User talk:JustAnotherWikiUser0816

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   23:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

I get that it's April Fools, but stop posting links like that, you're getting into linkspam territory. Jeb³_{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 15:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I come off as petty, but did you mean to revert my edits? Don't get me wrong, I thought someone would remove them, but your edit summary left me confused. Thanks, and have an the do not good day^{[April Fools!]} –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 18:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some one duplicated the Foolery section into the deletion requests section and it was slopilly removed. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JustAnotherWikiUser0816, thanks for clarifying. I'll go ahead and add it back, but if someone reverts it again, I'll open discussion on the talk. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 18:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KK. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears your account exists solely to participate in April Fools, with under 10-20 actually productive contributions to the site. This falls under using the wiki as a social network and potentially even just vandalism, and is valid grounds to be blocked from editing. Users participating in April Fools festivities are expected to pull their own weight, and make meaningful, substantial contributions to the site, as it is a way for existing editors to blow off steam, not your yearly entertainment where you do nothing else for the rest of the year. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Per the advice of other editors, I take this back. Sorry, —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its just I dont make that many edits tbh, I don't spend all my free time perusing wikipedia looking for corrections to make. If I see blaring errors I fix them and I do edit them. If I was a vandal then I wouldve been banned from here ages ago JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]