![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
![]() |
Hi Lesser Cartographies! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hi - I note you have removed a few flags in infoboxes. Please read WP:MILMOS#FLAGS which makes it clear that "when dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death." Thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk ( talk) 22:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:MILMOS#FLAGS:
"When dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death. However, there remains considerable disagreement regarding the appropriateness of flags in such cases, so editors should not regard this as a universal rule."
I was treating WP:INFOBOXFLAG as a universal rule when it came to MIL biographies; MILMOS says it's not a universal rule. I'll let the folks who have spent more time editing MIL articles than I have fight this one out. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 07:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingpin (automotive part), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Barrow ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
05:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying not to step on toes today (I'm too tired). Just did a check for "Joe Pullum" to find that. However, I think it was Hamer using that name since the name is also used by a blues musician who did perform in the area. Overall, I think we're almost done here. LionMans Account ( talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you give it a check. I think I'm close to being finished with it, but might need a once-over before putting it up for review or just moving it. Thanks. LionMans Account ( talk) 01:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The article was previously taken to AFD, so you can't prod it. I'll re-AFD it for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for taking a look at the edits to Tweetmyjobs. Just added 3rd party sources to all of the edits that were made - feel free to give the article a look to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colelave ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Nepal Dalit Sangh (Prajatantrik) may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, it seems you are trying to clean out Infinit (technology) which seems to me far too detailed and promotional, so agree it does not belong. I noticed there is also an article Infinit (company) on the company promoting this for the past two years. Not sure if it is more than "two kids and an app", but I did try to rescue it a bit and make one somewhat decent article. Seems like there is a long history here. Take a look at Infinit, which started out as a similar uncited promotion back in 2008 by single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Mycure. Monsieur Quintard supposedly graduated from Université Pierre & Marie Curie and the user mycure on Github belongs a Julien Quintard. That 2008 article was proposed as a speedy delete, but the tag was removed by User:Ginkgo100. Then in July 2012 another single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Pwperl added more, still with no citations. In May 2013 User:Tassedethe did a proposal for deletion. Pwperl added some more, and then an anonymous user blanked the content and made it a disambig page to the two separate articles (which removed the prod tag). A couple weeks later (May 18) Mycure stuffed about the same content into the "technology" page, and on May 27 made the company page in another burst of edits within a day. My proposal was to attempt to rescue the company article, delete the other two (never really cited well), and move back to Infinit which would require an admin. Or is it worth saving? Thanks. W Nowicki ( talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan to me. No hurry but best to not fall through the cracks. In the meanwhile, I also noticed Opaak, Kaneton, Kastor (kernel) and Kayou from the same article spammers. Sigh. Not sure these are worth a merge or just four deletions? Know it might not be your field; I have been almost full-time cleaning up these vanity software articles since I retired a couple months ago.... W Nowicki ( talk) 23:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I was thinking about trying to keep Opaak and merge the others, but there is not much to merge, so probably just making a clean break is fine. Also it seems there are a bunch of other things named Opaak, so Google searches are misleading. In particular, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2307664 seems to be another one. So if software is your area, there are still quite a few very promotional but mostly unsourced articles on European projects that were created circa 2008 to 2010. It seems there was an organized effort to spam Wikipedia with articles promoting such projects (perhaps similar to the current wave of "two kids and an app" companies), although we tend to delete or merge them from time to time as we run across them. Most talk about "The Grid" for example, which was a popular buzzword (including the caps) during that time period, generally now replaced by "The Cloud". For example, see GUSE P-GRADE Portal SZTAKI Desktop Grid OMII-UK BPEL4People DIET GridRPC etc. Most of these soud like make-work projects for grad students that might not have been used by anyone else, but hard to tell. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
For advice. Well taken. It comes from needing to be so careful about neutral language in articles; perhaps I tend to let go too much in the discussions. Certainly not worth alienating anyone. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Lesser Cartographies, for the wise and lengthy advice that you gave me, which I'll be more than glad to heed, and in fact I have often wondered how to improve the rating of the Harp Twins article from Start-Class. I know I have much to learn. However, could you please edit the article in a way that will protect the discography section? That's my only concern. In fact, if you look at the page history carefully, you will see that I had not contributed in a significant manner to that article since May. This entire ordeal began when an anonymous user changed the format of the references section, which was then done again by Duffbeerforme, which prompted me to do a ton of research to increase notability, to protect the article from what I perceived was an attack, especially since Duffbeerforme desperately tried in vain to have the page deleted several months ago.
So, I really don't mind leaving the article alone for even more than two months, but please help me. With your experience I'm sure you can fix the page in such a way that the discography section will be protected in very few minutes. That way I'll have peace of mind at last.
Thanks again for your extreme kindness and guidance, and please reply on my talk page. Best wishes... Dontreader ( talk) 08:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hey, great work on breaking the reference.com loop! Ijon ( talk) 23:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Camille and Kennerly Kitt may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the ongoing improvement of the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page. I'm sorry to hear about the dead link since it showed the Toshiba tablet commercial with the Harp Twins being featured rather prominently. Thanks again for your help. Dontreader ( talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lesser Cartographies,
I've added additional links to the AFD page, showing Usenet discussions going back to 1989 on the comp.mail.mush newsgroup. I hope that clears up the reliability question of mush's existance. Slaurel ( talk) 03:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed suggestions. I chose the page in question because I was surprised that it didn't already have an article, and because I find Wikipedia is a very good place to find the most authoritative reference sites for most software packages. I definitely plan to add more of the unique content about mush over time, but thought that getting the page started might give it a chance to collect improvements from others, since there's a lower barrier to edits than to page creation. I especially appreciate the pointers to DYK and NSOFT, as I hadn't seen those before. The Google Books suggestion is a good one too. I'll get the dead trees and obtain those references. Slaurel ( talk) 03:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
First book has arrived - albeit the least interesting of the 3 I think. Working on the request for Userfication tonight, and I'll edit it there until ready for review. Slaurel ( talk) 04:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello LC - I believe both other books have arrived at The UPS Store, but I haven't gone over to pick them up yet. The Userified page is here: User:Slaurel/MUSH_(e-mail_client) I thought I'd added the first reference, but it was a rush right before a trip and seems to have been lost. Will re-do. I will do the others once the books are in hand. Slaurel ( talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added citations to the Userified page User:Slaurel/MUSH_(e-mail_client), perhaps excessively so, as backlash to the deletion. I'm not happy with the content yet, but Notability shouldn't be an issue any more. The Z-Mail handbook references Mush or Mush features in Z-Mail on nearly every page, but I haven't put in more than a key handful of those. I'd welcome your opinion on the latest edits. Slaurel ( talk) 05:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the detailed review. I've addressed some of the points here, and will continue with the rest later. Btw - is there a guideline for trimming down these talk page discussions? At the discretion of the page owner, or some kind of mutual agreement? I don't need to clutter your page with all of the MUSH article history forever.... Slaurel ( talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lesser Cartographies,
I very much appreciate the time and effort you have put into editing the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article; however, I have just noticed that you have taken out my references to their coverage on a nationwide Spanish TV channel and two nationwide Russian TV channels, asserting that the articles that accompany the videos (broadcasts) are too short. In my opinion, the fact that the Harp Twins were featured on TV on foreign nationwide channels is very notable, and that's why I included that information in their Wikipedia article. I never claimed that the short articles accompanying the broadcasts were reliable or verifiable sources of useful information; instead, I believe those websites are important to keep because they prove that the Harp Twins were on multiple TV channels which showed some of their work as musicians. As you know, it's one thing when a website merely shows one or several YouTube videos of theirs, with a short article, as is the case with La Repubblica, which you took out as well, but it's a different matter when the video with a short article happens to be material that was aired to potentially tens of millions of homes.
I fail to understand why you don't see the notability (having reliable sources to prove it) of being featured on nationwide TV channels, regardless of the length of the articles that accompany those broadcast videos. By taking out those references, I think the notability of the Harp Twins has been weakened, and it will be harder for me to defend the article against another predictable proposal for deletion coming from someone whom I will not mention. Other than that issue, I certainly think the article looks much more professional now, and I'm very grateful for the help. Thanks in advance... Dontreader ( talk) 09:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
|
I very much appreciate the references ChaseAm ( talk) 11:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC) |
I am just now seeing that the page on the Qore Programming Language was slated for deletion. Please let me know what I can do to reverse this decision and make the article suitable for safe keeping.
I am happy to address any concerns, but I am not sure what they are.
