This page 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. |
Hi HIAB,
I'm admittedly a bit new to this, but I was hoping you could clarify a couple things for me regarding the recent article of mine which you reviewed ( Draft:Peter Sklar.
As I've been rather painstaking in taking facts from the many sources I've found, I'm surprised that it reads like an advertisement. Could you point out some sentences which you feel are in the tone of an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia? I've been basing my prose on many other notable living person biographies from the entertainment industry such as Reese Witherspoon, Darren Aronofsky, Audra McDonald, and Stephen Sondheim to name a few, and trying to model my style after them.
Also, you mentioned that the sources should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. Of the 58 sources I cited, 3 of them were created by the subject, and those are not referred to for any important information in the article. (For instance, I refer to his own biography on his own website to cite that he was in a band as a teenager). The other 55 sources are most certainly not produced by the subject, and in fact run the gamut of what I believe you would consider reliable: New York Times, E! True Hollywood Story, Phil Donahue, other talk shows, live news broadcasts/interviews, major print and online newspapers, etc.
If you could help me understand these two points- some examples of advertising language in my article, and some examples of the kinds of sources you're calling unreliable, as I've cited them, that would be extremely helpful.
Thank you! WriterFly ( talk) 20:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This will take a little time. I'll post in a hour when I'm at my home. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Hell in a Bucket ! Will look forward to your advice whenever you get to it. WriterFly ( talk) 21:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi HIAB, Thanks for the review of my article, I am going to work on the tone in the next few days and resubmit. I was wondering what this comment meant? "I'm not convinced a redirect wouldn't be appropriate." Could you clarify? Thanks Again! Sallywhite2008 ( talk) 11:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
How long will the article be under consideration? LovinTheSunshine ( talk) 01:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Check out the Shakedown Street (vending area) article, which I happened upon and have performed some improvements to. It has much potential for more improvements. C'mon now deadhead Wikipedians, chip in! Why doesn't anyone collaborate anymore? (Also sent to User:Mudwater.) North America 1000 11:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please ping me when you file at DRV on this article. GregJackP Boomer! 20:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That image belongs to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kabir Vaghela, User:CKenjal, User:kenjalc etc are likely socks and there are probably more. Don't have time right now to dig it up, but you may find something in common here and at Commons, if you're so inclined. — Spaceman Spiff 11:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to direct you to WP:NACD where it says: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures." The correct proceedings in cae you disagree with a closure are: First: Ask the closer to revert himself, discussing reasons for closure;re-opening. Second: Ask at WP:AN for an adnministrator to re-open the AfD, citing a reason. Third: Take it to WP:DRV. AfDs need not stay open for another 7 days after they were relisted, they may be closed at any time, if the result is clear, as was in this case. Kraxler ( talk) 19:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Judtrap ( talk) 14:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this organization is on Charity Navigator and has it's own website with annual reports etc...Why are those references not sufficient?
Thanks!! Please let me know what I need to do to get this approved. Thank you!!
HIAB:
WP:BLANKING states in pertinent part:
WP:BLANKING says nothing whatsoever about removing block notices, only declined unblock requests. I thought you might want to re-read e operative language, because it does not appear to say what you thought it did. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I would be happy to mentor editor Arteyu regarding a "Faizal Ismail" article, but it would help if someone could at least userfy the article for Arteyu. I have asked the closer RoySmith to do so, but if you're an admin, would you be so kind? I do think that given the large number of substantial articles that I found, a reasonable article can be written that demonstrates notability. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 12:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Ping. - 2001:558:1400:10:16F:62CB:4B72:F554 ( talk) 17:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The amendment request to the banning-policy case has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy#Amendment request: Banning Policy (November 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 23:35, 9 November 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) 14:05, 24 November 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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.
I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 ( talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.
The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Hell in a bucket, thanks for reviewing my article on Cinny Kennard. The sources I have cited in my Cinny Kennard post are reliable sources, independent of the subject. It's disappointing to write a well-researched post about a notable journalist and see the bios of many other journalists published on wikipedia with few, if any, independent references. Annie Baxter, a former reporter at Minnesota Public Radio, now with American Public Media's Marketplace, has a very short bio with no references. NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro's wiki bio also is also poorly cited as is Nancy Updike's. Most of the bios on the list of "American women journalists" are also lengthy with few credible, independent references. Please advise. Thank you.
