User talk:Mike Cline - Knowledge (XXG)

1589:"@Moon Joon. I always, as a matter of practice, try and avoid openly revisiting or explaining an RM close. If I’ve made an OBVIOUS mistake (I’ve made a few), changing my decision isn’t unusual. However, all that said, the RM close process/decision is by its very nature tricky. First, one must avoid any semblance of a Supervote!. A Supervote! close is an easy allegation to make in closely contested RMs by either side and difficult to defend. Second, any given RM decision is complicated by the inherent complexity and contradictory nature of the body of title policy, guidelines and MOS. Supporters and Opposers routinely cherry pick and attribute primacy to the policy, guideline, MOS criteria that best suits their position. Finally, the evidence aspect of RM discussions is handicapped by the imprecision of the sheer volume of external evidence—Google searches, NGRAMS, RS-and Non-RS sources—which is routinely cherry-picked or inaccurately portrayed by both supporters and opposers alike. 891:. I am aware there is a high possibility Omegatron may, as is there right, deign to answer the ANI but will resume the pursuit of a page move when the ANI has died down. There may indeed be support for renaming that page. When the syndrome emerged in Spring 2021 there was much good work to quantify the risk versus risk and concerns about vaccine hesitancy. The page developed rapidly based mostly on early reports, activity lessening after a month or two and not really reflecting the latest science. The move request of 18 December 2021 generated some update activity on the article page and also some conversation on the talk page about the scope of the article as well as the primary name. I have some evidence the current name was likely chosen due to its use by EMA in as the problem emerged, for example in 22: 1999: 1917: 113: 2984: 1863: 1807: 477: 2685: 2107: 541: 232: 3026: 3146: 2854: 2775: 2584: 2505: 2292: 663: 2234: 703: 3093: 2204:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1062:, but I was wondering if you could add a brief summary to your closure statement, rather than just "Moved X"? It was a relatively long discussion and a lot of different policies and rationales were invoked on each side, so I think it would be useful for posterity to know what policy reasoning you found the consensus to be based on. Thanks. 2398:

are times when editors at MRV are just trying to point out what they think are flaws or weaknesses in the closing statement, but it sounds as if they are rearguing the move request. In any case it does happen a lot. It's not always easy to tell the good faith args vs. the not-so-good faith ones. Thank you, Mike, for your time and trouble

982:, and note that you deserve a lot of credit for the success of MRV. It's a bit sad that so many of the others are no longer active. It's my hope that AARV will work, and that it will bring in a cultural change, even if the change is little more than the perception of the admin corps by the community. 2397:

I mean, editors actually "were duly apprehensive that discussions on any given move review process would spiral into a contentious rehash of the pro/con arguments discussed during the RM"? Wouldn't mind having their crystal ball. Have to say though, that it can be a bit vague sometimes, because there

1643:

In your first paragraph you say that you won't discuss your actions? You don't think that twenty-two minutes is "an OBVIOUS mistake"? You say that closing is complicated, apparently this one had to be decided immediately? Then you go off on Supervote and N-grams, none of which apply to me personally.

1524:

I'm going to ping you, even though this is your talk page, because you haven't answered in five days. In that time you have posted more than twenty comments, including four here on your talk page. You gave me twenty-two minutes after my first post at Hornby before you slammed the door in my face, and

836:

If you check the source difference, I think you can see that I moved the reference tag over into the table, instead of just straight up deleting the reference. Besides, it looks a little odd to have a hanging reference that occupies an entire line in the article, and it can not be a reference for the

2662:

to go back to Proteobacteria, and closed on 28-3-2022. Since then other posts have voiced objections to the move. One of the two opposers since changed their mind. Pseudomonadota does not register on nGrams and Google hits gives only 278k for it, Proteobacteria has nearly nine million hits. Could it

1707:

in a haste. Today was the first day in ages that a new editor popped up with a statement, to which I responded. Shouldn't you give time for that person to consider my argument and possibly revise their position? That person was the only one who was opposed to the name change thus far. So I feel that

507:

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

1596:

