User talk:GastelEtzwane

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• [https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/Countries/Switzerland https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/Countries/Switzerland]

{{Ivmbox|Hello, GastelEtzwane. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

Hi GastelEtzwane! I noticed that you added the Google Pixel Buds to the list of supported devices on the Google Assistant article. Since the earbuds process the commands through a mobile device with the Assistant app, I was thinking of leaving the product out of the list. Otherwise, the list will become very large and be considered a directory. Thoughts? Daylen (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

:OK, I see what you mean. I guess I was assuming that the Assistant app is loaded on the earbuds. You are quite right. Trim the list! GastelEtzwane (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

::{{done}} I was confused at first too, Google did not make it very clear at the announcement that all of the audio and responses were just mirrored from the smartphone. After the presentation, they posted an article about the subject: [https://support.google.com/googlepixelbuds/answer/7544332?hl=en&ref_topic=7544331 Google Pixel Buds Requirements & Specifications]. Have an amazing day! Daylen (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

:::Thanks. I should have looked deeper into the specs and followed up on the later announcements... GastelEtzwane (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox|Hello, GastelEtzwane. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 25. – S. Rich (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox|Hello, GastelEtzwane. 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)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfWWUofC6-DmmNK0s7TBRd522YujyKWbixJflILnZQ6UYgveQ/viewform this short survey] to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Participation_in_Partial/Temporary_Office_Actions_consultation_2019 here]. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Skepticism.html] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi GastelEtzane, I saw that you recently added information about Project 2025 to a large number of articles. I think you have a weight issue. In your addition you cite two sources. The Project's own page, while certainly reliable for who are members, doesn't establish weight for inclusion. The RS media article doesn't mention most of the organizations to which you added the content. As such I think your addition fails DUE (or more likely BALASP). As a general rule, mass additions of nearly identical text are going to have issues with weight, especially if the target articles aren't mentioned in 3rd party RS articles. Springee (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

:Hi Springee, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am trying to find 3rd party sources for this information, and hope to get the articles updated ASAP. Would a list of organisations and individuals who are on the Project 2025 advisory board be a better solution? GastelEtzwane (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

::Adding the content to the Project 2025 article would be fine thought it might be better to just link to the list. If a RS article mentions some specific sources then adding them to the 2025 article seems rather clear. It's less clear if adding 2025 to the organizations mentioned by the RS makes sense. The issue is establishing weight in context not of 2025 but of the organization in question. For example, the "____ University" might be a big university with many departments. That some group somewhere in the university is working with Project 2025 isn't really significant when we zoom out and look at the school as a whole. However, for a smaller think tank the inclusion in Project 2025 might be a big thing to them. Then it might be easier to justify inclusion so long as it was mentioned by a 3rd party RS. Part of the issue here is avoiding a wp:COATRACK situation. As an example, if we have a RS that mentions "____ Thinktank" way down at the bottom and only in a list then we shouldn't add a long section on their Project 2025 involvement including an extensive characterization of Project 2025. But if an article about Project 2025 say "_____ Progress" was the organization that pushed for the following platform items [items XYZ] then it would make sense to include. Basically each of these additions should be done in context of the article it's being added to, not as a generic bit of text added to all the groups on a list. Springee (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:::Thank you for your answer. I will try to figure out how to process the information, and how to avoid a wp:COATRACK situation. Adding a list of organization on the advisory board is a good suggestion, especially since there are now over 75 of them. Then treat each organization individually. GastelEtzwane (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)