WomenJournos ( talk) 03:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this, that looks much more likely to be a class of Andy's students being invited by him to send him a message to demonstrate how the usertalk interface works. ‑ Iridescent 16:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"here for the improvement of the project" | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 514 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Hell in a Bucket. 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)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historic Arkansas River Project is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historic Arkansas River Project until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ringbang ( talk) 19:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Four years! |
---|
Miss you. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Hell in a Bucket. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Hell in a Bucket! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 22:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
Miss you, first contact on this project! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that this page be moved, per Wikipedia's rules (here). The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd, and k.d. lang. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 ( talk) 17:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Hell in a Bucket. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing that Fashion Nova is clearly notable. The problem is this other amateur user keeps disrupting and ruining the draft with her unhelpful contributions and keeps putting them back after I remove them to improve the draft. What do you think needs tweaking, in your opinion? Trillfendi ( talk) 03:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear user "Hell in a bucket" hi from Greece, can you explain to me why you wrote this to my personal wiki page: "one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV)"? Cryptojudeo ( talk) 12:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Cryptojudeo
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for approving my article. I am new to Wikipedia editing and did not know I could self-publish. Heck, I am watching a video right now explaining how talk pages work. Thank you again!-- Banjonosepicker ( talk) 00:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Sir,
I would greatly appreciate your help in getting the article into publishable order.
I'm really at a loss on what is lacking or a problem in the article. I've provided substantial sources, all which are relevant in the genre. I've also thought I've removed any type of material that seems promotional.
I'd very much like to document artists in this genre. It is an important genre to music inasmuch as it comes at the junction of past classical music and present contemporary classical music.
If you can provide specific references as examples for improvement, I'll work with you to make the improvements and attempt to carry those forward on future work.
Thank you in advance!
p.s. I asked for a username change. I'm not a musicologist by training (I am actually a research scientist in emerging technologies), so I've asked for a very neutral name (Meta in MA).
MAMusicologist ( talk) 02:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
To be clear: I am not a relative of Oster. I am likewise not being paid (trust me: no one could afford me, if I charged what I get paid on my real job). I will admit to being a fan of the GENRE. It was my hope by getting Oster's correct, I could continue to document the genre (for which there are very few entries on Wikipedia). If being a fan of the genre is disqualifier, please let me know and I'll cease work. I would expect being a fan of the genre would give me insights... not bias.
If being a fan of the genre is not a disqualifier, I'd deeply appreciate your help so I can get to work on other artists in the genre.
Thanks for your consideration and I'll look to see if you think being a fan of the genre is a COI. Meta in MA ( talk) 00:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
As you can tell, I'm not much of a Deadhead (although I do like John Mayer and one of my friends went to high school with him). Thanks so much for your support. I made an attempt at further "de-promotizing it." Please have a look at your convenience. Meta in MA ( talk) 01:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Sir,
This is formerly MAMusicologist. Greetings!
I was checking to see if you might have time to review my changes to the Oster article and see if I'm moving in the direction of getting it approved.
As I mentioned, there are other artists in the genre I'd like to get to once I have a model that has been approved.
Thanks again for your interested and consideration! -- Meta in MA ( talk) 19:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the heads up. Good luck with your deadlines.
Meta in MA ( talk) 03:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for reviewing my article on Pearls Review. I am the Founder of this company which I built (along with others cited in the article) and which was acquired by Gannett Communications in 2008. Gannett is one of the largest media companies in the world (their best known product is USA Today) and they are very careful and diligent in the companies they evaluate and acquire. I re-read what I posted and still believe that I told the story from a neutral point of view (not an advertisement). The references I provided outlined the background of the founders as well as documenting the acquisition by Gannett. Pearls Review has since been acquired by OnCourse Learning (a large healthcare education and content company) in 2015 and a few months ago was sold to Relias, a division of Bertelsmann, another large international media company. The references provided document these acquisitions. Thus the documentation provided (and references) confirmed what was said in the article. Please re-examine the references which are official reports of the events I outlined in the article which were not created by me or Pearls Review. Thank you. ----
Drnlorenzo (
talk) 00:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi could you please give me guidance in bettering this article?