I’ll close with two thoughts. As much as individual editors feel passionate about an article title, titles in the broad scheme of the Knowledge (XXG) world are a bit inconsequential. With our redirect/disambiguation scheme, no article, regardless of title, is unavailable to the reader. Its content,

1592:

When I make an RM decision, I’ve typically followed the RM from its inception through backlog so I am familiar with the flow of the discussion. I rarely add much verbiage to explain the detailed rationale as it just becomes fodder to those who might oppose the decision, especially if their specific

315:

Hi Mike, a while ago you attempted to move your talk page to "User talk:Mike Cline archive 2020", which is an invalid title because it doesn't contain a slash, and was recently deleted for this reason. You also moved many of your talk subpages along with your talk page. I have moved everything back

1708:

you jumped in prematurely and without providing any reasoning for your decision. I feel that we could have reached consensus if you hadn't cut it short. Interestingly, I see just above on your talk page that someone else felt similarly towards a closure that might have been faster than necessary.

1279:

Good evening Mike. I saw you recently closed the Dunkin' RM as no consensus. I know there was a lot of opposition to the proposal based on the idea that Dunkin' Donuts remains the common name, but I don't believe they demonstrated this assertion at all; the only English-language reliable sources

3056: 2378:

Sorry Capt Jack, not going there as it is not my purview to make an arbitrary titling decision. The RM was specifically for Hindu Terrorism to an unspecified title from a list of options (never a good idea). It was not moved. The MR contested that decision but I found the RM close within

737:

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

1314:

For the record, Mike has shared the message he sent to Calidum with me, also over e-mail. I appreciate this, but am disappointed that here (and in other cases above - e.g. Irina Walker, The Armorer) you are declining to explain your closure on-wiki. If editors understand

1249: 1219:

Setting aside that no consensus isn't really the same as a consensus to not move, I don't think that's a fair assumption to make - move requests can often have a consensus emerge following a relist, especially if the relevant wikiprojects are notified as part of that.

1831:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

745:. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on 1611:

I understand that you are perturbed with the close decision. Supporters/Opposers always are when the decision is contrary to their position. I am not "blowing you off" as this is not a social media site. Back and forth chats are just a waste of time.

1651:

Your third paragraph you say "individual editors feel passionate about an article title". That does not apply to me. I'm not passionate about the title, again, I had just gotten there with an outside NPOV. Then you say that titles aren't important

1621:

Your answer doesn't address the problem at all, it's just noise. The problem is that you closed an ongoing discussion in only twenty-two minutes. What I posted was/is none of your business, AGF gives me more than twenty-two minutes to participate.

1835:

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 until the discussion has finished.

1319:

consensus went a certain way, they can use that information in the future to be better-informed RM participants/closers. Hence, I think having these discussions publicly and transparently would be the best thing for the health of the project.

1482:

I'm a little puzzled by the closure as well, both in form and in tone. The discussion was active with new participants arriving and there was no immediate need to close. I definitely don't see any consensus for move protection.

886:

rather than coming to yourself as closer. I've been shadowing the article over Christmas while its been open, its quite strain to get dragged back again, and I've had little hesitation at raising Omegatron's conduct at ANI per

2197: 645:

this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the

1585:

You just answered an on-Knowledge (XXG) commet by e-mail, which I have problems with. By contacting me personally you exclude all other editors from following the discussion. I am going to post the e-mail you sent me:

905:. The term WHO, EMA etc promotes is thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), in the context of post vaccination in relation to COVID/adenovirus; including in references from latest and recent 2022 documents: 2730: 2152: 1647:

Your second paragraph says that you "followed the RM from its inception through backlog so I am familiar with the flow of the discussion". You were aware that I had just arrived in GF and that there were other open

584: 275: 675: 1828: 943:- I confess I am expectant any such discussion would be difficult to result in consensus and waste a lot of RL time unless mediated so my current preference is to stay as is rather than change. Thankyou. 768: 1724: 1667:

Don't you realize that by "chat" I meant an unconfrontational discussion? What is with this social media stuff? Why would you think I care what you're doing on vacation? You belittle me for trying to be

3112: 1033:

If the same question was asked to me, I'd have to say yes, been John Cline my entire life. However, they did call me Cline for the first two or three years in the U.S. Army. Nice to meet you Mike, best

2018:

This page is redundant with the lists of representatives/senators on the respective pages of the Montana House and Montana Senate. This page has not been kept well, and provides inaccurate information.

