User talk:Northamerica1000/Archive 66
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Northamerica1000. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Cheers
|
Thanks for taking an interest in the Great Turnstile. I'm not sure how you came across this but it's good to have readers who provide such feedback. What may not be obvious from the article is that this alley is right by the public house where the London Wikimeets take place. If you're in town, please be sure to stop by and I will buy you a pint of a suitable beverage. London is a good place for a bon viveur like yourself ... Andrew D. (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC) |
- @Andrew Davidson: If I remember correctly, I likely thanked you using the notifications system for creating the article, which I found interesting per the historical context of the overall topic. Hey, thanks for the invite; sounds like it would be a real pint too! North America1000 07:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Milo
Did you know that 115.133.210.227? It is upload Milo logo too large! You will block this user, it is upload the Milo logo too large. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (You want to talk to me?) 09:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- File:Milo logo.jpeg has been tagged at Wikimedia Commons as lacking sufficient information on its copyright status. It's likely that the file will be deleted soon. North America1000 07:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay. It is deleted and you upload this Milo logo. Again. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (You want to talk to me?) 07:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- I never uploaded such logo in the first place (inre your "again" above). As I have mentioned before, rather than posting image requests for articles on my talk page, the appropriate place to make such requests is at Wikipedia:Files for upload. North America1000 09:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 47, 2016)
.jpg) A cleaning sponge
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Dress • Sword dance Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
The Signpost: 4 November 2016
- News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence
- Featured content: Featured mix
- Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog
- Traffic report: President-elect Trump
Nestle Bear Brand
This is about the article of Nestlé Bear Brand. How this Wikipedia article needs more? This brand will available to over 10 countries? You can improve this Wikipedia article. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (You want to talk to me?) 00:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have posted a general request for the article to be improved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink (diff). North America1000 05:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Cyrus noto3at bulaga: Please cite your information in the article with reliable sources. The article only contains two so far. Thanks, WikiPancake 🥞 14:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Bear Brand
You can edit the Nestlé Bear Brand Wikipedia article because I add the variants for Bear Brand's Sterilized Milk. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ 10:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Nestle Bear Brand
I have notice that Nestlé Bear Brand has been rated for B-class for WikiProject Brands, and C-Class for WikiProject Food and Drink. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ 10:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Untitled
Hi dear User talk:Northamercia1000 It seems that my article (Pouya_Saraei) deadline has been ended and there is no negative comment about that altough I explained about trueness of my article well. I will be grateful if you accept my article finally to remain and be stable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arassaeedian (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Arassaeedian (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have closed the deletion discussion as no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation that occurred in the discussion. North America1000 20:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Seeking your opinion
Hello,
I came across this page - List of Gameloft games. It seems to be a huge list, some or much of it unsourced and some red links. To me this is pure advertising and it may be appropriate to take it to AfD - or it may not be appropriate. There must be some other way to discuss this. So, I guess I will open a discussion on the article talk page. I am hoping you will chime in. And I am hoping anyone else who reads this and is interested will also chime in. Thanks in advance.
Please see Talk:List of Gameloft games. Right now it is the only discussion on the talk page. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have replied at Talk:List of Gameloft games. North America1000 20:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Festina lente
At an editathon today, I illustrated the WP:5MILLION activity by showing a minor article that I had created myself during that burst of activity. The organiser then put a half-baked speedy deletion tag on the article to further illustrate how Wikipedia works. It is still there and I can't tidy it up myself. As you are familiar with such topics, could you can oblige please. Andrew D. (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Never mind – another admin took care of it. All's well that ends well... Andrew D. (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Northamerica1000. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It's been two years, today.
- @Chris troutman:: Thanks for the anniversary greeting. North America1000 21:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Afd Contributions Recognition
|
The AfD National Hero Award |
| Your work and contributions at the Articles for deletion desk are exemplary. With relentless closures of AfDs and most helpful comments during AfD discussions, you are truly
THE AFD NATIONAL HERO Keep up the great work! :) ❤️ Lourdes |
- Lourdes Thanks for the accolade. Cheers, North America1000 00:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Please help me edit the Ajinomoto template page? Because it is hard. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (You want to talk to me?) 10:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- I may not become involved in working on this. I do notice that another user has essentially nominated it for deletion at Templates for discussion. North America1000 21:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
- When someone tries to log in to a blocked account they will be blocked by a cookie. This means their browser will be blocked even if they change their IP address. This makes it more difficult for returning vandals. [1]
- When you use Content Translation to adapt a template to a new translation it will work differently. You can adapt big templates such as infoboxes. Translators will have control over the template parameters. A first version of this is released this week. It is possible it will not work correctly with all templates. There will be more updates for this soon. [2]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 November. It will be on all wikis from 1 December (calendar).