Anni Tyga (
talk) 12:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your comments and I really appreciate the help. The Notable Programs are rather notable for their community and are well known in Los Angeles. (I'm not a part of their community.) You are absolutely right though that I need all the formatting help I can get. Is there any way for you to help me clean things up? Thanks! Egw1119 ( talk) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey there, a voice out of the past, it's good to see you're editing again. Although I appreciated the kind words, your first instincts were right: stay away from the drama boards, it's not worth it. Take care and here's hoping you stay for a while. Regards.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your caring and help! Meta in MA ( talk) 22:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Just a note to thank you for stepping in to the recent Teahouse question about edit-warring and harassment. Much appreciated. Nick Moyes ( talk) 09:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
If you apply a speedy tag to a page which is transcluded you must bracket the tag with <noinclude></noinclude>
. Your failure to do so in the case of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Maldonado González caused numerous innocent pages to appear in
CAT:CSD. Or better, you should have first removed the entry in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 13. Then it would have been OK to apply a naked speedy tag. —
RHaworth (
talk ·
contribs) 15:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Boom! I left the usual warnings and a personal note, shut down, and while I was brushing my teeth for the evening Eng.M.Bandara dropped that bomb on my talkpage. I expected a response, but not that response. Thanks for dealing with it, and I see Black Kite did the necessary with the redactions - I had meetings to go to this morning and couldn't linger for clean-up. I've seen the UTRS appeals, and they went as one would expect. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, kindly check and see Draft:Mr Puaz if now it does follow the WP guidelines . Thanks Machakusi ( talk) 07:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Jerry jamming in the middle of a bar — priceless! El_C 17:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The articles I post to John Alite wikipedia are realistic and those that are current are not real posted by a person named Kasparoza. Please help to publish these real articles. Alite John ( talk) 18:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, hope all is well with you. I have tried to fix few things on the draft Draft:Mr Puaz , kindly let me know if there is any further changes required.
Thanks Ndizibanana ( talk) 19:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hell, thank you for the help. DO I have to bring that "Speedy Deletion" Tag back? Can you also please tell me if there is any issue with my Article? I really want to publish it out of good will. Thanks.
Why did you delete my edit. I am a notable alumni at Outwood Academy Danum. Calutley01 ( talk) 20:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. My article "Janette Becerra" was not accepted for not being in English. It is meant to be in Spanish. I had not chosen Spanish in the language settings. I will resubmit it.
Aguasolysereno ( talk) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Hell in a Bucket! nice name.
Thanks for reviewing my article Werner Reinartz. I have been waiting for like 12 weeks.... I understand your comment but can you maybe help in this matter? The fact is you say there are minor things but as long as you do not indicate them then how can I work on them? I really cannot treat an issue that is just an impression that you get. So, would you be able to help and make it better? I am really ok with edits you make so that you feel it is more of a wikipedia article.
dAF ( talk) 21:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for the fantastic job. I hope I'm able to write a great article next time around. Iamdyzzy ( talk) 01:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC) |
I just wanted to let you know (upon seeing your comment at RoidRage12) that I don't see your username as necessarily disruptive just because it mentions Hell. Maybe it's just me, but that's how I see it. :) 331dot ( talk) 17:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
About this: it makes me think that the page WP:Canvassing is poorly titled, in that it describes a series of behaviors ("inappropriate notifications") but maybe only some of those behaviors actually deserve the name "canvassing"; or perhaps that the lead does not reflect its contents sufficiently clearly. At least, I think Buffs and I are probably not alone in feeling that when one person accuses another of canvassing, what they really mean is "campaigning" or "votestacking" (because if they meant "spamming", they would just say "spamming"). Anyhow, I hope my drive-by comment didn't derail more substantive conversation, or engender any ill-will. All the best, JBL ( talk) 01:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
US Banknote Contest | ||
---|---|---|
November-December 2019 | ||
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here |
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I know you're active in the space with Franzese and John Alite, etc. but take a look at this recent interview with him—I found this particular part pretty comical: at 1:14:36. Let me know what you think. Without a doubt, this page will have to be protected again come July. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:DOYCITE and WP:DOYSTYLE, all new entries to day-of-year articles require an inline citation. A small group of editors are doing the tedious work of going through every day-of-year article and adding sources to each entry from the main articles. (Take a look at January 1!) While that clean up is going on, preventing new entries without a source helps to keep the endeavor achievable. As more and more of the entries become sourced, new editors will hopefully see that and imitate it. The editor who added the entry to March 22 has been told this many times. Schazjmd (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on my draft! While I do think Isabella Fenwick is notable (at least as a historical figure, she's written about extensively in scholarly sources), I see your point about her notability being dependent on Wordsworth. Do you think it would be more appropriate to add details about their friendship to his page? -- Carinarampelt ( talk) 19:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
How is
an accusarion of lying you lied
"legit content"? It is a clear violation of
WP:TPG and
WP:CIVIL, not to mention
WP:AGF. Why did you restore it?
