User talk:Qui1che

Due to personal issues, Qui1che will be away from Wikipedia for an undefined period of time.

Welcome!

Hello Qui1che, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Shimgray 16:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on the renaming certain Sturgeon River articles and the disambiguation page for Sturgeon River -- and the incidental introduction to the WP Rivers project for this author. Question: could it make more sense to rename Sturgeon River (Manitoba) to Sturgeon River (Echoing River)? The river is mostly in Ontario, so Manitoba doesn't seem quite correct; however, it is a tributary of the Echoing River, of which there is only one in Canada (per the Atlas of Canada), so Sturgeon River (Echoing River) would be unique. papageno 03:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My reason for naming it Sturgeon River (Manitoba) is that its mouth is in Manitoba, and moreover, a search on Geographical Names of Canada shows that this is the only Sturgeon River in that province. Regardless, I don't mind either way... -- P199 15:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Qui1che! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have been identified as having added or removed direct external map service links in articles[1]. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Issues with inclusion or exclusion of map service links about which should be done, and some more opinions would be good to find community consensus. --Para (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three images you're trying to place in Fehmarn Sound Bridge, only one is on Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons and thus available on the English Wikipedia. The other two are present on the German Wikipedia only. Since all the images involved are freely licensed, you should be able to move them to Commons so they are available on other projects, including the English 'pedia. Algebraist 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Qui1che for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. CleanUpX (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qui1che, I see that you do have a point in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Qui1che. Do not worry, if I have wrongly accused you, I will make a formal apology on your talk page and on Wi-Fi talk page. In the meantime, we should work toward finding out the real culprit who may have potentially tried to frame you. If you refer to the Wi-Fi talk page, another open proxy is creating havoc there. CleanUpX (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CleanUpX (talk). I appreciate your comments and your offer. You will forgive me if I complete the reply to the original sockpuppetry case, which I will attend to later today; I feel it is required. I would view it as an act of kindness on your part if you were to add the same comments and offer you have made here to the sockpuppetry case page, if that is possible technically.

If you wish to pursue an investigation of the other mystery IP address users, please feel free to do so (you don’t need my approval, of course!). While I will be happy to supply any facts that you might otherwise be unable to gather directly in support of such a pursuit, pursuing the case is not my interest. Rather, I would like to get one with reviewing the content that for the Wireless electronic devices and health article and suggesting and reviewing changes to the content on that article’s talk page. papageno (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the same comments in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Qui1che. I have a few questions here for you. Since when did you get to know RDOlivaw? Do you think his edits have always been neutral? Do you think he has always been trying to enforce his POV and suppress views to the contrary? Were you shocked when you learnt that he was using multiple accounts abusively? CleanUpX (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know user RDOlivaw. He or she was active on several health and technology pages. I am sure you can check the contribution logs for the user to figure out where and when the user was active. As to your other questions, I respectfully decline to address them. papageno (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been very absent from working on any Wiki content recently, and just got pulled back after I was informed about some ad-hominem attacks thrown my way on the WiFi talk page. Ended up having a quick look around EMF related pages to catch up a bit, and just wanted to say thanks and congratulations for some serious amount of work you seem to have been putting in. Some really well written and balanced material Topazg (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, didn't know it existed. Good to know _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 05:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see more discussion at User_talk:Travellingcari#Convert_Template --papageno (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Over on the renamed electromagnetic hypersensitivity article we're trying to find a few more sources for various things (specifically psychological aspects and claims/inferences of a psychosomatic explanation). Also, I'd like to discuss updating the external links section; a report from 1995 seems less credible than many of the references we already have. I'd suggest putting the Rubin Review there, and anything you might be able to suggest? You seem a dab hand with these kind of references, so I thought I'd come to you. Thanks for your input so far. Verbal chat 16:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme|Geobox2 Template - River - coordinate parameters}} I require help with using the coordinate parameters in the Geobox2 river template. Please see talk page entry. --papageno (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to ask at the Help desk, or wait for someone to answer your question on the template talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TenPoundHammer for your kind reply, but I had already been to that page and took its recommendation to put {{helpme}} on my talk page, so it seems I'm going around in circles. :-) Since it has been two weeks without reply on the Geobox talk page, I'd like to reinstate in order to try and get an answer to the question, which is what I received last time I used helpme. --papageno (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's going to help any more this time. No one in #wikipedia-en-help knows anything about templates. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer, I give you full marks for speed of reply and candid talk! Thanks for the advice; will head to the Help Desk. --papageno (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mornin'... I get what your are trying to do with _type... and it is clear that you are just as familiar with Geobox as I am (or more so). I think if two of us were hacking on it we'd have a better chance of success. However, the problem is I don't know what you want the display to look like. What do you want the final output to look like for the parameter in question? (I ask because, without a super-deep understanding of how the parameter passing works for the template, one needs to know the desired outcome if one is going to try and brute force a result.) Cheers, —Noah 16:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have found the answer. See update back at the Helpdesk query. I think the Template:Geobox/legend#Coordinates section will need to be updated to read (bold = my additions) "For every location type which can be described in coordinates, there exist two additional fields