892: 2714:. 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 2136:. 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 568:. 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 259:. 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 3163:

The Knowledge (XXG) users of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming are invited to an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 13, 2024, at

876: 869: 3033: 1356:

Not sure what you're getting at. I do close RMs regularly. I didn't make any edits in the last week because I've been out with covid, but in the week before that I closed more than a dozen RMs.

746: 903: 2699: 2121: 554: 245: 2363:. Since the close is endorsed, that means that the current title has no consensus. As such, it should moved back to the previous stable title of Saffron Terror. Could you do that please? 630: 1879: 1731:" which is where it says "we can afford to take our time when deciding on what is allowed in, and when we open the door." So my point here is that it feels like you rushed it through. 2998: 1608:

Interestingly enough there are similar sentiments on the RM talk page about the RM backlog. Openly trying to explain every “good faith” decision just invites folks to find fault.

1615:

Am currently and have been in Florida fishing and will be on the road back to MT next week. Not much time to chat! and I'd much rather spend limited WP doing some real editing.

1171:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 3182: 2953: 2900: 2821: 2630: 2553: 2336: 2262: 2233: 800:

get reverted? I have scoured every single page I can for clarification on the revert, and nothing has turned up on it. And why was it done using rollback? It seems to violate

504: 776: 1503:

been moved since its creation in 2004. If you think there's a problem with excessive RM discussions being opened, move protection is going to do nothing to solve that.

1190:

Kia ora Mike - just for clarity, wouldn't "no clear consensus" at this stage of the process be better suited for a relist than closing the move request altogether?

411: 384: 3172: 2943: 2890: 2811: 2620: 2545: 2328: 753: 2079: 679:(along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, 342: 1818: 1770: 1728: 511:

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit

493: 757: 2041: 1952: 1089:) without leaving a closer's note. Can you expand on your reasoning behind the close? I felt that the oppose side was lacking in policy-based arguments. 2429: 979: 2323:. Anyone interested in the history, geography, articles, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Knowledge (XXG) and the 2201: 647: 2062: 1973: 1139:. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. 924: 174: 2536:. Anyone interested in articles, history, geography, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Knowledge (XXG) and the 1266:

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

395: 372: 3003: 1884: 402:." This latter term is one that has become much more used, in the art scene especially, but in recent days during the pandemic in response to 2006: 1992: 1924: 1910: 1766: 3103: 3085: 2379:

guidelines. This is clearly a contentious titling discussion thus the Move protect. FOCUS on the content and let this one lie for a while.

837:

image in that section. You could also just append it to the end of a paragraph to make it implied that it contains all info above listed. —

3195: 2965: 2913: 2835: 2753: 2644: 2565: 2345: 2273: 2175: 717: 607: 297: 3153: 2861: 2782: 2591: 2205: 1541:

have also posted here without answer, they may not care, but I'd like to chat. It's the weekend and I'm busy, maybe some AGF next week?

1255:

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

909: 1106:“I felt that the oppose side was lacking in policy-based arguments.” Sensi contrarium. No further explanation required or forthcoming. 927: 406:. It is an alternative term that is giving stronger collective strength to two overlapping umbrella groups (which does not exist with 153: 3131: 2066: 1977: 178: 1813: 1797: 906: 391: 380: 361: 1664:

I had just gotten there with an outside NPOV. I'm perturbed with you excluding me with no reason. That discussion was not finished.

1603: 1600:

Finally, I’ll share an essay I wrote years ago on the RM process which might give you more insight into the way I think about RMs.

