User talk:Prhartcom

Welcome! Please feel free to leave me a comment on any subject below. I look forward to replying to you. —Prhartcom

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

re Talk:Snowy (character)#Persistent vandalism

Has there ever been an SPI on this? There is currently a three-month block on a recent IP, but the latest IP is a mobile so no point in reporting this one. Meters (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for pending protection. More than 4 years of this stupidity... Meters (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meters, I see what you mean. I haven't been online lately and hadn't noticed; I appreciate your diligence. No, there has never been a sock puppet investigation; it would be great to launch one if you feel it would help end this. The vandal's IP address changes but always geolocates to the vicinity of Milford, Connecticut. For example, 68.191.55.129 did this vandalism and also vandalized many other articles, was warned, acknowledged the warnings, but was never blocked. Let me know if anything else can be done. —Prhart com♥ 12:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sebastian James

I removed your comment. I already blocked that user for his incivility, so the matter has been addressed. Thank you, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 08:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caknuck, thanks. I agree with your block reason for this person. People like that make one want to give up on this community. —Prhart com♥ 03:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caknuck, by the way, it wasn't necessary for you to remove my comment without my permission. Don't do that again. —Prhart com♥ 04:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was necessary, as you were warning a user a) for an offense for which they had already been blocked, and b) that had taken place over a week prior. I am actively monitoring and trying to mediate this user's behavior. Your warning did nothing to improve the situation. In general, if an admin is taking ownership of a dispute or conflict in which you are not actively involved, then you should not inject yourself into the conversation. Period. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 23:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Reassessment Instructions

I have reverted your edit to the GAR instructions. {{subst:GAR}} is a required step for reviewers to follow, particularly new reviewers. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Tintin (character)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tintin (character) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Tintin (character)

The article Tintin (character) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tintin (character) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Tintin (character)

The article Tintin (character) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Tintin (character) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| June 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews

Thanks for all your comments at Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident. On the off chance you might review another article I'm familiar with, here's a quick list of articles I think I could get up to GA fairly quickly if I had your eyes to help me:

If any of them appeal to you, I'll nominate them for GA. They're not Tintin, but maybe they'll grab your interest. Feoffer (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very tempting, Feoffer! Let me take a look at your articles; thanks for the offer. Before I even look at them though, it's good to know you have likely already checked them for the kinds of things we just took care of in this article. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the promotion of Smith-Rock! I hope I can someday get you to look at one or more of the above articles. Travis Walton incident in particular has the makings of a really riveting article, we basically understand what happened now and of course, it didn't involve an alien abduction. Roswell incident is also a very important article and there are many excellent editors working to improve it -- I'd love your feedback on the first three sections (up to 1994) but the rest of the article isn't ready yet for someone with your talents for a final polish. Meanwhile, Rhodes UFO photographs would, I think, be the easiest to push into GA, but not a very exciting one. Feoffer (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a ping, Roswell incident is now up for GA, if you're interested. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

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

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

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

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

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

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

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

GAI

Can you clarify which part you feel was not an improvement? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PMC, cool name BTW. You must be referring to the GA instructions page. Yes, of course. It's about readability. I've been keeping an eye on this page for awhile. Recently, I made an edit to this paragraph that is an overview description of the nominator and reviewer, and finally the paragraph stated the two roles in two sentences: one sentence for nominator and one for reviewer, that mirror each other, two parts in each sentence. First part is "nominators are" or "reviewers are". Second part is the statement of their two opposing roles regarding contributing significantly to the article. When reading the paragraph, it goes down easy and clear. If any reader needs more clarification, they will notice the footnotes or locate the Notes. Meanwhile, the two-sentence overview of the page is very readable to everyone. Prhartcom (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that no one actually reads the footnotes, because people constantly ask questions that are answered within the footnotes (such as what constitutes a drive-by nomination). The purpose of putting them in the main text is ensuring that they are front and center for people to actually read. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMC, you're right, actually. You could add a new sentence in the Prepare section that just says "Ensure you have participated on the article talk page, have contributed to at least 10% of the article, and should rank in the top five in authorship." I notice the Instruction page has been modified lately so you may as well add something like this. Prhartcom (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point in adding it to the lead was putting it where it is most likely to be read. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]