Newimpartial (
talk) 19:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Hi HIAB,
I'm admittedly a bit new to this, but I was hoping you could clarify a couple things for me regarding the recent article of mine which you reviewed ( Draft:Peter Sklar.
As I've been rather painstaking in taking facts from the many sources I've found, I'm surprised that it reads like an advertisement. Could you point out some sentences which you feel are in the tone of an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia? I've been basing my prose on many other notable living person biographies from the entertainment industry such as Reese Witherspoon, Darren Aronofsky, Audra McDonald, and Stephen Sondheim to name a few, and trying to model my style after them.
Also, you mentioned that the sources should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. Of the 58 sources I cited, 3 of them were created by the subject, and those are not referred to for any important information in the article. (For instance, I refer to his own biography on his own website to cite that he was in a band as a teenager). The other 55 sources are most certainly not produced by the subject, and in fact run the gamut of what I believe you would consider reliable: New York Times, E! True Hollywood Story, Phil Donahue, other talk shows, live news broadcasts/interviews, major print and online newspapers, etc.
If you could help me understand these two points- some examples of advertising language in my article, and some examples of the kinds of sources you're calling unreliable, as I've cited them, that would be extremely helpful.
Thank you! WriterFly ( talk) 20:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This will take a little time. I'll post in a hour when I'm at my home. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 20:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Hell in a Bucket ! Will look forward to your advice whenever you get to it. WriterFly ( talk) 21:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi HIAB, Thanks for the review of my article, I am going to work on the tone in the next few days and resubmit. I was wondering what this comment meant? "I'm not convinced a redirect wouldn't be appropriate." Could you clarify? Thanks Again! Sallywhite2008 ( talk) 11:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
How long will the article be under consideration? LovinTheSunshine ( talk) 01:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Check out the Shakedown Street (vending area) article, which I happened upon and have performed some improvements to. It has much potential for more improvements. C'mon now deadhead Wikipedians, chip in! Why doesn't anyone collaborate anymore? (Also sent to User:Mudwater.) North America 1000 11:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please ping me when you file at DRV on this article. GregJackP Boomer! 20:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That image belongs to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kabir Vaghela, User:CKenjal, User:kenjalc etc are likely socks and there are probably more. Don't have time right now to dig it up, but you may find something in common here and at Commons, if you're so inclined. — Spaceman Spiff 11:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to direct you to WP:NACD where it says: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures." The correct proceedings in cae you disagree with a closure are: First: Ask the closer to revert himself, discussing reasons for closure;re-opening. Second: Ask at WP:AN for an adnministrator to re-open the AfD, citing a reason. Third: Take it to WP:DRV. AfDs need not stay open for another 7 days after they were relisted, they may be closed at any time, if the result is clear, as was in this case. Kraxler ( talk) 19:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Judtrap ( talk) 14:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this organization is on Charity Navigator and has it's own website with annual reports etc...Why are those references not sufficient?
Thanks!! Please let me know what I need to do to get this approved. Thank you!!
HIAB:
WP:BLANKING states in pertinent part:
WP:BLANKING says nothing whatsoever about removing block notices, only declined unblock requests. I thought you might want to re-read e operative language, because it does not appear to say what you thought it did. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I would be happy to mentor editor Arteyu regarding a "Faizal Ismail" article, but it would help if someone could at least userfy the article for Arteyu. I have asked the closer RoySmith to do so, but if you're an admin, would you be so kind? I do think that given the large number of substantial articles that I found, a reasonable article can be written that demonstrates notability. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 12:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Ping. - 2001:558:1400:10:16F:62CB:4B72:F554 ( talk) 17:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The amendment request to the banning-policy case has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy#Amendment request: Banning Policy (November 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 23:35, 9 November 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) 14:05, 24 November 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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.
I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.
For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 ( talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.
The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Hell in a bucket, thanks for reviewing my article on Cinny Kennard. The sources I have cited in my Cinny Kennard post are reliable sources, independent of the subject. It's disappointing to write a well-researched post about a notable journalist and see the bios of many other journalists published on wikipedia with few, if any, independent references. Annie Baxter, a former reporter at Minnesota Public Radio, now with American Public Media's Marketplace, has a very short bio with no references. NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro's wiki bio also is also poorly cited as is Nancy Updike's. Most of the bios on the list of "American women journalists" are also lengthy with few credible, independent references. Please advise. Thank you.