Gadgets will have a new option called "hidden". This means you can register gadgets that can't be turned on or off from the preferences page. Hiding gadgets was already possible by using [rights=hidden]. You should now use[hidden]instead.[rights=hidden]in old gadgets should be changed to[hidden]. [3][4]
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 29 November at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- Tool Labs could get two new policies. One would be to be able to adopt tools without an active developer. The other would be a right to fork. There is a request for comment on Meta.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2016)
 Homework may include mathematical exercises
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Sponge (material) • Dress Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can choose to see users from specific user groups in Special:ActiveUsers. [5]
- Everyone can now see Special:UserRights. Previously only those who could change user rights could. Other users got an error message. [6]
- ORES can now show how likely an edit is to be damaging to the wiki with different colours. This only works for languages that have trained ORES to recognize damaging edits. [7]
Changes this week
- You will now see categories with 0 pages in Special:Categories. Previously you did not see empty categories there. [8]
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 December. It will be on all wikis from 8 December (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 6 December at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey will decide what the Community Tech team will work on next year. You vote for wishes on the survey page until 12 December. You can see what has happened to last year's wishes on the 2015 results page.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liciada, Bustos, please? I just closed it, but the last several comments are "hanging outside" the closed blue box. Do you see any reason for that? Joyous! | Talk 01:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) Hi Joyous! –
Fixed: One of the relist templates became broken in the discussion, which I have fixed. North America1000 01:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you!! Joyous! | Talk 01:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I invite you to an ongoing RfD discussion about those redirect to WP:AADD#Just a vote. --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding user Savh's two consecutive proposals of deletion
Hi Northamerica1000, I forgot the password of my user Ficxitalf and created a new similar user. With all due respect I write you regarding the worrying two consecutive deletion proposals by user Savh of article on the subject Artur Balder and Joan Castejon. There is a tone of information that dismisses the arguments exposed by user Savh. I do not know if here is the right place to place it, but given the recalcitrant obstinacy the whole situation should be analyzed and placed in the cold light of the facts.
I will go point by point to keep an order for the argumentation.
Savh started writing in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artur Balder (2nd nomination): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artur_Balder_(2nd_nomination)
"The article had been deleted previously in 2008 following an RfD. It was later restored and sent to review in 2010, at which point it was kept. About a year ago, all articles related to Artur Balder were deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia, based on a RfD I started. The article on en.wiki persists, just as many other articles on various other projects, which were all created by a bunch of users likely related to the described person. See the deletion review, where the user (Lolox76) states he "work[s] for a production company based on New York City, and my purpose was to make it easy for wikipedist in relationship with the work that pulled together the documentary "Little Spain". Without this documentary, almost a century of Spanish American history in New York City would not be known"."
Savh proposed and prosecuted an indiscriminate deletion of articles of encyclopedic interest with the sole purpose to damage publicly the image of well-known writers and artists, or even enclaves. This, as it will be seen, brings us to think that the aforementioned user has personal interest beyond the scope of the Wikipedia, acting on behalf of external and third-party interests, as it will demonstrated below. It is highly biased, as it will be seen analyzing the exposition of the facts in the here cited 2nd nomination proposal.
In order to do so, this user's proceedings are simple. Based constantly in conspiracy theories, just as the mentioned paragraph, intimidates and disseminates the opinion that the articles were written ‘by a bunch of people likely connected’. As a community, we are a bunch of people more than likely connected, and if we see how this user organizes deletion proposals in the Spanish WP, contacting privately other users of certain status to achieve his goals, probably we should understand that when he conducts massive deletions he is more than likely acting that way, with a bunch of people likely related to the same person, itself.
Savh do not forget, but carefully avoids to mention, the fact that the subject of the article is a published author in the Spanish market. His books have been published by major players of the book industry since 2005, such as Random House Spanish division, http://www.europapress.es/cultura/libros-00132/noticia-random-house-recupera-piedra-monarca-arthur-balder-20110718181353.html
Edhasa,
http://www.edhasa.com/libros/?tipo=autor&letra=B&nombre=Balder, Artur
or Ediciones B.
http://www.edicionesb.com/catalogo/autor/artur-balder_1078.html
This publishing groups do have Latin American distribution, especially in Mexico, Chile and Argentina. The sources cited regarding this circumstance are more than stalwart, so we are not in front of a local or regional writer, to begin with.
Savh continues: “However, as I pointed out on the es.wiki deletion request, the articles lack a neutral point of view, and verifiability is also an issue as not everything which is published on the internet, specifically on local and regional news sources, can be trusted, and much is likely to have been manipulated or otherwise played to seem reliable. “
The article did not have a lack of neutral point of view, this is false. There were no adulatory comments, nor phrases out of the common description of the facts. This statement demonstrates something very important: that Savh’s real target is not rewrite, if required, which was not the case, an article or several articles, but to destroy and ban them at all costs. During that deletion proposal, controlled by that user, some neutral users proposed to review the article, if there was something to be erased. But Savh target was clear and, in my opinion, quite anti-encyclopedic, for it obviously responds to a kind of personal or ideological feud that it brings to the Wikipedia, for reasons unknown.
Regarding ‘local or regional’ news sources. This is a completely biased commentary written with the sole purpose to deceit, and to drag the interest into a direction purely false in the cold light of hundreds of references.