Thank you, estrabd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estrabd ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Lesser Cartographies. First of all, please notice that I have dedicated a substantial amount of time (by my standards) to either improving or trying to improve several articles, as suggested by the administrator BrownHairedGirl, including a vigorous attempt to reach consensus on the talk page of the Nontrinitarian article here: Talk:Nontrinitarianism#nontrinitarianism or non-Trinitarianism.3F. Also, soon I will begin to take the steps you suggested. However, in the meantime, more problems have arisen on the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article, and I believe it would be unwise for me to interact with that editor in any way, shape or form, so I'm asking once again for your help. An effort is being made to reduce the Harp Twins to a mere blog phenomenon, as was done by the same editor in the discussion when the article was proposed for deletion.
Please look at this edit: quoting Mallika Rao, the editor changed the word "said" to "blogged". Is that necessary? Is that supposed to be regarded as a good-faith edit? An effort to improve the article? Here's what the Huffington Post says about Mallika Rao:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-rao/
So, exactly what could the good-faith purpose be of changing the word "said" to "blogged"?
Also, concerning the other edit, although Bailey Johnson does write for The Feed Blog (exclusively or not, I do not know), does that take away the fact that this person is a CBS News contributor? Or at least a CBS News online version contributor? Must that person be called "The Feed blogger"? Here's the source:
From that article you can say that it was in The Feed section of CBS News, but it clearly remains a CBS News article, and therefore Bailey Johnson is a CBS News contributor. Besides, after some last-minute research, I have found that Bailey Johnson is not solely a The Feed Blog writer. Here's an article from Crimesider (also from CBS News online):
http://www.cbsnews.com/crimesider/?contributor=10470143
And this isn't from The Feed Blog either:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-504763_162-10391704.html?contributor=10470143
Therefore, is it accurate to reduce Bailey Johnson to "The Feed blogger"?
I must stress that in each case the article begins with (CBS), and the source is http://www.cbsnews.com/ Bailey Johnson is a CBS News contributor. That cannot be disputed, unless you want to call Johnson a CBS News online version contributor, or a cbsnews.com contributor, but Cbsnews.com redirects you to CBS News on Wikipedia.
Please help me. And truly, this should not be happening. Dontreader ( talk) 05:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Your username is evocative of a concept quotidian yet fantastic. I like it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 03:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe that certain actions make the assumption of good faith absurd. For example, when the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page was nominated for deletion (by the way, the "contributor" that proposed the deletion has vanished since then), and someone promotes in a militant fashion the deletion of the page during the discussion, it's because he is convinced that there is NO WAY to improve the article to a point where it could meet Wikipedia standards. Or am I wrong? Therefore, when he comes back half a year later to allegedly improve the article, that's a clear contradiction. Or am I wrong? That was when I no longer assumed good faith on his part. As I said recently, if you can recall one contributor who fought hard to delete a page and then came back to improve it, and was actually helpful, please let me know, and I will reconsider my reasoning. Dontreader ( talk) 04:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
If Bgwhite sees any need for changes to the article, I will discuss them with him, not with you. What you are suggesting is to make drastic unnecessary changes to the page, at the request of you-know-who (which was my concern when he showed up with a revert a few weeks ago, several months after the AfD discussion). You have already wiped out many well-crafted sentences and paragraphs that took me a long time to compose. You've done enough to that article. Since you said your time is limited for Wikipedia, please focus on other articles. Your plan will only cause serious trouble. Dontreader ( talk) 03:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
(Undid revision 568570723 by 94.101.4.209 (talk) Reverting "conquest"; happy to discuss on the talk page.)
"As a result, the victory of a Soviet offensive toward Austria and the liberation (by the Red Army)" is incorrect and should be changed to "capture" or "conquest", as Austria was de facto, de-jure and de fideli a part of the Greater Germany. Therefore the term "liberation" is incorrect as Vienna as major city of the 3rd Reich. Saying "Berlin was liberated from the Germans" or "Vienna was liberated from the Austrians" makes NO sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.4.209 ( talk) 10:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Simple because some (english-language) sources got a self-evident fact wrong, Wikipedia shouldn't. I'm not that keen on being an accomplice in the spreading of historical inaccuracies just because somebody else got the terminology wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.4.209 ( talk) 19:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, here goes, first pass.
1. My Russian is lacking so my position may be fundamentally flawed. Lightweight news item on viral video. Not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Content tells us nothing not found in sources already used.
4. Most are purely sourced by primary sourcing, most likely the Kitts promo materials. If it's not covered by independent sources, does it belong, probably no. The President is the exception here, there is independent sourcing. However that coverage seems to just mention it as a point of trivia (no specifics, when, what event, why) so not really appropriate. Happy snaps are not independent reliable sources.
5. The events were not neceserilly for those pollies. At dinner/event attended by pollie would be a better version from the source.
6.I note someone else suggest it being bad to lose it because the acting section is so slight. If their acting careers are slight then the section should be as well.
7.Also worth asking is the relative weight given to marginal sources.
8. Also of concern is the particular choice of quotes used, both from blogs reposting a viral video, lightweight articles. The emphasis given to these two. Do they reflect the wider reaction or were they picked because they were the most complimentary found. The sort of cherrypicking of quotes press kits use.
9. Do independent reliable sources describe the author at all.
10. The problem here is the sentence was changed but the source was not
[3]. Source says 31 videos and no hit number. It should either go back to what is way and say something like "in march 2012 there was". Or remove the source from there. Finding a new independent source with up to date figures would be ideal.
11.This is the wrong way around. You don't write a peacocked preferred version then hope someone might find some sources. You first find sources then write based on them. Contrary to one of the replies It does not matter who first introduced the sources. It's the quality of the sources and what they say.
12. composers - No
13. Not that I've seen. Uploaded is an alternative.
14. It's a bit crufty and the large list does dwarf the article a bit. If listed maybe collapse.
15. Not a usable source.
Additional
Ref section need work. They are currently lacking in detail and in at least one case deceptive (6)
You raise the possibility of a list of performances/tv appearances. I have yet to notice similar in feature articles. Listing every little show or soundbite seems to me excessive and more at home on a dedicated fans own site.
Other points
A simple yes/no reply is of very limited use. This is not a vote.
Why does this edit still stand? It jumped over the top of an ongoing discussion and was against the then consensus. (No comment on the editor or their intention should be implied) duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Stop the editing the Raul Cuero page. You can edit the information without source but you can not delete the intro of articles that are in scopus database or the awards that have a source. Thinks like awards before 1994 on sports can not be deleted because they are confirmed by PBS in the special about creativity. A page about a scientific is not interested in personal media interest. Stop editing the page and let the original where i was working, I'm adding links to all the references to confirm information. if you want polemic you can add a part but not to delete the complete page. Remember in USA he is a person who promote the science. If I adding something is with links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwinburneMel ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Lesser Cartographies, for all the valuable time you have invested in improving the Harp Twins article. As Bgwhite predicted, there are edits that I like and others that I am not fond of, but I think I have shown during this process that I'm willing to make concessions and to compromise. By the way, I hope Bgwhite will continue to enforce the rules he gave Duff and me since the core problem remains unresolved.
Here are some minor details in the article that I ask you to please address (nothing controversial):
1. "as well as music scored for video games." Very well written but please change that to "video games, TV shows and movies." because they have covered the theme of The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Doctor Who, Star Trek, The Hobbit, and more are coming, they have said.
2. "The Harp Twins’ have posted" seems to have kept an apostrophe from a previous edit, so please delete it.
3. (Not your fault at all): "Harp fantasy (2013)". Please make that "Fantasy".
4. (not your fault at all): "(Harp covers of Video Games, Anime, Movies and TV soundtracks)" Please change Video Games, Anime and Movies to lower case.
Many thanks in advance, Lesser Cartographies, and thanks again for the very detailed work and research, including a good analysis of the references. Have a nice day. Dontreader ( talk) 00:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to edit and actual article today. Colombian profs, sockpuppets and new articles with spam links. To top a wonderful day, I'm apparently getting sued... User talk:Ross-Novak.
Dont asked me to look at a version of the Kitt article in his sandbox. It was mostly moving the refs up into the article. I didn't see a need, but I made the other minor changes he requested, including all refs using templates. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lesser Cartographies,
I did not see your last reply until many days after you wrote it (I don't watch this page, and you took a while to reply, plus you did not mention me in a way that would have sent me a notification, so I forgot to check for a long time). I will make observations in my sandbox as you suggested as soon as possible. User GoingBatty has actually made some of the corrections I wanted, even though I never contacted him. My main concern is with the references section, which you changed entirely; it has its pros but also its cons. Most potential contributors are likely to insert material into the article and put a source right there, which would mess everything up. That's why I prefer to insert citations right next to the claims that are being made, with the website and everything. My sandbox has that method restored, plus the references are more complete and consistent (title of article, and author if available, for example). Please consider going back to the original style for the references section, which I do believe is the more common one, and more user friendly.