WomenJournos ( talk) 03:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this, that looks much more likely to be a class of Andy's students being invited by him to send him a message to demonstrate how the usertalk interface works. ‑ Iridescent 16:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"here for the improvement of the project" | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 514 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Hell in a Bucket. 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)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historic Arkansas River Project is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historic Arkansas River Project until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ringbang ( talk) 19:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Four years! |
---|
Miss you. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Hell in a Bucket. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Hell in a Bucket! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 22:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
Miss you, first contact on this project! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that this page be moved, per Wikipedia's rules (here). The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd, and k.d. lang. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 ( talk) 17:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Hell in a Bucket. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing that Fashion Nova is clearly notable. The problem is this other amateur user keeps disrupting and ruining the draft with her unhelpful contributions and keeps putting them back after I remove them to improve the draft. What do you think needs tweaking, in your opinion? Trillfendi ( talk) 03:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Dear user "Hell in a bucket" hi from Greece, can you explain to me why you wrote this to my personal wiki page: "one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV)"? Cryptojudeo ( talk) 12:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Cryptojudeo
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for approving my article. I am new to Wikipedia editing and did not know I could self-publish. Heck, I am watching a video right now explaining how talk pages work. Thank you again!-- Banjonosepicker ( talk) 00:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Sir,
I would greatly appreciate your help in getting the article into publishable order.
I'm really at a loss on what is lacking or a problem in the article. I've provided substantial sources, all which are relevant in the genre. I've also thought I've removed any type of material that seems promotional.
I'd very much like to document artists in this genre. It is an important genre to music inasmuch as it comes at the junction of past classical music and present contemporary classical music.
If you can provide specific references as examples for improvement, I'll work with you to make the improvements and attempt to carry those forward on future work.
Thank you in advance!
p.s. I asked for a username change. I'm not a musicologist by training (I am actually a research scientist in emerging technologies), so I've asked for a very neutral name (Meta in MA).
MAMusicologist ( talk) 02:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
To be clear: I am not a relative of Oster. I am likewise not being paid (trust me: no one could afford me, if I charged what I get paid on my real job). I will admit to being a fan of the GENRE. It was my hope by getting Oster's correct, I could continue to document the genre (for which there are very few entries on Wikipedia). If being a fan of the genre is disqualifier, please let me know and I'll cease work. I would expect being a fan of the genre would give me insights... not bias.
If being a fan of the genre is not a disqualifier, I'd deeply appreciate your help so I can get to work on other artists in the genre.
Thanks for your consideration and I'll look to see if you think being a fan of the genre is a COI. Meta in MA ( talk) 00:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
As you can tell, I'm not much of a Deadhead (although I do like John Mayer and one of my friends went to high school with him). Thanks so much for your support. I made an attempt at further "de-promotizing it." Please have a look at your convenience. Meta in MA ( talk) 01:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Sir,
This is formerly MAMusicologist. Greetings!
I was checking to see if you might have time to review my changes to the Oster article and see if I'm moving in the direction of getting it approved.
As I mentioned, there are other artists in the genre I'd like to get to once I have a model that has been approved.
Thanks again for your interested and consideration! -- Meta in MA ( talk) 19:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the heads up. Good luck with your deadlines.
Meta in MA ( talk) 03:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for reviewing my article on Pearls Review. I am the Founder of this company which I built (along with others cited in the article) and which was acquired by Gannett Communications in 2008. Gannett is one of the largest media companies in the world (their best known product is USA Today) and they are very careful and diligent in the companies they evaluate and acquire. I re-read what I posted and still believe that I told the story from a neutral point of view (not an advertisement). The references I provided outlined the background of the founders as well as documenting the acquisition by Gannett. Pearls Review has since been acquired by OnCourse Learning (a large healthcare education and content company) in 2015 and a few months ago was sold to Relias, a division of Bertelsmann, another large international media company. The references provided document these acquisitions. Thus the documentation provided (and references) confirmed what was said in the article. Please re-examine the references which are official reports of the events I outlined in the article which were not created by me or Pearls Review. Thank you. ----
Drnlorenzo (
talk) 00:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi could you please give me guidance in bettering this article?