Just to put an example, Savh puts all the references into the ‘local and regional’ scope, carefully forgetting Europa Press, the second biggest news provider of the Spanish media market, after Spanish government owned, and thus much more biased, EFE agency. Europa Press has published dozens of news served to all its subscriptors, newspapers across the Spanish geography, or for the subscriptors in South America, through Notimerica,
Europa Press: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Press_(news_agency)
Search related to subject: http://www.europapress.es/buscador.aspx?buscar=artur balder&buscarCodificado=YXJ0dXIlMjBiYWxkZXI=
EFE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFE
Notimerica: http://www.notimerica.com/buscador.aspx?buscar=artur balder&buscarCodificado=YXJ0dXIlMjBiYWxkZXI=
United Press International, US http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Movies/2014/11/25/Artur-Balder-details-Hispanic-immigration-documentary-Little-Spain/3261416930429/
UPI, film review in US http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Movies/2015/01/15/Little-Spain-a-valuable-addition-to-New-Yorks-immigration-history/4811421354807/
Repeatedly news sources as the previous one and the one in El Universal official website, state that the subject is American:
http://archivo.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/925606.html
Again, these are not ‘local and regional’ news sources, but very reliable and prestigious one, thus we should give them more than Savh’s conspiracy theories, clearly biased.
Regarding the verifiability: Savh, in order to destroy dozens of articles indiscriminately, needs to put all the weight of its conclusions, on the fact that its theory, not supported by anything else but by a kind of odium against the subjects of the article, on the fact that hundreds of journalists across well-known media outlets are conspiring with someone in order to support articles at the Wikipedia. This is absurd, and cast a bad and clear light on its personal interests.
The UPI film review is by journalist Rafael Bernal, now a TheHill.com Washington-based well-known journalist (http://thehill.com/search/site/rafael bernal) and the Huffington Post review is by one of the 50 most influential art critics (The NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/books/review/state-of-the-art.html). Kuspit, the author of ‘The end of art’, writes about ‘Little Spain’:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donald-kuspit/artur-balders-little-spai_1_b_7878804.html
Savh clearly has also misgivings with that article.
Savh adds: “For instance, checking one of the older versions of the article seems to indicate he was German and that he was born in Munich, while it is now claimed he is Spanish-American despite only living in the US since 2008. This fact is referenced with up to three sources, of which none really give certainty of him being really American.”
The mistakes that whoever could have made proposing articles do not represent a proof of nothing of the like. Important is that the actual sources match consensus and reliability. On the contrary, if the individual entered the country in 2008 perfectly can have reached the status of citizenship, which according to USCIS is possible after 5 years as a Green Card status, for instance. However, it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to verify the nationality of a subject, although the sources previously cited do clear this point, he being an American, and in that respect the encyclopedic articles reflect the media consensus. Anyway, the theories and personal doubts of a user, as Savh, cannot have more weight than the overwhelming amount of media presence and the work of journalists clearly and publicly identified.
Savh continues: “I believe all articles related to Artur Balder are biased, and have been written while in conflict of interest - while doing a great effort to make them look encyclopedic and neutral or are based on manipulation & deceit. To point to a specific instance where deceit plays a role, notice the third and fourth awards listed on his article. The "Asociación Wagneriana de Alicante" has been founded by Balder himself, though that little fact is ignored. The first prize, "International Prize for Contemporary Art from Mainz", is referenced using that same "news website", so by the autors own measurement, it's a reliable source. Note additionally that the prize granted by this "Asociación Wagneriana de Alicante" has been reported in quite a few regional news sources, such as the Valencian edition of elpais.com and the culture section of Europa Press.”
Point by point, there is no evidence of conflict of interest, they have been all articles about existing entities, and the accusation of deceit and manipulation is reckless and evidences further personal and third-party interests, and a feud brought inappropriately into the Encyclopedia.
The Third and Fouth awards pointed out by Savh. Regarding the ‘Asociación Wagneriana de Alicante’, we are tired to see how institutions can honor members if they had a prominent carrier. Savh jumps into conclusions and furthermore all his statements hide a clear disdain to freedom of speech. If a number of people, or an institution, decide to concede an award or mention, this is something that has to be respected. He can have a personal opinion about this, but not build a conspiracy theory in order to damage a subject, constantly acting as if the references to a carrier as a writer, and the as a filmmaker, do not exist.
The prizes granted by this "Asociación Wagneriana de Alicante" has been reported by many other sources. It mentions the culture section of Europa Press as ‘regional’ with reckless intention to deceit non-well informed readers from the English speaking area, because Europa Press is a news agency that serves its contents to hundreds of media across Spain. Clearly deceitful and biased statement written with the sole intention to distort the real facts, besides not mentioning many others that could work against its un-understandable ‘crusade’.
The latest prize in 2015 was published also by EFE, and the awardee, who mentioned how honored he felt regarding this award, was Jose Manuel Caballero Bonald, Cervantes Literature Prize 2012. This contradicts greatly the prestige of the award as described by Savh, and also the range of media coverage, similar to many other Spanish awards of its category. Again, Savh brings personal misgivings into an encyclopedia that should be neutral, and partly that thanks to him, in Spanish, is no more neutral.
EFE, news agency, national distribution in Spain: http://www.efe.com/efe/espana/cultura/caballero-bonald-premio-obra-de-arte-total-la-asociacion-wagneriana/10005-2756253
Europa Press, news agency, national distribution: http://www.europapress.es/cultura/libros-00132/noticia-jose-manuel-caballero-bonald-premio-obra-arte-total-asociacion-wagneriana-20151105114831.html
And subsequently many other news sources across the Spanish geography that picked up the news.