I see that you had a lengthy discussion with Duff here about the article... I was not aware of that discussion until tonight, so I wonder if I missed it each and every time I actually was visiting your page frequently during the discussion process, or if it was hidden for some time. I disagree with some of the conclusions that were reached. Why should I care, for example, that performances are not listed on Featured Articles? Why is the Kitt article being held to that standard? Do you see potential for it to reach Featured Article status any time soon? Likewise, I have found MANY articles about songs of very famous musicians, with links to iTunes and Amazon, for example, so I don't understand the double standard. Will anyone fight to eliminate these links on Lady Gaga or Katy Perry songs, as was done on the Harp Twins page? I can send you a list of articles with iTunes and Amazon links. If no action is taken soon on those pages, how can you justify keeping them out of the Kitt page? No one will control the page; they are not famous and lack big sales, unlike Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Selena Gomez and others.
But for now I realize that something important is missing from the Kitt article, and it's a question that shows up in virtually all of their interviews. At least a sentence is required to explain why they cover metal, rock, etc., despite having been trained classically. This is my proposal:
In their biography section, after "Both sisters hold a Bachelor of Music degree in Harp Performance and graduated with highest honors at Wheaton College Conservatory of Music.", I would take out the period and replace it with a ";", and add the following text:
"however, they were uninterested in only playing classical music, preferring instead to arrange and perform versions of rock, metal, and other contemporary genres, as harp duets."
That should do. My source is one that you sort of trashed, but again, I was somehow totally unaware of that exchange that took place above, and I could almost swear it was not there during the discussion, but I could be wrong. Here's the source:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/08/harp-playing-twins-make-pretty-rock-music/
That is ABC News, and if you want to dismiss it because it's a blog, then what about this?:
Then that's a blog too. After all, it says "About this blog" (above the title of the article). If you click on that link, it takes you here:
Would you consider Becky Bratu to be a "blogger"? Is this an unreliable source? Look, I've seen "blogs" written at NBC News by the editor-in-chief! My point is that the term "blog" can be deceiving. You simply cannot justify trashing the ABC News link just because it has the word "blog" in the URL. And you went on to minimize Eliza Murphy by agreeing that she's a "digital reporter. Cute and strange type blogging". Here's her website:
There, you would have found her resume:
http://www.elizawmurphy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Eliza-Murphy-Resume9.pdf
She has a degree in journalism and she's a TV news anchor, which you can also verify on her website:
http://www.elizawmurphy.com/anchoring
This is the sort of mistake that could have easily been avoided if you had consulted with me during the process. So please insert the sentence I provided (actually, not a sentence because it comes after a ";", and with that source, which is absolutely valid).
And when did you tell me that the Huffington Post articles were unacceptable to you??? For example, you agreed that this link was unacceptable without having the courtesy to tell me anything:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/harp-twins-game-of-throne_n_1518402.html
You agreed with "Looks like blog. Author looks like local reporter, not an expert or big name." Why exactly do we need a national reporter or a big name, or an expert on the matter? Those are very weak arguments. We are not talking about quantum mechanics here. Lizzie Schiffman (the author) is a journalist. Why is that not enough for an article about two musicians? MANY seasoned Wikipedians say that the Huffington Post is a reliable source, but by dismissing that site, you found a pretext to erase the performances for Barack Obama and other politicians. You did NOT have to do that. As long as there are reliable sources saying that these events took place, they can be included. There is no need for detailed articles on the matter.
I'm sorry if I sound upset with you, but I had the right to be consulted when someone else was making claims to try to remove material from the article, but you did not inform me or let me defend content. Some material must be added again because some portions were deleted due to mistakes. The Eliza Murphy mistake is particularly serious, but clearly it's not the only one. Please also remember suggestions I made above. Finally, any further suggestions by the interested parties should be made publicly, as I always made them, not through private emails, which is a big reason why things must now be revised. This also kept Bgwhite in the dark. Thanks. Dontreader ( talk) 09:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
http://www.sccah.com/events/event_details.asp?id=343122
http://www.sccah.com/events/event_details.asp?id=254964
http://www.carolinagamessummit.com/page.php?page=Live_Bands
http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=178544
http://www.49st.com/event/magical-sounds-of-the-harp#info
http://www.littleangels.org/angelsongs-enter.php
http://www.theghoulardifest.com/
Dontreader ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lesser Cartographies, your ideas sound interesting yet I cannot quite imagine how this would work within table format. Maybe I can get a clue if I see an example, feel free to use the talk page, thanks, -- Jackentasche ( talk) 11:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
For your efforts in assessing a question at the Teahouse based on the merits of the topic... a good assessment and very valuable. Your feedback makes a difference. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 01:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC) |
BG White has repeatedly violated an understanding that you have helped broker. Instead of edit warring both myself and Dontreader were to discuss any changes to the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page with yourself and changes would be made by you. The agreement did not include Dontreader whining to BG White and BG White kowtowing to his every whim. BG White has been repeatedly introducing linkspam into said page. attempt to raise the issue with BG White was met by silence. duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
To your first point: See
That looks like an impeccably recognized authority to me. [Perhaps I should spell this out a bit more. When your blog is cited as an authority in academic literature, we as editors may assume the blog is both recognized and an authority.]
As to your second point: What percentage of featured articles have shop links? What percentage of those would be improved by citing reliable sources instead?
Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 04:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've now replaced the cdbaby cites with a cite to the twins' home page. The fact that the albums exist and were released on such-and-such a date is uncontroversial enough to use a less-reliable source. That leaves the track listings uncited, which was (unspoken) issue all along, right? So I'm guessing that since nobody else (not even the twins themselves) has bothered to reproduce the track listings, our choices come down to (a) leave the material uncited, (b) remove the material, (c) restore the link spam, or (d) find a better cite. I have enquires in progress for (d), and until I see how those pan out we'll stick with (a). Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 06:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Lesser C, I have reverted your edits, please discuss in the talk page before messing up an existing track listing format. Or better, take it to a higher avenue if you feel this is a correct way of presenting the information and let's set a precedence for it. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Saturday, April 5 -
WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited! | |
---|---|
The
University of California, Berkeley's
Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman
Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend.
Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch ( talk) 22:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
I find it very difficult to credit her claims to have worked in even the laxest kinds of "journalism" for twenty-five years, frankly. Take a look at the breathlessly promotional prose with which she littered the article: the mixed metaphors, the fractured syntax; and you will understand what I meant. I still do not believe that she is an impartial editor, based on the kind of content she was adding to the article. I have added back in the statistical data, which is now properly sourced; and I certainly won't object if you or anybody else helps improve the article with WP:NPOV, WP:TONE and WP:RS issues properly addressed. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, you gave me feedback on the teahouse after looking in my Sandbox at an article I was working on about Internet Addiction Disorder and said that I needed to have a "lead" that set an introduction for my article. I wasn't sure if this was necessary as the article exists already, the part I linked you to was a section I would be adding to the page. Also, did you want me to change my heading that states "is Internet Addiction a Disorder?" because it is a question, and do you have any suggestions as to what I could change it to? Thank you, Sarahmckinley4 ( talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help User:Lesser Cartograpgies it is much appreciated. I will alter that heading! And my apologies on the positioning of my comment, I will know for next time!
Sarahmckinley4 ( talk) 17:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Guidance Barnstar | |
Thank you for helping with new users! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC) |
Hey, I was just looking at your actions at the Teahouse and can agree with you that it probably isn't the best place for said discussions...and I'm striving to maintain NPOV on here (lol; this was the main reason I changed the subject). I got a tad bit irritated at the, "It is absolutely untrue that there is any view by more than a rounding error of actual scientists that the earth is anything but billions of years old (though there may be debate about the exact age), and the same is true of the view of evolution (see e.g. Project Steve), which is just about the most weighty, accepted view in all of science, opposed only generally by trotting out idealogues who got their degrees from cracker jack boxes, but fostered by the alarming spread over the past twenty years of the yellow journalism that passes for news, where every time there is a legitimate scientist describing evolution, they think journalistic even handedness requires presenting an opposing viewpoint regardless of weight (and then you have the pure bias of non-news, inculcating organizations like Fox)," phrase. Thanks for closing out the discussion. On a different note...would you give your insight into the Crimea talk Talk:Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation—you seem to have good sense and could probably really give good insight! Anyway, I'll get off your talk page now! Thanks!
Just 'cause xD
მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 22:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!