Anni Tyga (
talk) 12:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your comments and I really appreciate the help. The Notable Programs are rather notable for their community and are well known in Los Angeles. (I'm not a part of their community.) You are absolutely right though that I need all the formatting help I can get. Is there any way for you to help me clean things up? Thanks! Egw1119 ( talk) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey there, a voice out of the past, it's good to see you're editing again. Although I appreciated the kind words, your first instincts were right: stay away from the drama boards, it's not worth it. Take care and here's hoping you stay for a while. Regards.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your caring and help! Meta in MA ( talk) 22:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Just a note to thank you for stepping in to the recent Teahouse question about edit-warring and harassment. Much appreciated. Nick Moyes ( talk) 09:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
If you apply a speedy tag to a page which is transcluded you must bracket the tag with <noinclude></noinclude>
. Your failure to do so in the case of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Maldonado González caused numerous innocent pages to appear in
CAT:CSD. Or better, you should have first removed the entry in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 13. Then it would have been OK to apply a naked speedy tag. —
RHaworth (
talk ·
contribs) 15:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Boom! I left the usual warnings and a personal note, shut down, and while I was brushing my teeth for the evening Eng.M.Bandara dropped that bomb on my talkpage. I expected a response, but not that response. Thanks for dealing with it, and I see Black Kite did the necessary with the redactions - I had meetings to go to this morning and couldn't linger for clean-up. I've seen the UTRS appeals, and they went as one would expect. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, kindly check and see Draft:Mr Puaz if now it does follow the WP guidelines . Thanks Machakusi ( talk) 07:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Jerry jamming in the middle of a bar — priceless! El_C 17:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The articles I post to John Alite wikipedia are realistic and those that are current are not real posted by a person named Kasparoza. Please help to publish these real articles. Alite John ( talk) 18:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, hope all is well with you. I have tried to fix few things on the draft Draft:Mr Puaz , kindly let me know if there is any further changes required.
Thanks Ndizibanana ( talk) 19:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hell, thank you for the help. DO I have to bring that "Speedy Deletion" Tag back? Can you also please tell me if there is any issue with my Article? I really want to publish it out of good will. Thanks.
Why did you delete my edit. I am a notable alumni at Outwood Academy Danum. Calutley01 ( talk) 20:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. My article "Janette Becerra" was not accepted for not being in English. It is meant to be in Spanish. I had not chosen Spanish in the language settings. I will resubmit it.
Aguasolysereno ( talk) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Hell in a Bucket! nice name.
Thanks for reviewing my article Werner Reinartz. I have been waiting for like 12 weeks.... I understand your comment but can you maybe help in this matter? The fact is you say there are minor things but as long as you do not indicate them then how can I work on them? I really cannot treat an issue that is just an impression that you get. So, would you be able to help and make it better? I am really ok with edits you make so that you feel it is more of a wikipedia article.
dAF ( talk) 21:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for the fantastic job. I hope I'm able to write a great article next time around. Iamdyzzy ( talk) 01:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC) |
I just wanted to let you know (upon seeing your comment at RoidRage12) that I don't see your username as necessarily disruptive just because it mentions Hell. Maybe it's just me, but that's how I see it. :) 331dot ( talk) 17:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
About this: it makes me think that the page WP:Canvassing is poorly titled, in that it describes a series of behaviors ("inappropriate notifications") but maybe only some of those behaviors actually deserve the name "canvassing"; or perhaps that the lead does not reflect its contents sufficiently clearly. At least, I think Buffs and I are probably not alone in feeling that when one person accuses another of canvassing, what they really mean is "campaigning" or "votestacking" (because if they meant "spamming", they would just say "spamming"). Anyhow, I hope my drive-by comment didn't derail more substantive conversation, or engender any ill-will. All the best, JBL ( talk) 01:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
US Banknote Contest | ||
---|---|---|
November-December 2019 | ||
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here |
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I know you're active in the space with Franzese and John Alite, etc. but take a look at this recent interview with him—I found this particular part pretty comical: at 1:14:36. Let me know what you think. Without a doubt, this page will have to be protected again come July. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:DOYCITE and WP:DOYSTYLE, all new entries to day-of-year articles require an inline citation. A small group of editors are doing the tedious work of going through every day-of-year article and adding sources to each entry from the main articles. (Take a look at January 1!) While that clean up is going on, preventing new entries without a source helps to keep the endeavor achievable. As more and more of the entries become sourced, new editors will hopefully see that and imitate it. The editor who added the entry to March 22 has been told this many times. Schazjmd (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on my draft! While I do think Isabella Fenwick is notable (at least as a historical figure, she's written about extensively in scholarly sources), I see your point about her notability being dependent on Wordsworth. Do you think it would be more appropriate to add details about their friendship to his page? -- Carinarampelt ( talk) 19:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
How is
an accusarion of lying you lied
"legit content"? It is a clear violation of
WP:TPG and
WP:CIVIL, not to mention
WP:AGF. Why did you restore it?
Newimpartial (
talk) 19:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)