_coordinates_type (named coordinates_type for the main location), which can contain any paramteres…"--papageno (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah-ha! Nicely done. I see you made the change. —Noah 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah, can you make the suggestion about updating the text on the Template:Geobox/legend#Coordinates page section? I think someone involved with the Geobox template should check it over. I suspect the change does work for all instances, but maybe we just got lucky and it works with mouth and source for rivers only.--papageno (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the help with parameter labeling in Geobox. --Bejnar (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought you might be interested in this ongoing BRFA and lend any insight. Cheers, –xeno^talk 00:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have this on your watch list. The vandals and the prostitutes will be back. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Awarded to Qui1che for your tireless repetitive edits, especially in coordinates and references. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		I'm in a "giving" mood: this one is for the same edits, most of which are invisible to the article but add value. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after seeing one of your articles at newpage patrol, I was surprised to see that an editor who has contributed quite so many articles as you hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thank you for your fine work on the citations in Mobile phone radiation and health‎ which has improved the quality of the article. -Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 09:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Arnold River (New Zealand), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Arnold River. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the then existing page Arnold River was copied deliberately to a new page Arnold River (New Zealand), so that the Arnold River page could be converted to a disambiguation page. Edit summaries at both pages document the changes and reasons therefore. The split second delay between the creation of the new and conversion of the existing page allowed the bot to find a similarity. --papageno (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated West Highland Creek, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Highland Creek. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:53, 28 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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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) 23:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make that request, that'd be great! :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 14:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll see what I can do. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did about 20-25. I'll rollback the rest tonight. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 15:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I believe I got them all. If I didn't, let me know. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Helpme}} Request help in writing the correct code three fields in a template. The code will ultimately go into {{Infobox Canada electoral district}}. I am wishing to add the fields coordinates, coordinates_caption, and coordinates_date to the existing Infobox code. If you actually go to the Infobox Canada electoral district page code, you will see that I thought I had everything right and had added the code, but it did not degrade gracefully when the parameters were missing. I've commented it out for now (although I did not revert the documentation). Back to testing!
The test template is in my sandbox at User:Qui1che/Sandbox/Template:Infobox Canada electoral district Test. An implementation of it is also in my sandbox at Sandbox#Test_of_Infobox_Canada_electoral_district_Test.--papageno (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made an example page, to give the basic idea; I made User:Qui1che/if which contains just this;

START {{#if: {{{myparameter|}}} | {{{myparameter}} | }} END

If I put just {{User:Qui1che/if}} it displays: START END

If I put {{User:Qui1che/if|myparameter=foo}} it displays: START foo END

In other words...if the parameter called "myparameter" is set to something, it displays it; otherwise, it displays nothing.