Lesser Cartographies (
talk)
02:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I might disagree with you but thank you for abstaining from actions and behaviors which do not honor wikis spirit. My talkpage is strong evidence of that , threads etc . I m not claiming I m right in everything and Im ready to change my mind if good arguments are presented. Best---- George1935 ( talk) 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Apologies LC, I had quite a few notifications when I logged in this morning and yours got lost in the melee (both at WP:ANI and on my talk page). Your suggestions and ANI and FTN were good ones. I tried to make clear at ANI that I wasn't calling into question the judgement of those editors who had dealt with the issue (both admins, though I subscribe to the view that they are ordinary editors with extra burden, rather than extra power). Your commentary seems to expand on that nicely. I've spent plenty of time mentoring editors along the "fringes" of WP and spend plenty of time there (I think I'm "involved" in three discussions there now).
Getting to editors like that earlier in the piece would do a lot of good, I think. Guy's point at FTN is right in that we don't necessarily want to encourage more proficient fringe editors better able to insert rubbish but you seem to be advocating the right balance of "tough love". If you find anyone who falls into that category I'd be happy to help out. Cheers, Stalwart 111 10:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I wanted to ask if you could help with an article. It's for User:BrendonPorter and the article in question is Women's education in Saudi Arabia. Someone tagged it with a speedy for copyvio and I'm not sure where the copyvio is since they didn't specify where it was from. However it does have issues with being an essay and other stuff, so it could use some firm re-writes in general. Wanna help out? I'm going to do what I can with the page as well. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
I'm awarding this to you in general for your work with various editors! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
Hi Lesser Cartographies, I am evaluating the Women's education in Saudi Arabia article, and noticed you've invited the editor to check out your sandbox for information. Clicking on your username does not take me there, where is it? Thanks (and thanks for your efforts helping this student). BerikG ( talk) 23:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Lesser Cartographies! In your posted comment in the Administrator's Notice board you wrote that "Rk asked that you take this up with mediation, a third opinion or an RfC (I'll add to that dispute resolution). That's how we handle content disputes, and I concur with Rk that that's what's going on here." You asked a question and I answered in the Talk page of History of psychosurgery. Are you the third opinion person? Is the dispute in mediation now? Is there anything else I need to do? My edits were removed unilaterally. Can you or I restore them and place an injunction against removal until the issue is resolved? Do I need to re-post or write something to the effect of what I wrote in the subheading, # "33. Request Neuroscience complaint be filed with possible reprimand of an editor" the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in the History of psychosurgery Talk Page to solicit comments from others? Thanks in advance for your advice and suggestions. LeBassRobespierre ( talk) 15:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Amandajm ( talk) 10:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really frustrated about the article deletion itself even if I spent quite some time on it those last days. But I'm frustrated with the fact that we don't question the notability of Picasa that has been heavily promoted by Google and we want to ignore alternative solutions that don't have the same marketing power. It feels like we're fashion victims and that marketing wins. Now if consider "whether it is worthy of being included in the pantheon of human knowledge", I would say that nor HTTPhotos nor Picasa are worthy being included in the pantheon as well as all other software. FromSpace ( talk) 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this notice because you made a contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Kaplan (2nd nomination), now closed. Subsequent to the closure of the AfD, a related sockpuppet investigation ( define) was opened. If you are interested, you can view or contribute to it. Thank you. — Brianhe ( talk) 03:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
Excellent work on finding solid RS and rewriting the article on the NEC µPD7720! Mark viking ( talk) 19:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks! Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 20:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lesser Cartographies, I am one of the editors of Dr. Curran's page. Since I am new I just want to check on something with you. I have been reviewing other pages marked for deletion and I am curious about your review of Paul M. Gahlinger. You suggest "Keep" based on two manuscripts with citations in the 80s and the other in the low hundreds. On Dr. Curran's page marked for deletion discussion you suggest delete despite four publications with citations over 100 (234, 188, 159, 105 to be exact) as presented by user DGG. Could you comment on this and perhaps re-evaluate your stance on his page? Best wishes! 98.119.153.171 ( talk) 14:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure that's enough for WP:ACADEMIC. That might have been a little too polite; Gahlinger is not a notable academic, as his h-index is probably not over 12 or 13. I then went on to say
but I expect WP:AUTHOR might work.That is correct: at least two of Gahlinger's book have received multiple scholarly reviews, and that's more than enough for notability via WP:AUTHOR. So I !voted keep.
Yes this is exactly what I needed. I'll add this to the discussion on Dr. Curran's page. I think it is important to recognize the career stage of folks trying to influence pages. The fact that you are only a few years junior to Dr. Curran and base your judgement by comparison to yourself I feel is controversial. The absence of pages for a person should not be "evidence" for removal of another, but rather suggests that additional pages should be added. Best wishes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.35.4 ( talk) 20:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lp (Unix), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Printer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Lp (Unix) may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You are invited! →
Litquake Edit-a-thon → See you there! | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC) |
I'm sorry to bother you with this again, but it seems that DeFacto's latest sockpuppet ProProbly has again started reverting my edits after a few months of inactivity. Would you support opening a new SPI thread? Archon 2488 ( talk) 14:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I take it from your comments on the IP SPI you spotted the same behavioural similarities I did eg wikilawyering? W C M email 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, just saying thanks for the kudos you left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Turkel; I don't put articles up for deletion lightly, and I really appreciate you recognising that :) Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 01:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Lesser Cartographies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
NorthAmerica
1000
12:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You previously voiced an opinion on an AfD discussion on an article. It was subsequently moved to user space and made it to main space. It has been nominated for deletion again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantata++ (3rd nomination). If you are interested in weighing-in, it would be helpful to know if you see any improvement in the article and it currently meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thanks very much! Much appreciated. -- Viennese Waltz 08:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Something I'd been going to ask about the monster draft: You started it with a mixture of (much less) D-M-Y and (much more) M-D-Y format; and, I'm pretty sure, US spelling. (Can't be bothered to check the latter right now.) Changing either date format or spelling style is normally a no-no; but now it's in D-M-Y format and British spelling. This was my miswork; and looking back I don't quite know how I made such decisions. I'd be happy if somebody else changed it all back (with a bot?), but this would be such a vast amount of work that I (without a bot) have no appetite for it. Could it please stay as it is? (Or if not, could I be exempted from the drudgery involved?) -- Hoary ( talk) 03:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Though it's not so much the format I'd like; more the format that I rather arbitrarily chose. I can only suppose that I noticed the cooccurrence of D-M-Y and M-D-Y but not the imbalance between the two, chose D-M-Y because I prefer it (or Y-M-D), and then chose the spelling to match. (Actually I think that WP's opposition of "American" and "British" styles is silly: "theatre" is quite common in real-world US as is "jail" in real-world Britain; the biggest and greatest British dictionary uses "realize", "nationalization", etc.) ¶ A bit busy this week, but I'll try to add a little almost every day. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Gianni Berengo Gardin and Gianni Berengo Gardin bibliography are now in "article-space". Again, thank you for your work in kicking off the enterprise. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that Hewitt has had quite a hard time understanding how Wikipedia works...and have been disagreeing with his content suggestions for another article...I stumbled over to his Wikipedia article, looked at the talk page...was wondering about the IR...if it's true that this is what his research has predominately been about for many years then isn't that in itself reason enough for inclusion? that is, even if IR itself is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article...it has been determined that Hewitt himself is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article...so isn't it relevant/of note what he's been working on?? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Commission on Information and Communications Technology (Philippines)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SkyHigher ( talk) 03:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite web. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite web redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite thesis. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite thesis redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite techreport. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite techreport redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite speech. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite speech redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite sign. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite sign redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite serial. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite serial redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite report. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite report redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite press release. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite press release redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite podcast. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite podcast redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite newsgroup. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite newsgroup redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite news. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite news redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite map. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite map redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite mailing list. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite mailing list redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite journal. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite journal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite interview. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite interview redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite episode. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite episode redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite encyclopedia. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite encyclopedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite conference. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite conference redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite book. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite book redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite av media. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite av media redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite arxiv. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite arxiv redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite arXiv. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite arXiv redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite DVD notes. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite DVD notes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite template. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite template redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lesser Cartographies. 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)
Hello, Lesser Cartographies. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, " Shingle mining".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 ( talk) 03:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Left this reply on my talk page years ago, but you didn't reply.
Lesser Cartographies, I have scanned the book covers, but when I try to upload them, it won't let me because the page they will be used on doesn't exist (outside of userified-space), so... catch 22, I can't ask for the article to go live without the backup corroboration of the images, and I can't upload the images without the page going live.Slaurel (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Slaurel ( talk) 18:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lesser Cartographies! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.
In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.
You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:
{{
Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}}
underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.
Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Module:BibTeX2Cite has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Gonnym (
talk)
07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Module:LaTeX2UTF8 has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Gonnym (
talk)
07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
![]() |
Hi Lesser Cartographies! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hi - I note you have removed a few flags in infoboxes. Please read WP:MILMOS#FLAGS which makes it clear that "when dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death." Thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk ( talk) 22:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:MILMOS#FLAGS:
"When dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death. However, there remains considerable disagreement regarding the appropriateness of flags in such cases, so editors should not regard this as a universal rule."
I was treating WP:INFOBOXFLAG as a universal rule when it came to MIL biographies; MILMOS says it's not a universal rule. I'll let the folks who have spent more time editing MIL articles than I have fight this one out. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 07:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingpin (automotive part), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Barrow ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
Anna Frodesiak (
talk)
05:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying not to step on toes today (I'm too tired). Just did a check for "Joe Pullum" to find that. However, I think it was Hamer using that name since the name is also used by a blues musician who did perform in the area. Overall, I think we're almost done here. LionMans Account ( talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you give it a check. I think I'm close to being finished with it, but might need a once-over before putting it up for review or just moving it. Thanks. LionMans Account ( talk) 01:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The article was previously taken to AFD, so you can't prod it. I'll re-AFD it for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for taking a look at the edits to Tweetmyjobs. Just added 3rd party sources to all of the edits that were made - feel free to give the article a look to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colelave ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Nepal Dalit Sangh (Prajatantrik) may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, it seems you are trying to clean out Infinit (technology) which seems to me far too detailed and promotional, so agree it does not belong. I noticed there is also an article Infinit (company) on the company promoting this for the past two years. Not sure if it is more than "two kids and an app", but I did try to rescue it a bit and make one somewhat decent article. Seems like there is a long history here. Take a look at Infinit, which started out as a similar uncited promotion back in 2008 by single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Mycure. Monsieur Quintard supposedly graduated from Université Pierre & Marie Curie and the user mycure on Github belongs a Julien Quintard. That 2008 article was proposed as a speedy delete, but the tag was removed by User:Ginkgo100. Then in July 2012 another single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Pwperl added more, still with no citations. In May 2013 User:Tassedethe did a proposal for deletion. Pwperl added some more, and then an anonymous user blanked the content and made it a disambig page to the two separate articles (which removed the prod tag). A couple weeks later (May 18) Mycure stuffed about the same content into the "technology" page, and on May 27 made the company page in another burst of edits within a day. My proposal was to attempt to rescue the company article, delete the other two (never really cited well), and move back to Infinit which would require an admin. Or is it worth saving? Thanks. W Nowicki ( talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan to me. No hurry but best to not fall through the cracks. In the meanwhile, I also noticed Opaak, Kaneton, Kastor (kernel) and Kayou from the same article spammers. Sigh. Not sure these are worth a merge or just four deletions? Know it might not be your field; I have been almost full-time cleaning up these vanity software articles since I retired a couple months ago.... W Nowicki ( talk) 23:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I was thinking about trying to keep Opaak and merge the others, but there is not much to merge, so probably just making a clean break is fine. Also it seems there are a bunch of other things named Opaak, so Google searches are misleading. In particular, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2307664 seems to be another one. So if software is your area, there are still quite a few very promotional but mostly unsourced articles on European projects that were created circa 2008 to 2010. It seems there was an organized effort to spam Wikipedia with articles promoting such projects (perhaps similar to the current wave of "two kids and an app" companies), although we tend to delete or merge them from time to time as we run across them. Most talk about "The Grid" for example, which was a popular buzzword (including the caps) during that time period, generally now replaced by "The Cloud". For example, see GUSE P-GRADE Portal SZTAKI Desktop Grid OMII-UK BPEL4People DIET GridRPC etc. Most of these soud like make-work projects for grad students that might not have been used by anyone else, but hard to tell. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
For advice. Well taken. It comes from needing to be so careful about neutral language in articles; perhaps I tend to let go too much in the discussions. Certainly not worth alienating anyone. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Lesser Cartographies, for the wise and lengthy advice that you gave me, which I'll be more than glad to heed, and in fact I have often wondered how to improve the rating of the Harp Twins article from Start-Class. I know I have much to learn. However, could you please edit the article in a way that will protect the discography section? That's my only concern. In fact, if you look at the page history carefully, you will see that I had not contributed in a significant manner to that article since May. This entire ordeal began when an anonymous user changed the format of the references section, which was then done again by Duffbeerforme, which prompted me to do a ton of research to increase notability, to protect the article from what I perceived was an attack, especially since Duffbeerforme desperately tried in vain to have the page deleted several months ago.
So, I really don't mind leaving the article alone for even more than two months, but please help me. With your experience I'm sure you can fix the page in such a way that the discography section will be protected in very few minutes. That way I'll have peace of mind at last.
Thanks again for your extreme kindness and guidance, and please reply on my talk page. Best wishes... Dontreader ( talk) 08:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hey, great work on breaking the reference.com loop! Ijon ( talk) 23:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Camille and Kennerly Kitt may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the ongoing improvement of the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page. I'm sorry to hear about the dead link since it showed the Toshiba tablet commercial with the Harp Twins being featured rather prominently. Thanks again for your help. Dontreader ( talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lesser Cartographies,
I've added additional links to the AFD page, showing Usenet discussions going back to 1989 on the comp.mail.mush newsgroup. I hope that clears up the reliability question of mush's existance. Slaurel ( talk) 03:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed suggestions. I chose the page in question because I was surprised that it didn't already have an article, and because I find Wikipedia is a very good place to find the most authoritative reference sites for most software packages. I definitely plan to add more of the unique content about mush over time, but thought that getting the page started might give it a chance to collect improvements from others, since there's a lower barrier to edits than to page creation. I especially appreciate the pointers to DYK and NSOFT, as I hadn't seen those before. The Google Books suggestion is a good one too. I'll get the dead trees and obtain those references. Slaurel ( talk) 03:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
First book has arrived - albeit the least interesting of the 3 I think. Working on the request for Userfication tonight, and I'll edit it there until ready for review. Slaurel ( talk) 04:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello LC - I believe both other books have arrived at The UPS Store, but I haven't gone over to pick them up yet. The Userified page is here: User:Slaurel/MUSH_(e-mail_client) I thought I'd added the first reference, but it was a rush right before a trip and seems to have been lost. Will re-do. I will do the others once the books are in hand. Slaurel ( talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added citations to the Userified page User:Slaurel/MUSH_(e-mail_client), perhaps excessively so, as backlash to the deletion. I'm not happy with the content yet, but Notability shouldn't be an issue any more. The Z-Mail handbook references Mush or Mush features in Z-Mail on nearly every page, but I haven't put in more than a key handful of those. I'd welcome your opinion on the latest edits. Slaurel ( talk) 05:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the detailed review. I've addressed some of the points here, and will continue with the rest later. Btw - is there a guideline for trimming down these talk page discussions? At the discretion of the page owner, or some kind of mutual agreement? I don't need to clutter your page with all of the MUSH article history forever.... Slaurel ( talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lesser Cartographies,
I very much appreciate the time and effort you have put into editing the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article; however, I have just noticed that you have taken out my references to their coverage on a nationwide Spanish TV channel and two nationwide Russian TV channels, asserting that the articles that accompany the videos (broadcasts) are too short. In my opinion, the fact that the Harp Twins were featured on TV on foreign nationwide channels is very notable, and that's why I included that information in their Wikipedia article. I never claimed that the short articles accompanying the broadcasts were reliable or verifiable sources of useful information; instead, I believe those websites are important to keep because they prove that the Harp Twins were on multiple TV channels which showed some of their work as musicians. As you know, it's one thing when a website merely shows one or several YouTube videos of theirs, with a short article, as is the case with La Repubblica, which you took out as well, but it's a different matter when the video with a short article happens to be material that was aired to potentially tens of millions of homes.
I fail to understand why you don't see the notability (having reliable sources to prove it) of being featured on nationwide TV channels, regardless of the length of the articles that accompany those broadcast videos. By taking out those references, I think the notability of the Harp Twins has been weakened, and it will be harder for me to defend the article against another predictable proposal for deletion coming from someone whom I will not mention. Other than that issue, I certainly think the article looks much more professional now, and I'm very grateful for the help. Thanks in advance... Dontreader ( talk) 09:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
|
I very much appreciate the references ChaseAm ( talk) 11:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC) |
I am just now seeing that the page on the Qore Programming Language was slated for deletion. Please let me know what I can do to reverse this decision and make the article suitable for safe keeping.
I am happy to address any concerns, but I am not sure what they are.
