Lihaas

Can you adopt me. I need help with citations.EZRASExy (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 elections in India

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 formats

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. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 22:01, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

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

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 warring

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 excuses

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 #1

Introduction

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.

Updates

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 changing

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 review

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: advertising

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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lihaas. 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)

Query

@Yunshui: I have never EVER used more than one account here. I'm note sure what "off wiki" evidence you have seen since there was never a discussion for me to even counter? I have been totally transparent about my editing here and other paid accounts, which I immediately put on the talk page. You seem to be confusing me for someone else. Could I get a reason at least?

I got absoludely nothing to tell me off this which was working over the weekend.Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I was firstly not notified of this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lihaas. I have been transparent clarifying the WP:COI on paid pags' talk pages. I have absolutely no idea about those accounts and where the correlation came from? Can someone show how im correlated as a sock of those other accounts? Its not like im hiding the fact that I did it since WP:Paid is not forbidden and it asks for transparency (which I even asked on my talk page and was told it was fine since I was transparent you replied to it). There are multiple editors who are paid to do so, hence WP has a policy. A drive-by claim with scant evidence is reason for a swift block without any notification? Incidentally all the paid pages that I just started about 2 motnh ago EXPLICITLY mention where my source came from (im not even sure if the others do so). Was this even looked into?

Where is the "strong probability"? Considering I've never interacted with a single paid editor and even wondered what they got to edit.

Weve had india pages in common. Over the last 10 years have you seen that the pages I got on the front page and FA have nothing to do with India? Yes ive updated india pages and those are certainly not paid since they are public figures. Even my pages that I transparently posted as paid have nothing to do with the india pages in common from those socks.

Compare the edit histories of these socks [1][2][3][4] (likely a socik with 2 edits)[5] and see mine [6]? At the very least I wasn't even given a chance to defend myself before the drive-by block.Lihaas (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This block is based on information from your freelancer.com profile, which naturally I am not prepared to share a direct link to. Tracing the reviews you have received on that profile shows that it is responsible for a number of articles created/maintained by the other editors listed in the SPI, and the dates match up as well. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I have had 1 review and other articles that I immediately posted on the talk page for where I got it from (which is probably whether the original complainant found it. the EXAI article doesn't even have the other editors (that was my first, btw, when I queried it with you per the link above).

Looking at my contribs, you can find ive had a much bigger scope of editing over the last 10 years. Why would a sock be so transparent about possible COIs?

@Yunshui: The paid articles I have put on WP are: EXAI, Salty Dog Paddle, Kuwait Integrated Petroleum Industries Company, Storage King, Stor-Age and 2 in my back pages not yet published. None of which correlate to anything those editors have done, so I am how related I have no idea what prognostications were made or how. If you say reviewS then I can guarantee you have the wrong profile and some off correlation that is inexplicable b/c theres only one I can log into.Lihaas (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)