Open main menu

Welcome backEdit

Good to see you around at ITN again. You should probably take down that "retired" banner now:-) --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.--WaltCip (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for poisoning of Sergei and Yulia SkripalEdit

 On 27 March 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 10:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if I should take credit for this considering my proposed blurb is rather different from what was posted.--WaltCip (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I changed it to the posted article. Your nomination led to a community discussion, which is what's important. Stephen 11:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Amesbury poisoningsEdit

Please keep my !vote out of your hat.

Recognize the problem and do apologize. Sca (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump ITNEdit

Sorry, I edit conflicted with you when I posted an earlier response. Anyway, it was a serious nomination, but primarily because no other nominations were taking place, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. As it's a complete non-starter, I closed it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred BauderEdit

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, WaltCip. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Social DarwinistsEdit

Hello, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 30 for Category:Social Darwinist Wikipedians. The discussion focuses on whether a category is warranted for a small number of uses; it's not questioning the idea of having a category for this concept. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship GameEdit

 On 9 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Influence on donationsEdit

On a discussion around the village pump that has already been archived, you wondered:

I never quite understood the argument of "I was planning to donate to Wikipedia, but now because of the banner, I don't think I will". That to me shows a rather hollow sense of charity, where one's donation is not predicated on the value that an organization can provide, but rather on the momentary (and, as pointed out above, optional) aesthetic nuisance of a banner. That's rather like stiffing the waiter a tip because they have a tattoo.
It's rather difficult to explain using your simile, as that depends on your culture. But lets approach this rather as someone saying: "I intended to donate to that user-friendly site with lots of information, but I now find it's not always user-friendly, thus I'm not sure I will indeed donate." I expect you, too, know sites that continually seem to do their utmost to irritate you with their meta content. If such a site is only marginally useful, you might not be inclined to sponsor them. But it's a balancing issue, of course: If they would only irritate you slightly and only once a year, and the site is quite useful to you, then you'd probably be willing to put up with it and might donate. (Indeed, if you're in a culture where a tip is a reward, rather than wage, then you might consider a waiter spoiling your appetite with a tasteless tattoo as not worthy of a reward.) Mysha (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mysha: And that's really the point I probably should have made, that the donation drive only happens once a year. Taking into consideration the utmost value that Wikipedia provides, withholding donations because of the method that Wikipedia goes about announcing that they need donations seems outright petty. Unrelated, tips here are basically considered part of a waiter's wages. While they can still earn minimum wage if they earn no tips at all, I've heard in most cases that the owner of the restaurant will simply fire them in that instance rather than pay out the difference.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
See, a balancing issue. For those to whom Wikipedia does not provide the utmost value, and e.g. on whose set-up the donation drive takes up the entire first screen or more, the balance might swing to the other side.
Well, I hope this helped a little bit in your understanding. With Wikipedia we aim to create equal information access for everyone, but that doesn't mean everyone is the same. Mysha (talk)

An FYIEdit

I have retracted what I said at Wikipedia talk:In the news, but I do not feel comfortable retracting anything else. I believe I am in the right and I believe my statements can be backed up with plenty of diffs. pbp 20:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI DiscussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

That discussion can be found here --Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "WaltCip".