Thank you, estrabd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estrabd ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Lesser Cartographies. First of all, please notice that I have dedicated a substantial amount of time (by my standards) to either improving or trying to improve several articles, as suggested by the administrator BrownHairedGirl, including a vigorous attempt to reach consensus on the talk page of the Nontrinitarian article here: Talk:Nontrinitarianism#nontrinitarianism or non-Trinitarianism.3F. Also, soon I will begin to take the steps you suggested. However, in the meantime, more problems have arisen on the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article, and I believe it would be unwise for me to interact with that editor in any way, shape or form, so I'm asking once again for your help. An effort is being made to reduce the Harp Twins to a mere blog phenomenon, as was done by the same editor in the discussion when the article was proposed for deletion.
Please look at this edit: quoting Mallika Rao, the editor changed the word "said" to "blogged". Is that necessary? Is that supposed to be regarded as a good-faith edit? An effort to improve the article? Here's what the Huffington Post says about Mallika Rao:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-rao/
So, exactly what could the good-faith purpose be of changing the word "said" to "blogged"?
Also, concerning the other edit, although Bailey Johnson does write for The Feed Blog (exclusively or not, I do not know), does that take away the fact that this person is a CBS News contributor? Or at least a CBS News online version contributor? Must that person be called "The Feed blogger"? Here's the source:
From that article you can say that it was in The Feed section of CBS News, but it clearly remains a CBS News article, and therefore Bailey Johnson is a CBS News contributor. Besides, after some last-minute research, I have found that Bailey Johnson is not solely a The Feed Blog writer. Here's an article from Crimesider (also from CBS News online):
http://www.cbsnews.com/crimesider/?contributor=10470143
And this isn't from The Feed Blog either:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-504763_162-10391704.html?contributor=10470143
Therefore, is it accurate to reduce Bailey Johnson to "The Feed blogger"?
I must stress that in each case the article begins with (CBS), and the source is http://www.cbsnews.com/ Bailey Johnson is a CBS News contributor. That cannot be disputed, unless you want to call Johnson a CBS News online version contributor, or a cbsnews.com contributor, but Cbsnews.com redirects you to CBS News on Wikipedia.
Please help me. And truly, this should not be happening. Dontreader ( talk) 05:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Your username is evocative of a concept quotidian yet fantastic. I like it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 03:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe that certain actions make the assumption of good faith absurd. For example, when the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page was nominated for deletion (by the way, the "contributor" that proposed the deletion has vanished since then), and someone promotes in a militant fashion the deletion of the page during the discussion, it's because he is convinced that there is NO WAY to improve the article to a point where it could meet Wikipedia standards. Or am I wrong? Therefore, when he comes back half a year later to allegedly improve the article, that's a clear contradiction. Or am I wrong? That was when I no longer assumed good faith on his part. As I said recently, if you can recall one contributor who fought hard to delete a page and then came back to improve it, and was actually helpful, please let me know, and I will reconsider my reasoning. Dontreader ( talk) 04:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
If Bgwhite sees any need for changes to the article, I will discuss them with him, not with you. What you are suggesting is to make drastic unnecessary changes to the page, at the request of you-know-who (which was my concern when he showed up with a revert a few weeks ago, several months after the AfD discussion). You have already wiped out many well-crafted sentences and paragraphs that took me a long time to compose. You've done enough to that article. Since you said your time is limited for Wikipedia, please focus on other articles. Your plan will only cause serious trouble. Dontreader ( talk) 03:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
(Undid revision 568570723 by 94.101.4.209 (talk) Reverting "conquest"; happy to discuss on the talk page.)
"As a result, the victory of a Soviet offensive toward Austria and the liberation (by the Red Army)" is incorrect and should be changed to "capture" or "conquest", as Austria was de facto, de-jure and de fideli a part of the Greater Germany. Therefore the term "liberation" is incorrect as Vienna as major city of the 3rd Reich. Saying "Berlin was liberated from the Germans" or "Vienna was liberated from the Austrians" makes NO sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.4.209 ( talk) 10:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Simple because some (english-language) sources got a self-evident fact wrong, Wikipedia shouldn't. I'm not that keen on being an accomplice in the spreading of historical inaccuracies just because somebody else got the terminology wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.4.209 ( talk) 19:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, here goes, first pass.
1. My Russian is lacking so my position may be fundamentally flawed. Lightweight news item on viral video. Not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Content tells us nothing not found in sources already used.
4. Most are purely sourced by primary sourcing, most likely the Kitts promo materials. If it's not covered by independent sources, does it belong, probably no. The President is the exception here, there is independent sourcing. However that coverage seems to just mention it as a point of trivia (no specifics, when, what event, why) so not really appropriate. Happy snaps are not independent reliable sources.
5. The events were not neceserilly for those pollies. At dinner/event attended by pollie would be a better version from the source.
6.I note someone else suggest it being bad to lose it because the acting section is so slight. If their acting careers are slight then the section should be as well.
7.Also worth asking is the relative weight given to marginal sources.
8. Also of concern is the particular choice of quotes used, both from blogs reposting a viral video, lightweight articles. The emphasis given to these two. Do they reflect the wider reaction or were they picked because they were the most complimentary found. The sort of cherrypicking of quotes press kits use.
9. Do independent reliable sources describe the author at all.
10. The problem here is the sentence was changed but the source was not
[3]. Source says 31 videos and no hit number. It should either go back to what is way and say something like "in march 2012 there was". Or remove the source from there. Finding a new independent source with up to date figures would be ideal.
11.This is the wrong way around. You don't write a peacocked preferred version then hope someone might find some sources. You first find sources then write based on them. Contrary to one of the replies It does not matter who first introduced the sources. It's the quality of the sources and what they say.
12. composers - No
13. Not that I've seen. Uploaded is an alternative.
14. It's a bit crufty and the large list does dwarf the article a bit. If listed maybe collapse.
15. Not a usable source.
Additional
Ref section need work. They are currently lacking in detail and in at least one case deceptive (6)
You raise the possibility of a list of performances/tv appearances. I have yet to notice similar in feature articles. Listing every little show or soundbite seems to me excessive and more at home on a dedicated fans own site.
Other points
A simple yes/no reply is of very limited use. This is not a vote.
Why does this edit still stand? It jumped over the top of an ongoing discussion and was against the then consensus. (No comment on the editor or their intention should be implied) duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Stop the editing the Raul Cuero page. You can edit the information without source but you can not delete the intro of articles that are in scopus database or the awards that have a source. Thinks like awards before 1994 on sports can not be deleted because they are confirmed by PBS in the special about creativity. A page about a scientific is not interested in personal media interest. Stop editing the page and let the original where i was working, I'm adding links to all the references to confirm information. if you want polemic you can add a part but not to delete the complete page. Remember in USA he is a person who promote the science. If I adding something is with links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwinburneMel ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Lesser Cartographies, for all the valuable time you have invested in improving the Harp Twins article. As Bgwhite predicted, there are edits that I like and others that I am not fond of, but I think I have shown during this process that I'm willing to make concessions and to compromise. By the way, I hope Bgwhite will continue to enforce the rules he gave Duff and me since the core problem remains unresolved.
Here are some minor details in the article that I ask you to please address (nothing controversial):
1. "as well as music scored for video games." Very well written but please change that to "video games, TV shows and movies." because they have covered the theme of The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Doctor Who, Star Trek, The Hobbit, and more are coming, they have said.
2. "The Harp Twins’ have posted" seems to have kept an apostrophe from a previous edit, so please delete it.
3. (Not your fault at all): "Harp fantasy (2013)". Please make that "Fantasy".
4. (not your fault at all): "(Harp covers of Video Games, Anime, Movies and TV soundtracks)" Please change Video Games, Anime and Movies to lower case.
Many thanks in advance, Lesser Cartographies, and thanks again for the very detailed work and research, including a good analysis of the references. Have a nice day. Dontreader ( talk) 00:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to edit and actual article today. Colombian profs, sockpuppets and new articles with spam links. To top a wonderful day, I'm apparently getting sued... User talk:Ross-Novak.
Dont asked me to look at a version of the Kitt article in his sandbox. It was mostly moving the refs up into the article. I didn't see a need, but I made the other minor changes he requested, including all refs using templates. Bgwhite ( talk) 08:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lesser Cartographies,
I did not see your last reply until many days after you wrote it (I don't watch this page, and you took a while to reply, plus you did not mention me in a way that would have sent me a notification, so I forgot to check for a long time). I will make observations in my sandbox as you suggested as soon as possible. User GoingBatty has actually made some of the corrections I wanted, even though I never contacted him. My main concern is with the references section, which you changed entirely; it has its pros but also its cons. Most potential contributors are likely to insert material into the article and put a source right there, which would mess everything up. That's why I prefer to insert citations right next to the claims that are being made, with the website and everything. My sandbox has that method restored, plus the references are more complete and consistent (title of article, and author if available, for example). Please consider going back to the original style for the references section, which I do believe is the more common one, and more user friendly.