Savh probably most deceitful statement: “The other awards, specifically those mentioned in the first line of the article, IMO do not grant him the notability they pretend - both the Association of Latin Entertainment Critics and the Hispanic Organization of Latin Actors are both minor organizations with no significant relevance themselves.”
This is plainly false. A common search regarding the Association of Entertainment Critics of New York reveals that it is a journalistic association that has been active since 1965. It is the first founded Latin entertainment critics association in the US, and Savh knows it.
How highly regarded are those awards can be put simply here: https://www.google.com/search?q=ace premios&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjax62RhsXQAhVI1oMKHXbuArQQ_AUICSgC&biw=1817&bih=1131
The expansion of the media coverage just in the last 3 years of the film awards clearly covers US, with Associated Press (Spanish Service) serving to Spanish written media across the US, also EFE America, a service for US, Central and South America, then Europa Press, then Notimex biggest news provider of Mexico, and the majority of Dominican Republic media, and Telam, national news agency of Argentina. Savh has seen that for sure, but instead of that proposes two times a deletion proposal on the basis of denying the obvious. Dishonest and biased.
By the way: Savh also deleted the Spanish article of the Association of Latin Entertainment Critics of New York, as retaliation for having published a press release describing the inappropriate journalistic behavior of Almudena Ariza, according to their Ethics Commission.
The same we can add regarding the Hispanic Organization of Latin Actors, as can be found across the media. Just past year’s principal honoree actor Benicio del Toro showed up to pick up his award at the ceremony according to media reports of international interest, and even more there is a photo were Artur Balder, Benicio del Toro and president of the organization are portrayed together.
Savh continues: “The section #Art_documentaries mentions two documentaries filmed for the MoMA, though except the Spanish sources from Europa Press and some other regional Spanish press editions, I have not been able to verify the exact relation with MoMA and the truth behind this affirmation. Because of the obvious lack of verification of Europa Press with regard to the award-giving organisation (see §4), I have my doubts about the contrasting of the information. The site of Artur Balder's production company, Meatoacking Productions, mentions "The Associated Press at the MoMA premiere. Museum of Modern Art, NYC, May 2013.", linking to a photo in AP's photo database which, as AP states, has been "provided by Meatpacking Productions".”
It is not true: there a many sources that testimony that a reporter of Associated Press New York was there. OEM.com.mx is the website of one of the major news consorts in Mexico, fed by news agencies such as Associated Press Spanish and Notimex, and here are proof of that coverage:
http://www.oem.com.mx/elmexicano/notas/n3001544.htm
The archive online of El Universal, probably the biggest newspaper of Mexico, reports Notimex reporting the premiere from MoMA:
http://archivo.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/925606.html
After this demolishing proofs, let’s pay a close look to the previous paragraph by Savh: the user, who should be a clean, neutral champion of neutrality, is using (abusing should be the right word), of its position as administrator to give a biased presentation of the case in order not to make it better, if any errors, but with determined intention to destroy the articles at all cost.
Why Savh is so deeply interested in disregarding, or pretending not to see, all kind of journalistic work by more than reliable sources in order to accomplish the target of destroying articles…? The exposition of Savh hides unsuccessfully a personal stance against anything related to this author.
Savh at last gives us some hints as of where he is coming from: “One of the reasons I pick this up now is because a Spanish court has ruled that Artur Balder has to compensate a journalist for defamation, amounting to 30.000€. This defamation also includes articles on Wikinews, where the user FiloActual, a confirmed sock of Lolox76, insinuated the journalist was corrupt. The Wikinews article was sourced on a press release of the site of the Association of Latin Entertainment Critics (curiously, their last press release) and on a news article published on alicantecultura.org.”
The legal controversy that it refers to is only partly exposed. But one year before that reporter put a civil claim, resulting for the moment in a non-final ruling of 30.000€ fine against the author, there was another case: the reporter, Almudena Ariza, was criminally prosecuted by the author, Arthur Balder, in another court in Spain.
La Vanguardia, third most important national newspaper in Spain, describes the case, among other 30 reliable news sources. The article is still in the same place because La Vanguardia is a serious newspaper that is well informed before publishes something, and thus once verified the information, the article stays in the same place:
The case was not dismissed, but prosecuted.
At the same time, the journalistic association so disdained by Savh, the Association of Latin Entertainment Critics of New York, published a public condemnation for unappropriated journalistic practices by Almudena Ariza in the US after, according to their report, insulting the author and filmmaker via email.
http://www.premiosace.org/press-release/
So now we understand why Savh is so focused on giving the worst impression and biased opinion on that Association: because he is not neutral, he is on the side of someone, and might be working internally in the Wikipedia to damage anything related to the author at all costs. The lack of neutrality in Savh is beginning to take shape.
Savh pretends that all this did not happen, and as a partisan of third-party interests just put the light on that part of the conflict which, being truth, is not the whole story always according to the media. So clearly Savh wants to believe one part, and almost acting on behalf of that part takes retaliation against the author across the Spanish Wikipedia deleting indiscriminately anything related to him, just because two public personalities are involved in a legal controversy. He does not cite the publishing houses, because are very relevant, but previously pretended the film ‘Little Spain’ does not exist. Then, once that was obviously false, started doubting as can be read in his statement, that the MoMA collaborations do not exist, against all media generated and the work of journalists, then suggest that the awards are of no relevance, and hides the real importance in the Latin media of the Association of Latin Enterntainment Critics of New York, and later on the Hispanic Organization of Latin Actors, and at this pace if the author gets an Oscar Savh will put a serious doubt on the Academy. This is clearly against the interest and policies of the Wikipedia itself, but we will see later why Savh can do such things.
