User talk:FrederalBacon/Archives/Old

Welcome to Wikipedia, Fbifriday! I am Fetchcomms and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

User:Fetchcomms - 20:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, haha. Don't worry about it that much, I guess... maybe someone else will leave a message here and then they'll get everything! :P  fetchcomms☛ 15:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe you should delete it.  fetchcomms☛ 15:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I just unlinked your Userpage and Talk so that no one can click on it. I like my cookies. lol --Fbifriday (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  fetchcomms☛ 21:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This page has been further updated since the recommendation for speedy deletion. I do not see why the information now included does not make it a legitimate contribution to the page nor do I see why many of my contributions were removed. Could you take another look at the page, and perhaps explain to me what the problem is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkadrummage (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, he is not an admin so he did not delete it. User:SchuminWeb did. Secondly, did you put {{hangon}} onto the page? Then the admin would look over your reasoning before deleting. If it was still deleted after that, you may want to read WP:N. WP:YFA, WP:RS as well.  fetchcomms☛ 15:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. As Fetchcomms explained, I did not delete your article. I am not an admin, so I do not have the power to delete articles. However, I did tag it for deletion as the subject of the article did not meet our notability guidelines for living persons (See WP:SPIP and WP:BIO for more information). I apologize, but if you would like more information for the exact reason it was deleted, please see the admin who deleted it. --Fbifriday (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I have a poor understanding of what's going on here. The tag that pooped up had your name with it, so I assumed you were the admin that had deleted the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkadrummage (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ask for one if you're interested, but I don't think it's going to go in favor of your version of the article (which contained Twitter links, facebook links, unsourced content, promotional sources, and read like a TMZ page). If your religious views bias you toward your version of the article, then please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, and polices come first. Thanks. --SuaveArt (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not biased toward either side. I am religious, but I know on the wikipedia, a consensus must be formed. There is none on the content of this article. Request arbitration, or discuss it on the talk page, but simply reverting the article back and forth is nothing short of vandalism. Also, you must ask yourself if your views are contributing to your biased against this article. I simply found this article on the Recent Changes, and as a recent change patroller, I will stay with the article until the vandalism ceases. --Fbifriday (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please keep an open mind instead of accusing "vandalism". There was no "consensus" on the current version of the article to begin with. I simply removed content that was clearly illegitimate according to policy (policy comes before consensus), such as Twitter and Facebook links, as well as several sentences of unsourced content and some content that was "sourced", but was WP:TRIVIA and does not belong in an encyclopedia article.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009 (UTC)

The content was in place when the article was Kept in an AFD discussion. The AFD discussion shows the consensus of the community, and that the content was fine. It is not your place to form your own consensus when the community has already confirmed their support for the content of the article. Discuss it if you wish to change the content, don't just change it. Which, as the article is not now (sorry, typo) protected, you have no other choice than to do just that. --Fbifriday (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing that now. However it's worth noting that only 3 editors commented at the AFD and they were all contributors to the article.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:46, 14

  Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Government of Canada, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't a test edit. I was reverting vandalism and accidentally reverted my own revert in the process. --Fbifriday (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Errr... I'm sorry if you were acting in good faith; it certainly looks like you vandalised and then reverted your vandalism, as though testing out WP:TW. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No biggie, lol. If you look, IP 98.183.92.227 made that edit, and then two of us reverted that edit quickly. However, I only hit the Rollback button, the other editor reverted all three edits at once. I reverted to the second edit, which was vandalism. When I noticed what I had done, I reverted it back to the edit the other editor made. I certainly wouldn't mark my own edit as vandalism, lol. --Fbifriday (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, what a mess! ;) Well, I apologise again. I'll withdraw my warning. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The critical content discussed earlier is still in the Word Of Faith article but has been moved down to the criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perceiver (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The editor who added this did so in a pattern that violated NPOV, along with WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. He only edited articles of a few on the so called shame list, and no one else's. That act in and of itself is in my opinion a violation of BLP and should be stricken. The wording implied something nefarious or untoward about the vote (cosponsored but voted against). Individual votes aren't necessarily notable. I and many other editors have take this position consistently, regardless of the members party or what vie is is. While the vote is factual, It gives to much weight and is out of place in the article, particularly if this vie is the only discussion if the reps views on financial reform. If you want to debate adding it back in, with a more neutral source fine. But I oppose adding it back in prior to the debate. WP:BLP says potentially disparaging material can be removed. The standard should whether it meets the standard for inclusion, not whether it should be excluded. Also, the debate should occur at WP:USC where we've held similar "is this vote noteworthy" debates, and because it affects several similar articles. Thank you for your concern.DCmacnut<> 05:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, notice should be placed at the project page. I am one of many editors working to ensure the integrity of member if congress articles, and the project must be included since we've had debates like this before. I question why Maffei is the poster child for the debate, as there is no mention anywhere in his article of his views on financial reform (maybe it should. I don't know). Again, good luck with the debate, but isolated votes being included with no context or standalone notability have generally been a class of items that project consensus has been to exclude absent something other than the vote itself that makes the vote notable.DCmacnut<> 05:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. 7  07:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just reverted your acceptance of 6 edits by 222.154.5.185, using your reviewer rights, as they constitute vandalsim. If you see multiple edits in a row by the same editor it's wiser to check them all out. Especially when they delete Editors notes on the article! Richard Harvey (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I only accepted one from that IP, and it was on the Chelsea FC article, and it's hard to tell what the editors notes are when looking, because he removed them, and you obviously can't see any unless you go in to edit, which, when approving, you can't do, so all I saw was that he edited locations of some of the players. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Its an easy error to make and part of the learing process :). If you look to the left of the current edit you will see the previous edit and who did it, click on that and then go back to see all the edits done by the Anon. IE:-