I see that you had a lengthy discussion with Duff here about the article... I was not aware of that discussion until tonight, so I wonder if I missed it each and every time I actually was visiting your page frequently during the discussion process, or if it was hidden for some time. I disagree with some of the conclusions that were reached. Why should I care, for example, that performances are not listed on Featured Articles? Why is the Kitt article being held to that standard? Do you see potential for it to reach Featured Article status any time soon? Likewise, I have found MANY articles about songs of very famous musicians, with links to iTunes and Amazon, for example, so I don't understand the double standard. Will anyone fight to eliminate these links on Lady Gaga or Katy Perry songs, as was done on the Harp Twins page? I can send you a list of articles with iTunes and Amazon links. If no action is taken soon on those pages, how can you justify keeping them out of the Kitt page? No one will control the page; they are not famous and lack big sales, unlike Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Selena Gomez and others.
But for now I realize that something important is missing from the Kitt article, and it's a question that shows up in virtually all of their interviews. At least a sentence is required to explain why they cover metal, rock, etc., despite having been trained classically. This is my proposal:
In their biography section, after "Both sisters hold a Bachelor of Music degree in Harp Performance and graduated with highest honors at Wheaton College Conservatory of Music.", I would take out the period and replace it with a ";", and add the following text:
"however, they were uninterested in only playing classical music, preferring instead to arrange and perform versions of rock, metal, and other contemporary genres, as harp duets."
That should do. My source is one that you sort of trashed, but again, I was somehow totally unaware of that exchange that took place above, and I could almost swear it was not there during the discussion, but I could be wrong. Here's the source:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/08/harp-playing-twins-make-pretty-rock-music/
That is ABC News, and if you want to dismiss it because it's a blog, then what about this?:
Then that's a blog too. After all, it says "About this blog" (above the title of the article). If you click on that link, it takes you here:
Would you consider Becky Bratu to be a "blogger"? Is this an unreliable source? Look, I've seen "blogs" written at NBC News by the editor-in-chief! My point is that the term "blog" can be deceiving. You simply cannot justify trashing the ABC News link just because it has the word "blog" in the URL. And you went on to minimize Eliza Murphy by agreeing that she's a "digital reporter. Cute and strange type blogging". Here's her website:
There, you would have found her resume:
http://www.elizawmurphy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Eliza-Murphy-Resume9.pdf
She has a degree in journalism and she's a TV news anchor, which you can also verify on her website:
http://www.elizawmurphy.com/anchoring
This is the sort of mistake that could have easily been avoided if you had consulted with me during the process. So please insert the sentence I provided (actually, not a sentence because it comes after a ";", and with that source, which is absolutely valid).
And when did you tell me that the Huffington Post articles were unacceptable to you??? For example, you agreed that this link was unacceptable without having the courtesy to tell me anything:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/harp-twins-game-of-throne_n_1518402.html
You agreed with "Looks like blog. Author looks like local reporter, not an expert or big name." Why exactly do we need a national reporter or a big name, or an expert on the matter? Those are very weak arguments. We are not talking about quantum mechanics here. Lizzie Schiffman (the author) is a journalist. Why is that not enough for an article about two musicians? MANY seasoned Wikipedians say that the Huffington Post is a reliable source, but by dismissing that site, you found a pretext to erase the performances for Barack Obama and other politicians. You did NOT have to do that. As long as there are reliable sources saying that these events took place, they can be included. There is no need for detailed articles on the matter.
I'm sorry if I sound upset with you, but I had the right to be consulted when someone else was making claims to try to remove material from the article, but you did not inform me or let me defend content. Some material must be added again because some portions were deleted due to mistakes. The Eliza Murphy mistake is particularly serious, but clearly it's not the only one. Please also remember suggestions I made above. Finally, any further suggestions by the interested parties should be made publicly, as I always made them, not through private emails, which is a big reason why things must now be revised. This also kept Bgwhite in the dark. Thanks. Dontreader ( talk) 09:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
http://www.sccah.com/events/event_details.asp?id=343122
http://www.sccah.com/events/event_details.asp?id=254964
http://www.carolinagamessummit.com/page.php?page=Live_Bands
http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=178544
http://www.49st.com/event/magical-sounds-of-the-harp#info
http://www.littleangels.org/angelsongs-enter.php
http://www.theghoulardifest.com/
Dontreader ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lesser Cartographies, your ideas sound interesting yet I cannot quite imagine how this would work within table format. Maybe I can get a clue if I see an example, feel free to use the talk page, thanks, -- Jackentasche ( talk) 11:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
For your efforts in assessing a question at the Teahouse based on the merits of the topic... a good assessment and very valuable. Your feedback makes a difference. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 01:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC) |
BG White has repeatedly violated an understanding that you have helped broker. Instead of edit warring both myself and Dontreader were to discuss any changes to the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page with yourself and changes would be made by you. The agreement did not include Dontreader whining to BG White and BG White kowtowing to his every whim. BG White has been repeatedly introducing linkspam into said page. attempt to raise the issue with BG White was met by silence. duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
To your first point: See
That looks like an impeccably recognized authority to me. [Perhaps I should spell this out a bit more. When your blog is cited as an authority in academic literature, we as editors may assume the blog is both recognized and an authority.]
As to your second point: What percentage of featured articles have shop links? What percentage of those would be improved by citing reliable sources instead?
Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 04:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've now replaced the cdbaby cites with a cite to the twins' home page. The fact that the albums exist and were released on such-and-such a date is uncontroversial enough to use a less-reliable source. That leaves the track listings uncited, which was (unspoken) issue all along, right? So I'm guessing that since nobody else (not even the twins themselves) has bothered to reproduce the track listings, our choices come down to (a) leave the material uncited, (b) remove the material, (c) restore the link spam, or (d) find a better cite. I have enquires in progress for (d), and until I see how those pan out we'll stick with (a). Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 06:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Lesser C, I have reverted your edits, please discuss in the talk page before messing up an existing track listing format. Or better, take it to a higher avenue if you feel this is a correct way of presenting the information and let's set a precedence for it. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Saturday, April 5 -
WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited! | |
---|---|
The
University of California, Berkeley's
Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman
Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend.
Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch ( talk) 22:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
I find it very difficult to credit her claims to have worked in even the laxest kinds of "journalism" for twenty-five years, frankly. Take a look at the breathlessly promotional prose with which she littered the article: the mixed metaphors, the fractured syntax; and you will understand what I meant. I still do not believe that she is an impartial editor, based on the kind of content she was adding to the article. I have added back in the statistical data, which is now properly sourced; and I certainly won't object if you or anybody else helps improve the article with WP:NPOV, WP:TONE and WP:RS issues properly addressed. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, you gave me feedback on the teahouse after looking in my Sandbox at an article I was working on about Internet Addiction Disorder and said that I needed to have a "lead" that set an introduction for my article. I wasn't sure if this was necessary as the article exists already, the part I linked you to was a section I would be adding to the page. Also, did you want me to change my heading that states "is Internet Addiction a Disorder?" because it is a question, and do you have any suggestions as to what I could change it to? Thank you, Sarahmckinley4 ( talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help User:Lesser Cartograpgies it is much appreciated. I will alter that heading! And my apologies on the positioning of my comment, I will know for next time!
Sarahmckinley4 ( talk) 17:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Guidance Barnstar | |
Thank you for helping with new users! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC) |
Hey, I was just looking at your actions at the Teahouse and can agree with you that it probably isn't the best place for said discussions...and I'm striving to maintain NPOV on here (lol; this was the main reason I changed the subject). I got a tad bit irritated at the, "It is absolutely untrue that there is any view by more than a rounding error of actual scientists that the earth is anything but billions of years old (though there may be debate about the exact age), and the same is true of the view of evolution (see e.g. Project Steve), which is just about the most weighty, accepted view in all of science, opposed only generally by trotting out idealogues who got their degrees from cracker jack boxes, but fostered by the alarming spread over the past twenty years of the yellow journalism that passes for news, where every time there is a legitimate scientist describing evolution, they think journalistic even handedness requires presenting an opposing viewpoint regardless of weight (and then you have the pure bias of non-news, inculcating organizations like Fox)," phrase. Thanks for closing out the discussion. On a different note...would you give your insight into the Crimea talk Talk:Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation—you seem to have good sense and could probably really give good insight! Anyway, I'll get off your talk page now! Thanks!
Just 'cause xD
მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 22:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!
