post suhrto - his configurations of power and patronage were slipping even in the mid 90's from my on ground prespective - there was something else happening that wasnt reliant upon his smiling portraits from the ranch (yes ranch) - but hey scratching brain as to which term is better at this point - ill think about it - SatuSuro 08:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Much of the oligarchy is preserved, though. But a shame to overlook real reforms! A superior title is a must. The Indo collective can and will come up with something better, I'm sure. Smilo Don (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think the talk pages of articles that you have cut and pasted from need s small comments as to where stuff went
2. Barton is over used - and is not properly cited first in the refs
3. The article is too long and needs either editing or parts taken off to sub articles
4. The title is atrocious - we gotta do something than sooner than later

probably will think of more later SatuSuro 09:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thnks for that I hope you appreciate if we get knocked over by a wayward piece of space junk tommorow - our successors will in turn realise what we were doing (in most cases) SatuSuro 09:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most edits seem fair enough - i gonna revert your cleanup abut Merapi though - are you in java or mongolia - Merapi erupts are very auspiscious for at least 50% of the population SatuSuro 10:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smilo,

I undid your recent "reworkings" of the Guterman bio page. While I am a "noob" I am also able to interpret Wiki guidelines with a relatively decent understanding of certain topics. I also discussed my previous edits in the open guterman discussion forum as I was told to do by wiki editors. I did not see any response my to my particular edits on the discussion page and am therefor puzzled that these items were then included again in your edits without rebuttal on the discussion page. Further, potentially harmful or libelous material is (according to wiki guidelines) supposed to be pulled immediately,THEN discussed not the other way around. Rather than keep going back and forth, lets discuss these issues ONE AT A TIME prior to making edits, and get opinions from the editors prior to posting. I'm not interested in getting into a meaningless edit war, I assure you. But this topic is apparently of interest to you and I so lets do it right and avoid unpleasantries. Best Regards NHB5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion of recent editing on Gerald Guterman taking place on my Talk page, at User talk:EdJohnston#Gerald Guterman, if you care to give your opinion there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally:

WBLP: HARM

I pulled this section from the above referenced guidlines:

"In some cases, there is some question as to whether a particular piece of information is public or nonpublic, e.g. where it has been published in reliable sources, but it is doubtful whether it belongs in an article. In such cases, the potential harm to the subject should be taken into account; an inclusion test can be applied in these instances."

I find that the inclusion of the subjects "felony" is completely irrelevant and potentially harmful. I find the subjects career is of importance in the bio and NOT a felony charged received as a 20 year old for selective service violation. This was not widely publicized, and only mentioned as a side note in an article regarding a report.

In the event that an editor would find this information relevant and not harmful, would you agree that it should be given the appropriate context as to what the actual felony was about and not lumped into a context with other false allegations that may confuse a reader?

