User talk:Meewam

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Meewam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content

I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Windows Rot

Hello Meewam. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Windows Rot, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Redirect result of an AfD; not eligible for A1 as tagged - it's a redirect; take to WP:RFD if it should be deleted. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 09:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Meewam, just wanted to let you know that I closed the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Rot (2nd nomination), as the wrong venue for such a discussion, and created a discussion at WP:RFD. It can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_25#Windows_Rot. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on my talk page! Thanks. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Redirects for discussion: Windows Rot

I'm sorry, but it appears that you are confusing WP:Redirects for discussion with WP:Deletion review. If you had a procedural objection to the closing of the original discussion at WP:Articles for deletion, the case should be posted there. WP:RfD is the place for the discussion of proposed discussion of redirects, and such discussions should entail a policy- or guideline-based rationale for keeping the redirect or deleting it (start with WP:RFD#DELETE and WP:RFD#DELETE. So far I have yet to see a justification for deleting the redirect (not the original article) from you. I have not made a recommendation yet, but too long an interval pass without one, I will be recommending a WP:Speedy keep on procedural grounds. The article is history - what policy-based objection do you have against the redirect that is not appropriate for WP:DRV? B.Wind (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found the sentence with your RfD justification and amended my second comment accordingly. I will not be recommending a speedy keep as you do have a valid basis for the nomination. B.Wind (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Windows Tax

You moved the Windows Tax section (I'm OK with that), but I just realized: isn't it just a duplicate of the "Licensing agreements" section? Shouldn;t they be merged? --DanielPharos (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tape editing

I declined your speedy tag on Tape editing. As noted above, WP:CSD#A1, and all the criteria starting with "A" are applicable only to Articles. As Tape editing is a redirect, you can tag it for Redirects for discussion if you like. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle did that. One wrong click and it's off doing it's business - Meewam (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology?

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the Bolognia push. I can send you the login information if you like? Regardless, thank you for your work on Wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

uk chart positions

hey, please don't remove positions 101-200 from articles. the UK Singles Chart is a 200 position chart. thanks Mister sparky (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The UK Singles Chart article does not cite any references. Could you please add a reference to the 200 position singles chart? Looking at the OFFICIAL UK SINGLES TOP 100 shows only 100 positions. Am I looking at the wrong chart? - Meewam (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

it has been a 200 position chart for about 20years. most places only publish the top 40, 75 or 100. but positions 101-200 are only available to subscribers of ChartsPlus magazine. Mister sparky (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss here - Meewam (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Reponse - Meewam (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Origin of AIDS

Meewam, I suggest you have a look at the guidance on requesting moves, with particular attention to the bit which says "Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate" It’s no good just plonking a RM tag on a page without saying why you think it’s a good idea. And directing comments to an old discussion isn’t a good idea either.
Now I’ve copied your original comments to the discussion, with a summary of the rest; if you are unhappy with that I suggest you re-write it to reflect what you actually mean. And I’ve changed the page tag again, so newcomers to the discussion know where they are supposed to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for being a big help in clearing things up regarding the structure at the talk page, and also for giving some directions on how to request a move. I'll certainly look into to that the next time I consider placing a {{movenotice}} on a page.

I didn't know about the Requested Moves list, but now that the discussion is listed there, it will hopefully attract more people to engage.

I placed a {{movenotice}} july 22, 2011 and posted my rationale at the talk page, linking it to the {{movenotice}} discuss-link. The reason I didn't post it on Requested Moves was because the documentation on {{movenotice}} does not require me to do so, except in case of a complicated move, e.g. the move target is already taken, or if a wider community input is needed to form a consensus. The last phrase does encourage me to post the discussion at the Requested Moves list, but I somehow overlooked that possibility.

Things went a bit out of hand when User:Dondegroovily then created a new section on the talk page (heading: Requested move) and placed a {{Requested move}} template, thereby posting the discussion at Requested Moves list. It would have been nice if he had noticed the ongoing discussion, merely by clicking on the discuss link given in the {{movenotice}} instead of innocently making it look like there was no rationale or discussion, which you also thought; "If whoever put the request in can't be bothered to write a rationale, then I'm not sure we should be bothered to debate it." User:Dondegroovily is well aware of the subtleties between a {{movenotice}} and a {{requested move}} which is evident from the discussion he has taken part in, advocating for a deletion of the template {{movenotice}}. So I'm at bit surprised at how things got so messed up - until you came along a set it straight :)

Thanks again - Meewam (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough: it’s (typically!) more complicated than it first appeared. And I’m sorry if I came over to you as being testy; I assumed when I first saw it that it was a hit-and-run tag, which tend to wind me up. I'd also assumed that you'd put it there: My apologies! Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Your recent editing history at Windows 8 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

March 2013

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Xbox SmartGlass, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. SudoGhost 21:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Meewam. 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)