Lesser Cartographies (
talk)
02:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I might disagree with you but thank you for abstaining from actions and behaviors which do not honor wikis spirit. My talkpage is strong evidence of that , threads etc . I m not claiming I m right in everything and Im ready to change my mind if good arguments are presented. Best---- George1935 ( talk) 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Apologies LC, I had quite a few notifications when I logged in this morning and yours got lost in the melee (both at WP:ANI and on my talk page). Your suggestions and ANI and FTN were good ones. I tried to make clear at ANI that I wasn't calling into question the judgement of those editors who had dealt with the issue (both admins, though I subscribe to the view that they are ordinary editors with extra burden, rather than extra power). Your commentary seems to expand on that nicely. I've spent plenty of time mentoring editors along the "fringes" of WP and spend plenty of time there (I think I'm "involved" in three discussions there now).
Getting to editors like that earlier in the piece would do a lot of good, I think. Guy's point at FTN is right in that we don't necessarily want to encourage more proficient fringe editors better able to insert rubbish but you seem to be advocating the right balance of "tough love". If you find anyone who falls into that category I'd be happy to help out. Cheers, Stalwart 111 10:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I wanted to ask if you could help with an article. It's for User:BrendonPorter and the article in question is Women's education in Saudi Arabia. Someone tagged it with a speedy for copyvio and I'm not sure where the copyvio is since they didn't specify where it was from. However it does have issues with being an essay and other stuff, so it could use some firm re-writes in general. Wanna help out? I'm going to do what I can with the page as well. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
I'm awarding this to you in general for your work with various editors! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
Hi Lesser Cartographies, I am evaluating the Women's education in Saudi Arabia article, and noticed you've invited the editor to check out your sandbox for information. Clicking on your username does not take me there, where is it? Thanks (and thanks for your efforts helping this student). BerikG ( talk) 23:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Lesser Cartographies! In your posted comment in the Administrator's Notice board you wrote that "Rk asked that you take this up with mediation, a third opinion or an RfC (I'll add to that dispute resolution). That's how we handle content disputes, and I concur with Rk that that's what's going on here." You asked a question and I answered in the Talk page of History of psychosurgery. Are you the third opinion person? Is the dispute in mediation now? Is there anything else I need to do? My edits were removed unilaterally. Can you or I restore them and place an injunction against removal until the issue is resolved? Do I need to re-post or write something to the effect of what I wrote in the subheading, # "33. Request Neuroscience complaint be filed with possible reprimand of an editor" the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in the History of psychosurgery Talk Page to solicit comments from others? Thanks in advance for your advice and suggestions. LeBassRobespierre ( talk) 15:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Amandajm ( talk) 10:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really frustrated about the article deletion itself even if I spent quite some time on it those last days. But I'm frustrated with the fact that we don't question the notability of Picasa that has been heavily promoted by Google and we want to ignore alternative solutions that don't have the same marketing power. It feels like we're fashion victims and that marketing wins. Now if consider "whether it is worthy of being included in the pantheon of human knowledge", I would say that nor HTTPhotos nor Picasa are worthy being included in the pantheon as well as all other software. FromSpace ( talk) 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this notice because you made a contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Kaplan (2nd nomination), now closed. Subsequent to the closure of the AfD, a related sockpuppet investigation ( define) was opened. If you are interested, you can view or contribute to it. Thank you. — Brianhe ( talk) 03:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
Excellent work on finding solid RS and rewriting the article on the NEC µPD7720! Mark viking ( talk) 19:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks! Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 20:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lesser Cartographies, I am one of the editors of Dr. Curran's page. Since I am new I just want to check on something with you. I have been reviewing other pages marked for deletion and I am curious about your review of Paul M. Gahlinger. You suggest "Keep" based on two manuscripts with citations in the 80s and the other in the low hundreds. On Dr. Curran's page marked for deletion discussion you suggest delete despite four publications with citations over 100 (234, 188, 159, 105 to be exact) as presented by user DGG. Could you comment on this and perhaps re-evaluate your stance on his page? Best wishes! 98.119.153.171 ( talk) 14:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure that's enough for WP:ACADEMIC. That might have been a little too polite; Gahlinger is not a notable academic, as his h-index is probably not over 12 or 13. I then went on to say
but I expect WP:AUTHOR might work.That is correct: at least two of Gahlinger's book have received multiple scholarly reviews, and that's more than enough for notability via WP:AUTHOR. So I !voted keep.
Yes this is exactly what I needed. I'll add this to the discussion on Dr. Curran's page. I think it is important to recognize the career stage of folks trying to influence pages. The fact that you are only a few years junior to Dr. Curran and base your judgement by comparison to yourself I feel is controversial. The absence of pages for a person should not be "evidence" for removal of another, but rather suggests that additional pages should be added. Best wishes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.35.4 ( talk) 20:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lp (Unix), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Printer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Lp (Unix) may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 03:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You are invited! →
Litquake Edit-a-thon → See you there! | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC) |
I'm sorry to bother you with this again, but it seems that DeFacto's latest sockpuppet ProProbly has again started reverting my edits after a few months of inactivity. Would you support opening a new SPI thread? Archon 2488 ( talk) 14:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I take it from your comments on the IP SPI you spotted the same behavioural similarities I did eg wikilawyering? W C M email 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, just saying thanks for the kudos you left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Turkel; I don't put articles up for deletion lightly, and I really appreciate you recognising that :) Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 01:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Lesser Cartographies,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
NorthAmerica
1000
12:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You previously voiced an opinion on an AfD discussion on an article. It was subsequently moved to user space and made it to main space. It has been nominated for deletion again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantata++ (3rd nomination). If you are interested in weighing-in, it would be helpful to know if you see any improvement in the article and it currently meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thanks very much! Much appreciated. -- Viennese Waltz 08:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Something I'd been going to ask about the monster draft: You started it with a mixture of (much less) D-M-Y and (much more) M-D-Y format; and, I'm pretty sure, US spelling. (Can't be bothered to check the latter right now.) Changing either date format or spelling style is normally a no-no; but now it's in D-M-Y format and British spelling. This was my miswork; and looking back I don't quite know how I made such decisions. I'd be happy if somebody else changed it all back (with a bot?), but this would be such a vast amount of work that I (without a bot) have no appetite for it. Could it please stay as it is? (Or if not, could I be exempted from the drudgery involved?) -- Hoary ( talk) 03:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Though it's not so much the format I'd like; more the format that I rather arbitrarily chose. I can only suppose that I noticed the cooccurrence of D-M-Y and M-D-Y but not the imbalance between the two, chose D-M-Y because I prefer it (or Y-M-D), and then chose the spelling to match. (Actually I think that WP's opposition of "American" and "British" styles is silly: "theatre" is quite common in real-world US as is "jail" in real-world Britain; the biggest and greatest British dictionary uses "realize", "nationalization", etc.) ¶ A bit busy this week, but I'll try to add a little almost every day. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Gianni Berengo Gardin and Gianni Berengo Gardin bibliography are now in "article-space". Again, thank you for your work in kicking off the enterprise. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that Hewitt has had quite a hard time understanding how Wikipedia works...and have been disagreeing with his content suggestions for another article...I stumbled over to his Wikipedia article, looked at the talk page...was wondering about the IR...if it's true that this is what his research has predominately been about for many years then isn't that in itself reason enough for inclusion? that is, even if IR itself is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article...it has been determined that Hewitt himself is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article...so isn't it relevant/of note what he's been working on?? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Commission on Information and Communications Technology (Philippines)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SkyHigher ( talk) 03:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite web. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite web redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite thesis. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite thesis redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite techreport. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite techreport redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite speech. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite speech redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite sign. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite sign redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite serial. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite serial redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite report. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite report redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite press release. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite press release redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite podcast. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite podcast redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite newsgroup. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite newsgroup redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite news. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite news redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite map. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite map redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite mailing list. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite mailing list redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite journal. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite journal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite interview. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite interview redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite episode. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite episode redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite encyclopedia. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite encyclopedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite conference. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite conference redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite book. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite book redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite av media. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite av media redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite arxiv. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite arxiv redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite arXiv. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite arXiv redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite DVD notes. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite DVD notes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Cite template. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Cite template redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lesser Cartographies. 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)
Hello, Lesser Cartographies. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, " Shingle mining".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 ( talk) 03:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Left this reply on my talk page years ago, but you didn't reply.
Lesser Cartographies, I have scanned the book covers, but when I try to upload them, it won't let me because the page they will be used on doesn't exist (outside of userified-space), so... catch 22, I can't ask for the article to go live without the backup corroboration of the images, and I can't upload the images without the page going live.Slaurel (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Slaurel ( talk) 18:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lesser Cartographies! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.
In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.
You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:
{{
Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}}
underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.
Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Module:BibTeX2Cite has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Gonnym (
talk)
07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Module:LaTeX2UTF8 has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Gonnym (
talk)
07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)