I hope that will at least point you in the right direction; beyond that, I suggest looking at mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions, mw:Help:Parser_functions_in_templates and/or use Wikipedia:Requested templates.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Street (Toronto) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the mess you are making with Temagami township articles. The townships are not known as "XXXX, Ontario". The proper terminology is "XXXX Township". These are not names of communities. Instead, they are geographic townships are used for geographic purposes, such as land surveying. They should be moved back to their original titles. Volcanoguy 04:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. There was no intention to create a mess. I know there are townships in Ontario with the format "XXXX, Ontario", for example Limerick, Ontario and Wollaston, Ontario to name just two. I can see that there are also many in the Category:Townships of Ontario with the format "XXXX Township", though a quick skim suggest they are for the most part historic or defunct entities. I do agree that the "XXXX Township" should prevail when there is a risk of confusion between a place named "ABC" and a township named "ABC". I am not certain it should prevail over Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Canada-related_articles)#Places; on the other hand, are geographic townships "places"? The Geographic Names Board database seems to classify them as a "Geographical area". Do you know if there is a consensus that has been reached on township naming, or geographic township naming via a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board? As an aside, are the geographic townships a legal entity of the municipality (in this case Temagami) or the county or district (in this case Nipissing District)? If the latter, if further clarity were needed in a name, the format should be "XXXX (Township), Nipissing".

In the meantime, I promise not to make any more moves; I will just added content to the articles as they are named. Thanks again. --papageno (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Well, the common usage is "XXXX Township" for these areas though as far as I am aware of. Whenever I do geographic/geologic research in the Temagami area they are almost always known as "XXXX Township". I moved them back for this reason (WP:AT). Places like Limerick, Ontario though seem like municipalities but the Temagami townships (e.g. Strathy, Strathcona, Chambers) are not. It's confusing I know. The Geographic Names Board database discribes the Temagami townships as "geographical areas" because that's what they are. I do remember reading something (guideline?) that geographic articles are titled "XXXX (Ontario)" whereas communities are titled "XXXX, Ontario". This is why I named townships like Chambers "Chambers Township (Temagami)" insted of "Chambers Township, Temagami". Geographic townships may or may not cover the same jurisdictional area of a community township. In Temagami's case, geographic townships like Strathy, Chambers, Strathcona and others are within the municipal boundaries of Temagami. Volcanoguy 06:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was writing another verbose comment and got the edit conflict message as you beat me to the punch with your addition just above. DOH! OK, well back to the drawing board…

I thought about it some more, and I agree: geographic townships should be "XXXX Township". Almost all in the Category:Townships of Ontario are in that format or "XXXX Township, Ontario", and, even if they were formally active and now defunct, that counts as a geographic township too. The other townships I cited like Limerick and Wollaston in the format "XXXX, Ontario" are in the different Category:Township municipalities in Ontario.

While you are correct, that geographic features take the format "XXXX (region/district etc), I think I would argue that geographic townships are more places like towns rather than features like rivers, lakes or mountains. I am not sure I could give you a deep rationale on that. One could point out that all the townships in the Category:Township municipalities in Ontario seem to follow the place pattern rather than the feature pattern. I would thus arguve that Chambers Township (Temagami) should be changed to at least "Chambers Township, Temagami" and better to "Chambers Township, Ontario"; there is only one township named Chambers in Ontario, so the ", Ontario" precision is sufficient, and I believe the rule of thumb is to use the top level precision or minimum precision required. It also seems to match the nomenclature format of the vast majority of townships in the Category list. Any other townships with "(Temagami)" or ", Temagami" precision should be changed to ", Ontario", unless we can find via Geonames another township in Ontario with the same name, in which case I would go one more level down in precision to the district, in this case thus using ", Nipissing District".

