Contents

User talk:Zegoma beach

Hi FayssalF, I was just looking at some of your edits, and I'm impressed by your professional work. Would you please take a look at Harry Aubrey de Maclean at your convenience and see if there are any changes you'd make? He was an instructor to the Moroccan Army, and the stub has many mentions of Morocco. Much appreciated!--Zegoma beach 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zegoma beach. I appreciate your comments. I've added a ref and would do my best to expand the article. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I appreciate your splendid additions.--Zegoma beach 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kudos. The article looks good. The biggest thing I'd add would be some sources or external links. :) -- SCZenz 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any sources cited in that section. If there is a source for anything in that section, then put it in there. Croctotheface 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Call - Done. Thanks again. --Zegoma beach 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quickie - you accidentally left your vandalism warnings for the above user on their userpage, not their talk page, so I've moved them over for you. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} —Preceding comment was added at 20:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you've tried to nominate LinkedIn Open Networker for deletion.

I've no opinion on the article or it's contents, but you haven't managed to list the article properly so I've undone a few things you've done:

1. You replaced the disambiguation link for a redirect at the top of the page with and {{rfd}} template. This (a) removes the needed link and (b) links to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion as this is not a redirect but an article, it is the wrong template
2. You added an item to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion this is a long dead page with a banner at the top stating it to be historical. New items shouldn't be listed there and won't get any discussion.
3. You added an item to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Deletion review has instructions at the top, these describe the purpose of it, which is not to request deletion of an item. It also lists instructions as to how to list and item on deletion review, you didn't follow these either.

If you want to list this for deletion, then please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This goes into a lot of detail about what should be done before requesting deletion and also details what you should do in order to nominate something for deletion. It is this process you should follow for an article.

I would also suggest you take a look at the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which gives some useful pointers, your original listing as "non-notable and unencyclopedic" may be correct (again I have no opinion on the article) but as the first section of that essays says they are just bare assertions and won't be as strong as an expansion on your reasoning.

Hope this helps. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

Amqui (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good day, this message is to inform you that Wikimedia Canada has created a new mailing list operated by Mailman. This mailing list is for all discussions related to the Wikimedia movement in Canada, in both English and French. Announcements from Wikimedia Canada will always be bilingual, but you are welcomed to discuss in any language of your choice. The old google group will be abandoned. To join this mailing list, please go to [1]. To send messages to the list, write to general(at)discussions.wikimedia.ca. Also, please forward this message to anybody who may be interested. Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. JP Béland (WMCA) (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]