All related to article on artist Joan Castejon: Savh knows that the deletion in the Spanish Wikipedia was a shame, absurd, unnecessary, and unrighteous, but we do not know how much it might have been paid in order to wreck anything related to Artur Balder.
Google News about Joan Castejon: https://www.google.com/search?q=joan castejon&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitu8DHh8XQAhXD4IMKHf7rA7QQ_AUICSgC&biw=1817&bih=1131
Recent public sculpture inauguration in hometown: http://www.laverdad.es/fotos/alicante/201611/18/inauguracion-escultura-miguel-hernandez-2184053055-mm.html?edition=alicante
Finally Savh adds:
“In short, Artur Balder or someone with a strong conflict of interest has been abusing Wikipedia to create notability, based partly on truth (though unknown to what extent) and partly by deceit, abusing our projects and spamming this article across as many wikis as possible to pursue his agenda. Savh tell me 23:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)”
The final statement is a flimsy incrimination. But it is interesting something: ‘has been abusing Wikipedia to create notability, based partly on truth (though unknown to what extent) and partly by deceit, abusing our projects’. This is completely false and there is no sustaining proof, and even more: the prestige of the subject depends on his work. Wikipedia reflects on a basis of rules and criteria what is happening in the world. It is by definition beyond the scope of the Wikipedia to judge the subjects, but just to expose the facts as they are out there.
By the way the paragraph ‘Legal controversies’ was added just in time by an unknown user, but I do not think that user is other than Savh itself, or someone related to, technically camouflaged.
In a wikipedia such as the Spanish one, where all kind of porn actresses and actors, who-knows-rappers and even would-be-writers never published or distributed by anything else but their own Amazon accounts remain with their own articles, it is mighty relevant the massive deletion prosecuted by Savh on account of these particularly striking cases.
CONCLUSIONS
There are strong reasons to believe that the account ‘Savh’ might be being accessed by several high-profile users of the Spanish Wikipedia. Maria Sefidari Huici, actual member of the board of Wikipedia, might be one of them, being the others of great proximity to her. This account, Savh, has all imaginable benefits and powers in the Spanish Wikipedia project, because its users have all necessary connections to prepare and maintain status at all kind of elections, and to control to a certain extent what is written and what is not, and its point of view, and to perform such actions at their sole discretion.
Board of trustees: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees
Savh is the latest editor of Almudena Ariza’s article at Spanish Wikipedia, and her article in his watchlist:
https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Almudena_Ariza&action=history
Almudena Ariza as a journalist was acquainted with the actual wife of the King of Spain, a former journalist called Leticia Ortiz, and it was her foundation, Principe of Asturias Foundation of the Arts, that endorsed the Wikipedia project with an award a couple of years ago. The contact between the foundation Wikipedia and the Foundation Prize Principe de Asturias was, among others, sustained in Spain by Maria Sefidari Huici. The connections between both institutions are evident, and there is a politic intention behind the prosecution of Artur Balder, for he prosecuted criminally the reporter Almudena Ariza, and she got contact to the bowels of Spanish Wikipedia through the foundation of her former RTVE-matte now queen of Spain, Leticia Ortiz.
The fact that so well-known, widely-referenced authors, academic topics as the neighborhood Little Spain in Manhattan, or artist such as Joan Castejon, or Jose Manuel Ciria were destroyed (who has been exposed in almost all first class museums across the international scenario:
http://joseciria.com/curriculum/colecciones-y-museos/
And the film had a Spanish premiere at museum:
http://www.laopinion.es/cultura/2015/06/23/tea-acoge-estreno-espana-documental/613842.html
, represents a calculated prosecution with third-party interests, and a retaliation. It is sad for an encyclopedia to be politicized on behalf of third-party interests, instead of reflecting the facts as they happen.
The author had the right to prosecute criminally the journalist, and that happened and was clearly reported by the press, neutrally. But Savh ‘works’ literally in order to clean the image of the journalist, pretending those facts did not take place. The fact that she was criminally prosecuted and the fact that the journalistic association is important and considered a bad journalistic attitude what she did are both facts, no matter if we like them or not. Then she demanded the author and got a compensation for the publicity the case had had. This is also a fact. Well, why we should take positions, instead of just reflecting the reality?
The only explanation is that Savh is connected at a personal level with the journalist, or someone close to that person, and the lack of neutrality is more than clear. In fact, there is interaction publicly displayed on twitter between both accounts, Almudena Ariza’s and Savh’s.
As the prosecution is ferocious and relentless, never giving way to revision of the articles and always hiding or dismissing categorically real important sources as just a few have been cited here, and there is no evidence of personal feud, this obstinacy and situation brings us to think that Savh could have been paid, or otherwise rewarded, in order to bring the deletion of anything connected to this subject across the projects.
For this reason and provisionally I request lock all the articles proposed to deletion reputedly, so that they cannot be vandalized in the future without careful inspection.