I am not quite certain why you seem to have reverted some other changes. For example, a series of references have been moved to External links. However, the items are required to verify content in the article; for example, the Geonames item certifies there is such a place as well as the coordinates and district & province. The Wildlife map gives the surrounding townships. Thus, they are references and not links for more information. If you are uncomfortable with them as general references and would prefer them inline — which I agree is better practice — I am sure we could work out where to place them inline. I also note you changed the township link back to Township from Township (Canada)#Ontario; why not use the main article about townships in Canada and direct the user to the Ontario section? You have also reverted back in some cases to the term "geographical township". I believe the correct term is "geographic township". In addition, do we need to specify in the article about the township that geographic townships are used in surveying and mining? I guess it can't hurt, but that information is provided in the Township (Canada) article Ontario section. Sorry for a long posting. It's also late here so I will need to sign off for now and comment on any replies tomorrow. Best regards.--papageno (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't realize you piped "township" to Township (Canada), which is why I removed them. Same for "geographic township". Because it is correct I piped "township" back to "Township (Canada)#Ontario". This discussion is sounding a bit like User:Skookum1's many comments about BC's regional districts and BC's geography. Even though geographic townships are not features such as rivers and mountains, they still have more to do with geography than towns. You are missing the point that geographic townships are for geographic purposes, not politics. The Geographic Names Board database discribes the Temagami townships as "geographical areas". Geographic areas/regions use "XXXX (XXXX)", as in Empty Quarter (North America). So I still think the titles should be "XXXX Township (Ontario)". I removed the Wildlife map because there is really no need for it. There is a map that shows the geographic townships in the Falconbridge Limited Exploration: Geology of the Lecky Property Assessment Report source I added when I created their articles. As for the other references you added, I just didn't think they were necessary in the "References" section; I will fix that problem. I mentioned that the Temagami townships are used for land surveying and natural resource explorations in their articles because most articles that link to them have stuff to do with Earth sentences (i.e. geography and geology). Thus, someone reading one of Temagami's Earth science articles (e.g. Temagami greenstone belt) are more likely to see the Temagami township articles insted of the Township (Canada) article and wonder what they are used for. Also, the Temagami area has a long history of mining and surveying. There should probably be a Category:Geographic townships of Ontario since there is enough geographic township articles created. Volcanoguy 08:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From comparing the Falconbridge Limited Exploration: Geology of the Lecky Property Assessment Report and Wildlife maps, the Wildlife map is better. So I have replaced the Lecky Property Assessment Report source with the Wildlife one. Volcanoguy 09:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Volcanoguy 00:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

←Re-start indent
Re the content of the articles: take your points, and that aspect is closed. Continue the discussion about the nomenclature at the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board; thanks for starting things off there.--papageno (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudu ^~I/O~ 17:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Qui1che! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could add anything to this article. A photo is possible because I live not too far away from it. Volcanoguy 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ACR lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Bob Hunter Memorial Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rouge River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Politics of Liechtenstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patriotic Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