Best Regards, NHB5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smilo. While the sentiment expressed in your edit summary is good, you have not yet taken your own advice. You've never posted anything to Talk:Gerald Guterman. Do you remember saying, 'From now on each edit needs to visit the Talk page?' Doesn't that apply to you? It would help get the dispute resolved if you would share your thinking there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smilo - I agree with EdJohnston up above. While I understand your concern - and no one likes constant reverts - NetHistoryBuff makes points for those reverts (falling under BLP), and you have to talk with him about the legitimacy of his arguments on the article's talk page. It's just the standard wiki-practice :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you checked my userpage before asking me to mediate in the dispute? :S I retired some time ago :S Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more protocol - please place items on the talk page of both of the articles - edit summaries are not enough - someone not sure of what you are doing will consider potential vandalism issues SatuSuro 06:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anda, Are you living in France? Do you visit Java from time to time? I'm staying here, and would like to meet if you happen through. Smilo Don (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Smilo, yes, I live in Paris. I see you have created the Joesoef Isak article. I met him in Paris during an Indonesian literature event organised by a French association, Pasar Malam (no connection with the Dutch one). Indonesia needs people like him! Djoehana (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment: [1]. Please try to defuse the situation and come to a compromise with the other user involved. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 17:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smilo, lets move forward and discuss your additions to the article. I'm more than willing to work with you here. In an effort to resolve this dispute, lets work together 1 edit at a time and see if we can come up with something reasonable that keeps the article in a neutral perspective. Does that sound good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable to warn NHB5 with a "uw-coi"?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 19:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Michael Pollan,, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Michael Pollan, is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Michael Pollan,, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you have some time can you help out here? The article was a total train wreck and I made major revisions. The previous version had some material from Raymond Williams in it, but all jumbled up with anthropology and cultural studies was not named as a distinct approach or set of approaches. I deleted redundancies and fringe views and reorganized the rest so that distinct approaches were clear. That said, I am pretty weak on cultural studies. So I made a place in the article for it, but what I wrote could be off and is surely incomplete (my strength is in anthropology). I'd appreciate it if you could look at it soon and flesh out the differences between how anthropology and cultural studies understand and look at culture, clarify anything I muddled, and correct any mistakes. I do not think this article should replace the articles on cultural anthropology or on cultural studies, but I do think these disciplines provide important contexts for explaining different approaches to culture. (also, I stuck to basics ... I did not go into the most recent approaches, and this is another area in which the article needs work) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it on the OUCC page, thought it'd look good there :) HiraV (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I'll add ifo about them to the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert this moving. You can't move an article like this one and don't even fix all the related links... Even E3 (disambiguation) has now broken links... 83.79.164.16 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most links now fixed. This is a very important move. Huge confusion for E3. Just a few more video games with broken links. Cheers, --Smilo Don (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was right, you should not have moved the article without discussion. That was a controversial move and the consensus on the talk page was to have it at E3. I have started the process to have it moved back. TJ Spyke 18:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new photo to the whitehouse page, replacing the old one on commons. Do you know how I can edit the page so that I'm accredited as the photographer and the author? HiraV (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this question here. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2004 Ronde van Vlaanderen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JCutter (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the non-top ten results, I'll pay attention to the cycling project page from now on, I didn't know it existed. Malo0178 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please go make your opinions known, if you'd like to help the consensus-building effort. As the page name should indicate, this is but the first of several planned style guides that, should they reach consensus, will be moved to the Wikipedia namespace and considered officially endorsed by WP:CYC. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 10:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the next. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 08:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One unanswered question on this page: the formation of gold. On National Geographic ("Journey to the End of the Universe") they said that complex elements, such as gold, were formed in the death of supernovas... that all gold on Earth ultimately came from these cauldrons. I.e., that gold did not form on Earth. News to me! If anyone can add a section on the geological birth of gold, it would be most helpful. --Smilo Don (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth and Sun formed from dust (made and blown out by supernovas) and the gold was in the dust. Every element from carbon (number 6) and heavier, was made in supernovas. Blown into space as dust, it collected into our present solar system, where most of became our Sun, and the rest became planets. Metals in the planets, from sodium to gold to uranium, are from previous supernovas in this area. See nucleogenesis. I'll add a line to the article if it doesn't have one. SBHarris 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smilo Don! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 964 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Wolfgang Fritz Haug - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Gary Witherspoon - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You better source these soon, or they will be put up for deletion. :( Okip 05:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article you contributed too, Little Eichmanns is now up for deletion, you are welcome to comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Eichmanns Okip 05:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Indonesia portal. Since you had some involvement with the Indonesia portal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 03:47, 30 September 2014 (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) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So is the presumption in favor of the person adding content to biographies? You've continued to restore your content and relied on others to justify removal, rather than the reverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BringthePaine (talk • contribs) 16:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know I posted on WP:RSN to discuss the reliability of Vote Smart here. Feel free to respond there. Meatsgains (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fashion mogul Michael Ball. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 10#Fashion mogul Michael Ball until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jaden McDaniels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Ringer. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anti-colonial and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 18#Anti-colonial until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]