On the other hand, I bring this media inform of just the latest hours of the subject’s new film star, American Academy Award-winner Susan Sarandon:
The media impact reaches not just a couple of ‘regional or local’ news sources, but two major news agency, Europa Press, and then Notimex, biggest news provider of Mexico and Central America. La Vanguardia, third national newspaper of Spain, publishes it, among many others.
So now we should disbelieve the news agencies just because Savh, a user with biased point of view, tries to convince us of the subject’s irrelevance…? I think we at the English Wikipedia do a good job, a neutral and sprawling one, and should not comply with ‘war editions’ that hide obscure nets of interests that contaminate the project, ‘a free encyclopedia’ that should also be free of prejudices and third-party manipulations.
Europa Press News Agency http://www.europapress.es/cultura/cine-00128/noticia-susan-sarandon-protagoniza-american-mirror-nuevo-artur-balder-20161123103142.html
Canarias7 http://www.canarias7.es/articulo.cfm?id=442601
La Informacion http://www.lainformacion.com/arte-cultura-y-espectaculos/cine/Susan-Sarandon-American-Mirror-Balder_0_974602845.html
Al Dia http://eldia.es/agencias/8966628-Susan-Sarandon-protagoniza-American-Mirror-nuevo-Artur-Balder
Cuatro, TV http://www.cuatro.com/noticias/Susan-Sarandon-American-Mirror-Balder_0_2280600248.html
NOTIMEX agency http://www.notimex.gob.mx/ntxnotaLibre/272788
Excelsior Mex http://www.excelsior.com.mx/funcion/2016/11/24/1130249
Zocalo Mex http://www.zocalo.com.mx/seccion/articulo/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-pelicula-american-mirror
Jornada Mexico http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2016/11/24/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-pelicula-2018american-mirror2019
El Porvenir Mex http://elporvenir.mx/?content=noticia&id=3747
Juarez Hoy Mex http://www.juarezhoy.com.mx/index.php/fama-imagen/item/10506-susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-pelicula-american-mirror
Veracruz mex http://veracruzanos.info/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-pelicula-american-mirror/
Canal Sonora http://h.canalsonora.com/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-cinta-american-mirror/
la Capital Mex http://www.lacapital.com.mx/noticia/50959-Susan_Sarandon_protagoniza_la_pelicula_American_Mirror
La Cronica http://la-cronica.com.mx/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-american-mirror.html
La Jornada de San Luis, Mex http://lajornadasanluis.com.mx/ultimas-publicaciones/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-pelicula-american-mirror/
Anton, Mex http://anton.com.mx/2016/11/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-pelicula-american-mirror/
Archundia Mex http://floresarchundia.com/2016/11/24/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-pelicula-american-mirror/
Minuto Uno Mex http://www.minutounotamaulipas.com/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-pelicula-american-mirror/
El Arsenal Mex http://www.elarsenal.net/2016/11/24/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-cinta-american-mirror/
El Siglo XX Mex http://elsiglo.mx/noticia/1286010.proagoniza-susan-sarandon-la-pelicula-american-mirror.html
Noticia Mexicana http://www.noticiamexicana.com.mx/index.php/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-cinta-american-mirror/
Punto Medio MX http://www.puntomedio.mx/susan-sarandon-con-el-papel-estelar-en-la-cinta-american-mirror/
Ojo Cibernetico MX http://www.elojocibernetico.com.mx/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-pelicula-american-mirror/
20 Minutos MX http://www.20minutos.com.mx/noticia/161632/0/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-pelicula-american-mirror/
Posta MX http://www.posta.com.mx/cine/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-la-pelicula-american-mirror
Diario de Chihuha, MX http://eldiariodechihuahua.mx/Espectaculos/2016/11/24/susan-sarandon-protagoniza-american-mirror-lo-nuevo-de-artur-balder/
--Ficxitalf2 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Ficxitalf2: I am hesitant to become involved in all of this on the level you are presenting here, in part because I'm busy and working on entirely other matters. Here are some things you can do:
- Discuss the matter with Savh. I recommend focusing upon article content, rather than the user themself. If you're going to make accusations of the users account possibly being "...accessed by several high-profile users of the Spanish Wikipedia", you will need to provide proof to support your theories. Otherwise, this could be interpreted as casting WP:ASPERSIONS, which is not a good thing.
- Post sources and commentary you provided here about topic notability on the respective article talk pages. Try to keep matters organized and relatively concise, so people don't skip over it (e.g. "too long, didn't read").
- Both Artur Balder and Joan Castejón were retained by default per the no consensus results at the respective deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artur Balder (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artur Balder (3rd nomination). Maybe just let it go; the user may not renominate them for deletion again. Of course, I have no idea what the user may or may not do.