Hi. When you recently edited Minago River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moon Lake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Moore_Creek_(Nipissing_District) the article states that the western branch of the Moore picks up a part of Papineu creek. I do not believe this is correct, the Papineu flows out of a different set of lakes and marshes than the Moore. Where did this info come from? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it was based on reading topographic maps available on-line at the time, or it may have been faulty on my part. As well, there have been new on-line top maps introduced since, and it is pretty clear that Papineau Creek is not a tributary! I will amend the article in a moment. Thanks for having caught this. --papageno (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited York River (Ontario), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madawaska River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parry Sound High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panther (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy 20:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of low-radiation smartphones. Since you had some involvement with the List of low-radiation smartphones redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ivanvector (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In early December I found an article you created called Summit Lakes (Ontario). I added Category:Lakes of Temagami and Temagami as the location in the infobox since it appears to be inside the municipal boundaries. I am just wondering how many lake articles you have created that could be added as well. Volcanoguy 03:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I really have no idea how many articles I may have authored or helped to author that are in the Temagami area. If I come across one I will try and update the category with the more accurate one you have kindly created. --papageno (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qui1che. I've been doing a bit of disambiguation work, and i've run across a few articles where you seem to have confused the 19th century for the 20th. Without intending to be patronising, i feel i ought to just check that you do remember the 19th ran from 1801 to 1900 and the 20th from 1901 to 2000, right? If i show you a couple of the corrections i've made you'll probably see the reason for my concern: I was making clear which Hudson Bay Railway was meant here and here and here and perhaps a few others i haven't bothered to note. I wonder if you may know of any other places in your contributions with this error, so we can track 'em down and correct them? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having caught this, Lindsay. I do know the difference in centuries, but apparently, not on the days I was adding to the articles you discovered! Since I am mostly active in Ontario articles, I hope it is only a few Manitoba articles related to the railway to Churchill where the problem crops up. The best way to check is I think using the category Northern Region, Manitoba. --papageno (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent contribution to the rivers and lakes of Canada. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rouge-Matawin Wildlife Reserve 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:

• under the administrative regions of [[Lanaudière]] and [[Laurentides]]. In addition to the[Mont-Tremblant National Park, the Rouge-Matawin Wildlife Reserve is bordered by [[Controlled Zone|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2014 (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 Rokkasho, Aomori 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) 00:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You greatly expanded this article in 2011 and changed its name in the process. It used to be CNoR but then was expanded to Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Federal Bridge. Well those are two different companies, and the "Ontario" part only applied to a line running out of Toronto - the lower-case "o" in CNoR referred to "of", not "Ontario". I think it's highly unlikely this bridge in the Ottawa area had "Ontario" in the name, but I could be wrong. Do you have any way to check? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, thanks. I honestly don't remember what made me use presisely that title four years ago. However, what you say—with a cursory check on my part—does seem to make sense. Do you want to perhaps propose it on the article's talk page, and perhaps at the Canada Canadian Wikipedians' notice board - Requested moves, mergers and splits? Sorry, you are an experienced editor so I didn't need to say that! --papageno (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't think of either. I've written on a few public forums, we'll see what that turns up. So far it looks like the move is correct and I'm wrong; the line I'm thinking of appears to be the CNoR,JBRy, and does not appear to have been called the Ontario anything! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's confirmed, I'm wrong. The line in question definitely did have "Ontario" in it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know. Thank you too for the courteous handling of the matter. --papageno (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kemptville Creek

added a link pointing to Augusta

North Augusta, Ontario

added a link pointing to Augusta

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 15 July 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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created this earlier this month but still lots of work to be done on it. Volcanoguy 11:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geobox locator Alberta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent edit to Arran–Elderslie. You do a lot of edits to Canadian geographic articles. Do you feel it is helpful to add the province to the article name (eg. Arran–Elderslie, Ontario), or is it easier for the readers of Wikipedia not to have the province attached. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Qui1che,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

1. Technical Naval Museum at La Spezia
2. Thomas Gaitanides

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Humffray River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Riley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qui1che, I was impressed that you are using so many pretty images in about me page. (examples: icons of Userbox) Would you be able to let me know where did you find it on Wikipedia? Goodtiming8871 (talk)

You can find the information at Wikipedia:Userboxes. --papageno (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qui1che, Thank you for your kind response.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to let me know your opinion of the reference below regarding requirement to WP:MEDRS? Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers: prospective study ^[1]

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to capture completed resolutions of duplicate articles created in good faith by Lsjbot at Cebuano Wikipedia and Swedish Wikipedia arising from geographical features straddling provincial boundaries in Canada.