1378: 3191: 3145: 2989: 2975: 2961: 2909: 2853: 2831: 2774: 2749: 2640: 2583: 2561: 2512: 2504: 2341: 2299: 2291: 2269: 2171: 1462:

finished discussion, either. I got in before you closed it, so you are the only person who has been able to respond to me. You

713: 603: 421:

As you were the original closer, I thought I would consult you on the matter before creating a new and potentially contentious

317: 293: 77: 74: 2723: 2145: 577: 268: 1869: 1854: 1059: 131:

Given that this page is purely navigational, and all but two links on the page are red-links, it currently serves no purpose.

70: 66: 62: 58: 54: 50: 46: 42: 39: 2054: 2010: 1988: 1965: 1928: 1906: 166: 124: 102: 642: 489: 120: 106: 2058: 1969: 170: 1822: 1162: 497: 422: 415: 399: 2735: 2250: 2157: 1425:

and there has not been any time for responses. With my position the count is three support and one oppose. Thank you.

1082: 589: 512: 280: 2993: 1874: 1245: 1280:

provided in the discussion came from the nominator. I was hoping you could revisit the close or explain it further.

921: 3067: 1300:, but FWIW I would also be interested in hearing your answer to this inquiry if you don't mind sharing it on-wiki. 850:

Fixed it. I just missed the source move. A better edit summary than "This doesn't make sense" would have helped.

3081: 634: 2479: 2417: 2193: 899: 895: 2938:

originally scheduled for May 14 has been rescheduled for 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 21, 2024, at

1873:

has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the

86: 2711: 2133: 1132: 801: 779:. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January. 565: 256: 3059:. I am curious if entries are supposed to be removed from this list once a page has been created. Thanks! --- 1176: 1144: 1094: 948: 888: 883: 797: 213: 1760: 3041: 1844: 2070: 1981: 448: 182: 3060: 2996:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

1895: 1877:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

3107: 1205:

Based on the discussion to-date it was my opinion that a relist would just delay a no consensus close.

3171:

is encouraged to attend. There is no obligation to participate and all guests are welcome. Please see

1658:

Again, you don't feel that you should explain your actions because others may question you about them?

2992:

has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the

2466: 2404: 2368: 2090: 1751:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

1704: 1570: 1039: 430: 2693: 2257:. Anyone interested in the history, articles, or photographs of our region is encouraged to attend. 2115: 1684: 1626: 1557: 1542: 1467: 1426: 548: 403: 349:

page and wondered whether there should be a WikiProject Fly Fishing. Do you have any thoughts? --

331: 239: 3127: 2426:

If you haven’t pursued the 2012 archive of the MRV talk page you might find it interesting reading.

1752: 1688: 1630: 1546: 1487: 1471: 1430: 1168: 1155: 1006: 987: 915: 522: 456: 398:" are fairly underdeveloped articles. I was actually about to merge the two into a new article on " 2707: 2541: 2129: 912: 838: 809: 561: 252: 3168: 2928: 2886: 2871: 2807: 2792: 2616: 2601: 2537: 2522: 2324: 2309: 2214: 1389: 1225: 1195: 1172: 1140: 1090: 944: 350: 326: 209: 92: 1562:

I'm sorry, but why am I being pinged? This is neither my talk page nor have I made any edits to

1384:

Hi, it appears that when closing this RM, you moved the article but not the talk page. Thanks!

623: 3179:

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our

3037: 2950:

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our

2897:

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our

2818:

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our

2627:

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our

2552:

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the

2335:

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the

2261:

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the

2037: 1948: 1840: 1786: 1736: 1713: 1662:

You do not "understand that you are perturbed with the close decision" because I'm not. Again,

1508: 1361: 1325: 1305: 1297: 1281: 1067: 842: 813: 190: 149: 2802:

will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 13, 2024, at

2719: 2611:

will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, November 14, 2023, at

2253:

will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 14, 2023, at

2141: 918: 877:

Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination#Requested move 18 December 2021

870:

Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination#Requested move 18 December 2021