- – North America1000 21:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have spent years of time contributing to various of these projects. I don't think it's funny how some absurd personal attacks can be thrown at me here while I have, as far as I'm aware, remained quite focussed on the lack of neutrality of the article and its contributors within the RfD. This however being the only reaction I get to my RfD, I am quite satisfied to remain totally convinced the es.wiki community decision is correct. This decision which, since you seem to leave space for doubt, has nothing to do with the Spanish Royal Family, the WMF Board of Trustees, the Spanish state-owned EFE agency or any other conspiracy or form of corruption. As I already stated on the es.wiki (and this) RfD's, the legal conflict with Almudena Ariza is part of the reason I am involved, since I believe the credibility of these projects is undermined, but I have absolutely no other relation to Almudena Ariza. I contacted her through Twitter, but I also attempted to do that with Artur Balder resulting in him blocking me with no reply at all. Savh tell me 00:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Respected collaborator, Savh. Among others, not related at any level with the subjects whose deletion you proposed, I am just a common user who believed that Wikipedia, as a whole and in all languages, should remain free of prejudices. Unfortunately I do believe there is something else behind your prosecution, on account of some reasons that I am going to expose as concisely and neutrally as possible due to the complexity of the case.
There is registered proof of you, or someone that uses the same nick as you, Savh, publishing in different newspapers comments sections claims that the criminal prosecution of Almudena Ariza by Artur Balder was 'false' and a 'hoax', and that the piece of news should be removed. Did you contact Artur BAlder lawyer, reportedly Pedro Antequera, with a license number in Spain, to jump to that conclusion? No, for you just was enough that Almudena herself, a TV well-known face, denied it, without thinking that Tv stars in general are sometimes very manipulative and even lie about legal processes to protect their reputations. This is the case. All those proofs have been notarized and are at disposition of the Wikipedia project whenever it will be required, the same with the communications you exchanged with Ariza.
This is either a great mistake from your side, or a purposed non-neutral defense of a partisan position, that consequently leads to believe you are acting on behalf of third-party interests. If, as you now fortunately stated and this is a very important point, you reached personally Almudena Ariza via twitter at the time all Spanish media was reporting the criminal prosecution of her, and she told you that this was false, she lied to you, and she utilized you for her own purposes: 1. to shield herself from the truth 2. lie about real legal facts 3. to manipulate you and to turn you into a weapon against her legal opponent. You say that Artur Balder did not answer your requests via twitter, well, I dont think this is an obligation from his side, and that is not enough to jump to such conclusions as you recklessly have.
There is more evidence of biased, non-neutral prosecution. A series of novels was declared ‘sacred text’ by an Asatru legally stablished and recognized by Spanish government religious confession. Well, again, we might like it or not, it is a fact, and stands there, and it is something striking relevant in the actual literary panorama and it is well referenced, and stands, at the official website of the aforementioned religious confession with several articles explaining their decission:
http://asatru.es/saga-de-teutoburgo/
Well, if we observe your proceedings at the Spanish WP, we see striking revelations. Here, at the Spanish article of that religious organization, we see in the development of the article, accepted there and established, that you carefully delete just anything related to this ‘sacred text’ at the article:
So, what you are doing is eliminating the only part of the article where it is being mentioned that the ‘Saga of Teutoburg’ by Artur Balder is in fact, as the official page of the religious entity states, a ‘sacred text’ according to their criteria. That’s their criteria, it is not our job to judge them, but respect people and communities opinions and reflect them.
Well, this looks very biased, and this looks like a prosecution of anything related to that name. Because you are willingly denying the right of people and institutions, and journalists, to do their job, and instead of reflecting it as it is, you pretend to impose a deletion. This looks bad, really bad, no matter how many years you have been collaborating at the WP projects.
I think, the deletion of such articles and mentions was indiscriminate and a retaliation, and it was not good for the Spanish WP itself. Because Artur Balder, Joan Castejon, Jose Manuel Ciria, Little Spain, and many other things you deleted after a very intimidating exposition of the facts towards other WP users who obviously do not have ‘all the powers’ you have as an admin, checkuser, etc, are subjects and cultural elements that are obviously notable enough to stay, and with this you are just impoverishing the encyclopedia, instead of cleaning it, or just turning it into a better and neutral reflection of our time and peoples. You are taking a personal approach.
How many non-known authors, porn stars, non-referenced rappers, have articles at the Spanish WP? And you delete the article of Joan Castejon…? This is very strange. Just the news presence reflects his respect from society and the wide and national and sometimes international repercussion of his doings:
Why you falsely, on purpose or by weird mistake, want everyone to believe that the two films were not premiered at MoMA with obvious collaboration of the institution…? The tone of press, reported by Associated Press Spanish service, by Notimex, even by the greatest newspapers in Mexico or Spain, El Universal and El Mundo national pages as the links are in my previous exposition, are overwhelming.
And critical reception, even Huffington Post’s article by Donald Kuspit about ‘Little Spain’ was re-published by the number 1 cultural publication of Spain, El Cultural, in Spanish:
http://www.elcultural.com/noticias/cine/La-Little-Spain-de-Artur-Balder/8104
You are among those in the Spanish WP that pretended that the film Little Spain did not exist… that’s a great hoax, and obviously something like that can only be disseminated in order to damage the director’s reputation. That turned to be false. Once that happened, you start to raise the specter of hoax regarding the MoMA collaborations. When will you stop? No an Academy Award-winner, Susan Sarandon, is reportedly the protagonist of ‘American Mirror’. What’s the next step? how can you sustain your massive deletion or non-notability of the subject with this in perspective. Probably such a film will have world-wide distribution. You deletion looks bad, biased.