Name	WP Language	Merge Request (merge from→merge into)	Corresponding Wikidata entitites (merge from→merge into)	WP English article	Request location	Request date	Completed	Completion date	Completed by
Roderick Lake on the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border	Cebuano	w:ceb:Roderick Lake (lanaw sa Canada, Manitoba)→w:ceb:Roderick Lake (lanaw sa Canada, Saskatchewan)	d:Q22457945→d:Q22457983	Roderick Lake (Manitoba-Saskatchewan)	w:ceb:Hisgot sa Gumagamit:Lsj#Two Roderick Lake articles for the same lake	August 13, 2018	Done	August 13, 2018	w:ceb:Gumagamit:Lsj
Roderick Lake on the Manitoba/Saskatchewan border	Swedish	w:sv:Roderick Lake (sjö i Kanada, Manitoba)→w:sv:Roderick Lake (sjö i Kanada, Saskatchewan)	d:Q22457945→d:Q22457983	Roderick Lake (Manitoba-Saskatchewan)	w:sv:Wikipediadiskussion:Projekt alla platser-städning#Merge good faith but duplicate articles for the same geographic feature in Canada - Roderick Lake, Carroll Lake	August 24, 2018	Done	August 25, 2018
Carroll Lake on the Manitoba/Ontario border	Swedish	w:sv:Carroll Lake (sjö i Kanada, Manitoba)→w:sv:Carroll Lake (sjö i Kanada, Ontario, Kenora District)	d:Q22445695→d:Q22445708	Carroll Lake (Ontario-Manitoba)	w:sv:Wikipediadiskussion:Projekt alla platser-städning#Merge good faith but duplicate articles for the same geographic feature in Canada - Roderick Lake, Carroll Lake	August 24, 2018	Done	August 25, 2018

You asked another question here and didn't get a response. You could try WP:VPT and someone there might help.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To interested parties of Geobox river, I'd like to get your feedback on several issues related to the recent Template for Deletion (Tfd) discussion (links to previous discussions about the same merge topic: from 2013 and 2017/2018), and the resulting merge process at Infobox river. I have been attempting to engage with the template coding group of users at Infobox river talk, to my view without success. Here is the feedback I seek:

• Whether you believe the core functionality of Geobox river, like autoconversion and autolinking, field renaming, notes fields for every parameter, and units fields for every conversion field, should be maintained in a merge with Infobox river, if a merge were to go forward.
• If you believe the Tfd was conducted hastily, sloppily, and without the participation of all interested parties
• What action should be taken in light of the two above points?
  • make a strong show of comment at the merge discussion to insist that all functionality be included?
  • should a request for some fort of dispute resolution be made (what kind? I'm not an expert)?
  • other options/suggestions?

My own personal take is that the template coding group of users involved is quite capable, and that a merge process should go through. However, the Tfd was perhaps well-intentioned yet hasty and sloppy (with an admittedly unforeseeable but now reported disenfranchisement) that has led to an unequally-weighted merge process without the ability to preserve all the functionality of Geobox since it would be subject ot majority voting, and now a request to delete Geobox. I believe we should argue that no merge should go through without full implementation of Geobox river functionality, as previous full discussions have noted, and would have been stated in the present Tfd if a proper amount of time for the discussion had been allotted and if all interested parties had been included (and not disenfranchised, like your humble author). If that is not forthcoming, I believe we should should reopen the Tfd by some process of dispute resolution. What are your thoughts? --papageno (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my response here to your inquiry on this subject at Editor Assistance/Requests. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (Not watching this page)[reply]

