Open main menu

User talk:Lihaas

Active discussions

ITN creditEdit

2014 elections in IndiaEdit

Hello, Lihaas. You have new messages at Logical1004's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Canadian articles can use both date formatsEdit

Despite the fact that Canada is a Commonwealth country, articles related to Canada may use either format, per MOS:DATE TIES (Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.). Thus, we use the first date format used in this article, which in this case was mdy. Thus, per WP:RETAIN (The date format chosen by the first major contributor...), there is no good reason to switch the article to dmy dates. Canuck89 (have words with me) 22:01, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

ITN creditEdit

A page you started (Kolavia Flight 9268) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Kolavia Flight 9268, Lihaas!

Wikipedia editor Gizmocorot just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Redirect page

To reply, leave a comment on Gizmocorot's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Edit warringEdit

Your recent editing history at 2016 attack in Nice shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. - 02:38, 15 July 2016‎ LjL (talk | contribs)

No excusesEdit

In distinguishing international "shit" from foreign shit, I only meant "stuff". Not trying to disparage, excuse or whatever. And yeah, plenty of people do use "international" to mean "foreign" or "extranational", so it's not exactly terrible. Just literally makes no sense. Anything "inter-" is technically between things, but perhaps increasingly only for pedantic twits like myself. Anyway, aside from that, thanks for all you've done at the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, May 30, 2018 (UTC)

Peer review newsletter #1Edit

IntroductionEdit

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

  • THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
  • Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

UpdatesEdit

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...
With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changingEdit

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

  • {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
  • {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer reviewEdit

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertisingEdit

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Lihaas".