Alexjohnc3

Re: Thanks

And thank you for your kind comments --Michael Johnson 12:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Haruhiist Wikipedians

You nominated the category Haruhiist Wikipedians for deletion on November 3rd and it got deleted, which is fine by me. It just would have been nice if you left me a comment on my usertalk page telling me you had so I could redirect the category on the Haruhiism userbox Category:Wikipedians_who_like_The_Melancholy_of_Haruhi_Suzumiya. :P --Alexc3 ^(talk) 00:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this edit's summary listed a link to the discussion. - jc37 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but I wouldn't have been aware of that edit except I happened to check here and noticed that my userbox had been edited. If I made a few more edits, it wouldn't have even shown up. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 03:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Join date

Sorry, I can't help you. If you created an account and didn't immediately edit with it, only a techie could tell you when your account ended up in the database, and that's probably nothing anyone busy keeping this thing running wants to waste their time figuring out for you. I guess you could ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for more info.

As to your other point, my main dismay with the MassResistance article, which I just happened to click thru to while perusing User Talk:JoshuaZ, was exactly the citing of the opinion of the SPLC sourced to the SPLC itself. If their opinion about MR is notable, then it should be possible to source this to some 3rd party (i.e. a secondary WP:RS) making note of it. We're not a soapbox for the SPLC's opinions. They are, arguably, a little over the top with labeling just about everyone they disagree with as a "hate group." Letting certain organization's press releases -- I don't care who they are -- creep into our articles is exactly what WP:SOAP is supposed to prevent. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've simply seen too many articles about small political groups or even individuals teeter towards being bloated with dueling press release-type referenced material that simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This is a case in point, in my opinion. Simply because a certain organization's opinion on some topic has been referenced by a reliable source doesn't make their every opinion about everything under the sun notable. I agree that WP:SOAP isn't as explicit in this regard as I myself would like, and I've been lax on generating consensus on a policy spelling that out more fully, but using primary sources in a he said/she said manner is exactly what that policy is meant to address -- that is, in essence, the meaning of propaganda. Anyway, I'm too busy IRL -- I'll come back to this in July I imagine.... -- Kendrick7^talk 02:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought I found the answer to the join date question, having found my own logged here.[1] But, I checked, and you didn't show up in a search oddly enough. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviewer

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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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 grant you status nor 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 user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Acalamari 09:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

CSDing other people's userbox pages

Please be more careful in the future when requesting the deletion of a transcluded template. When you requested deletion of User:Alexjohnc3/Userboxes/user age you did not use noinclude tags. Your CSD tag requested deletion of the 8 pages where the template was transcluded. Monty₈₄₅ 03:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I merely followed the advice of WP:GD#Pages in user space. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 04:46, 29 September 2011 (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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Atheism in India

Pls support my work on Wikipedia and elsewhere. KannanSivaram (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)