Thank you for requesting my perspective. I suggest we should consider the difference between what improvements might be theoretically possible, as outlined in earlier discussions, and what improvements are being actively pursued by motivated editors. While I am unaware of concerted implementation action on the alternative suggestions of the earlier discussion, it seems some editors are actively engaged in implementation of the recent decision. Wikipedia relies upon volunteer editors to create, sustain, and improve the information available. It is difficult to know what motivates individual editors, but I suggest discouraging active editors will be detrimental to the long term goals of Wikipedia. I would prefer to allow implementation of the recent decision; and, while recognizing the possibility of later improvements of the sort discussed earlier, await the emergence of editors willing to implement those improvements. Alternative actions to thwart the present improvement effort might be perceived as ownership and may discourage the type of collaboration necessary for a comprehensive Wikipedia. Thewellman (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewellman: Thanks for your measured and thought-provoking response. A credit to Wikipedia. --papageno (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Thanks for your insights into Wikipedia policies and procedures. I shall endeavour to keep it in mind in my future conduct, and to hold other users to the same standard. --papageno (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. So you and I butted heads a bit at {{Infobox river}}. That being said, I wanted to see if you might be interested in burring the hatchet and teaming up on a project? I'm looking for people to be an extra set of eyes looking over some work I've done. I'm particularly looking for people I know won't just flat out agree with me... I WANT opposition (though obviously constructive). If you think you might be interested {{ping}} me and I'll give you more info. If not, no worries! Have a great day. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Thanks for your kind offer. I am not sure I will be able to put in the requisite effort in the coming weeks, but I can try to help. You may wish to marshal other editors to do the work as well. --papageno (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2018 (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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morava (river), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stratiform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qui1che, I've seen you've added a fair number of lake articles in Ontario, Canada. Thank you for your work. I would like to encourage you in adding the {{WikiProject Lakes}} tag to the talk page to help the project know about these new articles and invite you to check out the project WikiProject Lakes. The project also has suggestions on article practices to help make a consistent experience across Wikipedia. Cheers.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfgang8741: Thanks for your comment. While I am familiar with the project and with the suggested article format, I did not realize one should add the {{WikiProject Lakes}} template to the talk page manually; I had always assumed it was added automatically by a bot. Further, though I am aware of the project, your comment was a good reason to have a thorough look through it, in particular article format, after not having done so for some time. Best regards, and best of luck as you push through to the conclusion of your PhD, --papageno (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Qui1che: Yeah, I thought tags were added automatically too, but the project doesn't currently have a bot. I actually have been looking into automation tools for the project in the past week. The project has suffered some from a lack of maintenance itself where old automation broke. I didn't see your name as in the project's members, but i'm glad you're already aware of the article resources. Cheers! Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 07:09, 17 June 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) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your message at Florida, Ontario. This article has been such a tough one. Someplace in the past 10 years I read a brief history of Florida and some of the other northern farming communities, but darned if I could find the source online. I'm reluctant to use this source, as I'm not sure how reliable it is. I know you do a ton of editing on Canadian articles. If you come across anything about Florida it would be great. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maple Hill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maple Hill, Ontario.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that (per WP:INTDAB) intentional links to disambiguation pages should always go through an article title that contains '(disambiguation)', even if that is a redirect. That lets editors and readers know that the link is intentional and not a mistake that needs to be fixed. So the correct link is Maple Hill, Ontario (disambiguation)Leschnei (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: That's what I thought, and had done it originally that way, then got the DPL bot notification. . --papageno (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lac Ste. Thérèse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moose River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Geography of the Strathcona Regional District indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:32, 21 October 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) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [2] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Flindt Landing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that this is or was ever a community; no significant coverage to establish notability.

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. –dlthewave ☎ 02:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Horsey, Ontario has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that this is or was ever a community; no significant coverage to establish notability.

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. –dlthewave ☎ 02:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Boon, Ontario has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Railway point fails GNG.

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. –dlthewave ☎ 02:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Girdwood, Ontario has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that this is or was ever a community; no significant coverage to establish notability.

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. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Staunton, Ontario has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Railway point fails GNG.

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. –dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kennedy, Ontario, 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/Kennedy, Ontario 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, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

–dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

–dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Swanson, Ontario has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable railway point.

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. –dlthewave ☎ 03:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Harvey, Ontario has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable railway siding.

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. –dlthewave ☎ 03:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

–dlthewave ☎ 04:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

–dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

–dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

–dlthewave ☎ 04:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

–dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

–dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]