I want to believe that you have been manipulated in order to act that way. In fact, your strong prosecution demonstrates that you have a strict sense of truth, and that your feelings inclined you to act that way once someone with great public ‘prestige’ obviously lied to you in order to use you. We can imagine who after recognizing direct messaging with Ariza once it was known that she was being criminally prosecuted in Alicante’s court.
Why did you not contact Artur Balder’s lawyers? Lawyers cannot lie to the press, and probably that’s why articles such as La Vanguadia stay in the same place, because journalists where provided with legal documents sustaining the news, or just confirmed by the lawyers.
You should go to the point directly: if Ariza was being criminally prosecuted, the media that published it did not have to erase the news published, because they were confirmed by Balder’s lawyers. That’s why the article at La Vanguardia, you would not deny this one of the most important newspapers in Spain at national level, keeps the news about her prosecution,
Why do you think that piece stays, no matter if Almudena likes it or not? Because the journalists did their job and the content is truth. For same reason they publish the news about Artur Balder fined with 30.000euros, because it is also truth. But please do not try to discredit one to favor the other.
Regarding only ‘local and regional’ news sources, why you pretend these nation-wide pieces of news by El Pais are non existent:
http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2012/08/20/actualidad/1345492597_117740.html
Or this in 2006, ten years ago, about Artur Balder being a successful writer published by major publishing houses such as Random House Spanish division:
http://elpais.com/diario/2006/06/10/cultura/1149890405_850215.html
What is the purpose behind either your willing myopic view or the biased exposition in the English WP...?
You also pretend the Association of Latin Entertainment Critics of New York is not relevant. That’s egregiously false. This is the first founded Latin journalistic association of the US, and they have been giving awards with no interruption since the 60s, as can be seen here:
http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0001207/overview
It is a very strange way to present the case or to evaluate the circumstances from your side, and it looks very biased. It looks like this: the ACE publishes a bad inform by its Ethics Commission about your party, Ms Ariza, then they are perforce non-relevant, non-notable, and consequently your delete the article at the Spanish WP, which is a shame honestly. Not to mention the overwhelming prestige that the ACE treasures, proof of it is the media across Spain and Latin America, and Latin US press. You put ALL in the garbage and delete it. Weird, very weird.
So it looks like if an American journalistic association have an opinion regarding the situation that it is contrary with what you have been privately told via twitter... they deserve to be deleted from the Spanish WP. That, again, looks very bad from your side. Again, either you have been manipulated, or you are in the thing consciously on behalf of third-party interests clearly identifiable.
Now, I offer my collaboration to work hand by hand under your guidance regarding this case and complex situation and, finding the truth as far as we can, prove that the WP is a respectable project. I invite you, with best of intentions and out of respect of the many years you claim having been working in this project, to review the case. Not to resuscitate the articles, but to place the case in the place they deserve.
You thing the deletion you made of Joan Castejon article in Spanish does not looks bad? People who see his monumental sculpture in front of his hometown city feels offended. Past week there was another public sculpture by the city, he is ‘adoptive son of Denia’, a public honor, he has have important exhibitions. Do you think people trust a WP and is willing to give donations when they see how unfortunately too often well-known writers or artists or intellectuals are being erased just that way? That’s bad for the project, and altogether it does not look good from you.
Even the polemic between the Ariza and Balder: just the follow up by the Spanish tabloids is itself a proof of notability of both subjects, no matter who we belive or dislike more. Now we have Balder’s new film with Susan Sarandon as protagonist by news agencies as Europa Press, a first class news providers next to EFE, and by Notimex. Do we have to dismiss the work of professional journalists just to satisfy the vengeful third-party interests of those that have been in one way or other involved in private feuds with the filmmaker…? I think that's beyond our scope, mine and yours.
Think about this and let me know if we can collaborate together to act righteously in the Spanish WP. Remember, this is not aimed to trade barbs with you, but to correct a situation where it might be possible you have been manipulated badly. I strongly believe that someone lied you on a personal level to turn you into a weapon. If you are the righteous WP you believe you are after so many years of work, you secretly will not deny that what you have done at the Spanish WP has not been right, and should be corrected according to the general criteria of the WP. It would speak great about you. It is in your hands.
Hello, Northamerica1000, thuis is under creation of NutriAsia. The Wikipedia article is ready to create and you can ask Eric abiog to be over 5.31 million Wikipedia articles. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ 02:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2016)
 Three Martinis
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Homework • Sponge (material) Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
"Semi-wikibreak"?
Daaaang. If this is you on a semi-break, I can't wait to see what you accomplish when you're really here! :-) Joyous! | Talk 03:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Joyous!: I've taken a break from writing new articles lately, have been participating less in AfD discussions, and have less overall frequency in participation lately, so adding the template atop this page serves to let people know that I'm not always going to be available. It depends; sometimes I will contribute for some stretches, and then I take a break. I have been a frequent contributor, but lifestyle changes and other interests are coming into play. North America1000 03:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Nestle Bear Brand and Energen Cereal Drink
North america, you can edit these articles from copyediting, to fix the grammars. cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 03:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Energen (cereal drink)
I have noticed that Energen (cereal drink) was introduced in 2008 in the Philippines. cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 02:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
  Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful! Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating! September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words). October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page. Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
- Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
- Editor-focused central editing dashboard
- "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
- Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
- Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list
Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)