• (cur | prev) 08:45, 4 July 2010 Richard Harvey (talk | contribs) (59,671 bytes) (Undid revisions by 222.154.5.185 revert apparent vandalism to last good edit by Imlikeaboss) (undo) [accepted by Richard Harvey]
• (cur | prev) 08:34, 4 July 2010 222.154.5.185 (talk) (59,179 bytes) (→Notable managers) (undo) [accepted by Fbifriday]
• (cur | prev) 08:33, 4 July 2010 222.154.5.185 (talk) (59,168 bytes) (→Current squad) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 08:32, 4 July 2010 222.154.5.185 (talk) (59,549 bytes) (→Current squad) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 08:31, 4 July 2010 222.154.5.185 (talk) (59,591 bytes) (→Current squad) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 08:21, 4 July 2010 222.154.5.185 (talk) (59,675 bytes) (→Current squad) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 08:21, 4 July 2010 222.154.5.185 (talk) (59,676 bytes) (→Current squad) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 04:04, 4 July 2010 Imlikeaboss (talk | contribs) (59,671 bytes) (→Crest) (undo) [automatically accepted]

As it was the same ANON IP all his edits would be held for acceptance. You need to revert the entire sequence back to the previous good edit. ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm....might have to put that in the feedback for the review trial...an option to "Revert all by user" or something similar.--Fbifriday (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Mind you I would like all edits by Anon IPs to be reviewed as there is currently no way for the system to block vandalism from educational establishments or other ANONs that are 'established'. Also newly registered editors as vandals can still register a login and then do their disruptive work after a few 'good edits'. Not too worry though we will get there eventually! Richard Harvey (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Casey Reed is not a real person, so {{db-person}} shouldn't be used. Fences&Windows 15:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

When I tagged the article (seethis edit, there was nothing to suggest who or what it was, just a link to a character from a daytime TV show. --Fbifriday (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. That user made a unilateral edit to a disputed article without following WP:3. I wasn't even sure if it was a sock puppet. This user also used the same template on my page, does he get the same warning or is there a reason why I've been singled out? Gomez3000adams (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You gave a warning to someone for violating WP:3RR when the only person who actually violated WP:3RR was yourself, in these three edits. 1, 2, 3. And you gave the warning in an attempt to intimidate the user into not reverting again, because you thought you were right. That's misusing warning templates if I've ever seen it. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Not familiar with the nitty gritty of Wikipedia rules and policies. I think if I were to learn them all I would spend all my time doing nothing else :(. Thanks for explaining anywayGomez3000adams (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I added new references. The album is on amazon and billboard, and this band is very important. they just recently played the O2 Arena, also played by Kelly Clarkson and Hole. They have also been mentioned in publications such as Jersey Beat and Village Voice. Although they are still an indie band, they have many radio stations internationally that have the Show in consistant rotation. The album has sold over 30,000 copies, and still is selling consistently. The Show are going to be huge pretty soon, so their wiki has to come now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CjsRoxMySox (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have references for any of this? Or any notable press on them at all? --Fbifriday (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

References? I referenced amazon and billboard.com. Notable press? As I said, Village Voice and Jersey Beat. Both are nationally published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CjsRoxMySox (talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The billboard "article" is just a track listing, Amazon is just a way to buy it, and Village Voice and Jersey Beat are not listed as sources. Sorry, still not notable. --Fbifriday (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note to say I agree that whatever may be self-evident (or true) to American readers is not so elsewhere in the world.

It is also a popular misconception that wikipedia is about truth. I heard wikipedia is about published evidence, not truth.

Sorry to see the disagreements on such a detail, but I think you put it right from what I can see.

213.205.196.53 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've archived your editor review, which may be found here. Netalarm^talk 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding this edit, did you intend to open a discussion on the talk page per the template? I see a couple of minor issues in the article, but without specifics from you it's impossible to know your rationale for tagging the article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, It seems that you have been spending some time patrolling the New Page section. I and the other members of WP:RCP really appreciate your efforts, but as you review articles, make sure you are marking them as patrolled. Thanks! Bped1985 (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I've been just hitting them as they showed up in WP:Igloo, and I can't mark as patrolled in there. And if I tag them for CSD, it gets patrolled automatically by Twinkle. I'll make sure if I go into a page I hit the tag button. --Fbifriday (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about. Thanks for the help! Bped1985 (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi FrederalBacon/Archives. Just wondered if you would like to comment on the Bot template page where a discussion about the change of the icon that trial bots use has been started. I feel more input is required before consensus is reached. You are reciving this message as you are signed up for the RFC service. Thank you. Cj005257 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC).

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Football squad player. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pashtun people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hello and say thanks for being a great Wikipedian. See ya around the wiki!

Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talk 01:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Note to user getting this message: Please respond on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page. If for some reason you cannot, please send them a {{talkback}} and reply on your own talk page. Thanks for your understanding in this manner.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Official website. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hello Fbifriday. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know however, regarding Raceyours, that tagging articles for speedy deletion moments after creation as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3) and articles created through the Article Wizard, is too fast. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), pure vandalism (G3), and copyright violations (G12) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. →Σσς. 22:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you flagged Jenny Bae's page for deletion but I think the page is now in accordance and the messages on the top of the pafe should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apm44 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Gotacha! NitRav (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I did make note of what I did and why in the "Discussion" pages. I find it odd that you reverted the edits within 3 minutes of my having made them. I did not know how to use the "make note of edits" feature (whatever it is called) so I did a discussion section instead. I apologise for the mistake, however the edits/deletions are valid and I intend to revert them back. Perhaps you could help me to make the "notes of edits" thing. I looked around before and could not find it, and I looked around just now, and could not find it.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi FrederalBacon/Archives,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. 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: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fbifriday! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 2 years.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)