775:

on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can

573: 264: 3167:. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Knowledge (XXG) and the 3011: 2885:. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Knowledge (XXG) and the 2806:. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Knowledge (XXG) and the 2742: 2668: 2615:. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Knowledge (XXG) and the 2164: 1891: 1086: 756:. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can 596: 484: 468: 287: 88: 21: 2722:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2715: 2360: 2144:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2137: 2024: 1935: 638: 576:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 569: 267:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 260: 136: 2935: 2878: 2799: 2608: 2532:

will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 8, 2023, at

2529: 2435: 2380: 2364: 2316: 2246: 2086: 1567: 1563: 1519: 1496: 1441: 1400: 1343: 1206: 1107: 1035: 1020: 998: 959: 851: 823: 783: 442: 426: 368: 3113:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 5 § Children's games (role play)

1604:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mike_Cline/Arguments_to_avoid_in_Requested_Move_discussions

940: 936: 204:

Hello, Mark Cline. I was wondering if you had seen my request for work being done on the

2881:

will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 14, 2024, at

1763:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 3117: 2659: 2319:

will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 9, 2023, at

1528: 1484: 1002: 983: 879: 517: 452: 376: 2078:

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the

2023:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

1934:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

135:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

2932: 2875: 2796: 2605: 2526: 2313: 2243: 2209: 1777:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1385: 1221: 1191: 894:. To be clear, I am opined any name should preferably be compliant with the like of 407: 322: 1597:

not title that is important. Compare that with the AFD process—it is consequential.

3025: 1782: 1778: 1732: 1709: 1536: 1504: 1357: 1321: 1301: 1063: 447:

Mike's last activity was November 2020. I would suggest creating a draft at either

186: 2923:

Rescheduled online meeting of the Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West 05/21/2024

2684: 2106: 540: 231: 1675:

please attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion

3007: 2664: 1525:

twenty-one minutes after my first post here you seem to have just blown me off.

1466:

have decided that my comment isn't worth anybody else's answer. Step back, huh?

1136: 1125: 932:

Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome following adenovirus-based vaccination

1259:

Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR

1342:

Noted. You should start closing a few RMs every week to share your expertise.

410:, mainly associated with South Asian heritage). Also, as opposed to the term " 1756: 1290: 761: 685: 346: 90: 3079: 2047:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

1958:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

1680: 662: 208:

page, and wondered if you could recommend anyone for me to go to. Cheers,

159:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

3199: 3092: 3074: 3045: 3015: 2969: 2917: 2839: 2757: 2726:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2672: 2648: 2569: 2482: 2443: 2420: 2388: 2372: 2349: 2277: 2219: 2179: 2148:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2094: 1931:. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why. 1900: 1848: 1790: 1740: 1717: 1699:

Reclaimed water - why such a quick closure before consensus was reached?

1692: 1634: 1573: 1550: 1512: 1490: 1475: 1449: 1434: 1408: 1393: 1365: 1351: 1329: 1309: 1229: 1214: 1199: 1180: 1148: 1115: 1098: 1071: 1043: 1028: 1010: 991: 967: 952: 859: 845: 831: 816: 721: 611: 580:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

526: 460: 434: 354: 301: 271:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

217: 194: 3164: 2939: 2882: 2803: 2703:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2612: 2533: 2320: 2254: 2125:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1829:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of people in Montana history

558:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

249:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3024: 2474: 2412: 205: 2434:

It details the creation of the MRV process. It wasn’t an easy road.

978:

Thank you for shepherding WT:AARV. I have just read through all of

3110:. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at 1593:

position/evidence isn’t given the weight they deemed it important.

734:

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

702: 741:

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin

1296:

Hi Mike, it looks like you might have answered Calidum privately

929:. In summary, plus with points from discussions, I have created 2739:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2161:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 593:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 284:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2729:

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

2697:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All

2200:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 2151:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

2119:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

583:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

274:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

637:

from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with

552:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

243:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

93: 15: 808:

act of vandalism was peformed on the edits surrounding it. —

2889:

is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see

2810:

is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see

2619:

is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see

2540:

is encouraged to attend. We may try to organize one or more

1997: 1915: 701: 492:, is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to 345:

is listed as inactive. I have been working on updating the

111: 1817:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

1683:

but I don't think I'm getting much co-operation from you.

1077:

Requesting additional notes at The Armorer and The Client

2393:

I have to agree that some of your wording was surprising

1655:

I don't want to read your essay, I'm not impressed here.

3183: