User talk:CRau080

Welcome!

Hello, CRau080, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi CRau080,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of January 2020 Hong Kong protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cheng Lai-king, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sampling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cheng Lai-king

On 24 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cheng Lai-king, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hong Kong politician Cheng Lai-king has represented her constituency in the Central and Western District Council since its creation in 1994? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cheng Lai-king. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cheng Lai-king), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (May 2020), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harbour City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (July 2020), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weibo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Miloš Vystrčil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Yi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:NOW! (organization), from its old location at User:CRau080/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. -Liancetalk/contribs 20:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Roth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Li Qiaochu has been accepted

Li Qiaochu, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Noah 💬 23:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well done @CRau080! MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @MatthewDalhousie, I am glad that the article – which got accepted very rapidly – has proven to be a good start into my article writing, even though it can surely still be improved.--CRau080 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Li Qiaochu

Hello! Your submission of Li Qiaochu at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Alan Islas (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Campact has been accepted

Campact, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Li Qiaochu

On 28 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Li Qiaochu, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Chinese activist Li Qiaochu was detained on 31 December 2019 and spent New Year's Day in handcuffs in relation to the "12.26 Citizens Case" while her partner Xu Zhiyong was still in hiding? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Li Qiaochu. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Li Qiaochu), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gérard Krause has been accepted

Gérard Krause, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 10:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: NOW! (organization) (July 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheBirdsShedTears was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The Economist, Al Jazeera, and The Independent sources are written by the members of the NOW! organisation, while other added sources are trivial mentions.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, CRau080! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 1 police stabbing --> Derived arrests

Hi, @CRau080, I know that from the text, the connection is not very clear. But it is clear they were arrested BECAUSE of the incident. The incident is the reason why they published those posts and were arrested. (I have seen some of the posts) According to some of the sources, the police also believed they were related, whether directly or indirectly (though might not be). We can see that the arrests were made because of this, especially when I read some of the sources I see the police often mentioned the stabbing when talking about the arrests. (for example [1]). I think maybe I can insert something about this to make it clearer. Thanks :) Eight96Four (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eight96Four, thank you for your thoughts. The Hong Kong Free Press reference that I have just added to the article does not appear to draw a clear connection between the arrests reported therein, and the July 1 stabbing. But I still do support including past and future arrests under the heading "Derived arrests" (a name that may leave space for some confusion but still seems reasonable), as long as at least the police is drawing a connection to the stabbing in some statement regarding the arrests in question. (On the other hand, based on the articles I read, I am not convinced that each of the arrests themselves was related to the stabbing. Allegations of inciting others online to harm police or their premises could be a basis for arrest also in absence of that, of course.) Especially if the police statements are the only connection that support inclusion in the article in this sense, then the substantial dissent regarding the police (and HK government) narrative about a climate of potential lone-wolf attacks and other threats – and the need for the National Security Law also in light of this – should still stay in view of the reader. I have tried to hint at this dissent in the opening sentence of the section. A more expansive statement on the narrative of police and government could – and probably should – be included in the article at a later stage.
To heed WP:CRYSTALBALL, there is no need to speculate here, but if there were many more arrests that the police – or government – relate to online (or some other) support of the knifeman, there may be a time when a renaming or offshoot article would be appropriate. It would seem odd to me if the description of arrests ended up being much longer than the account of the July 1 stabbing, the topic of the article, itself.
I suggest to conduct any further discussion of the article on its talk page, also as I imagine other editors may then find it easier to add their thoughts. Thank you.--CRau080 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "香港清查七一刺警案拘捕2人 涉嫌網路煽惑他人犯法 ｜ 蘋果新聞網 ｜ 蘋果日報". 蘋果新聞網 (in Chinese (Taiwan)). 2021-07-04. Retrieved 2021-07-30.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Apple Daily raids and arrests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weibo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Hong Kong national security law
added a link pointing to John Lee
Timeline of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (January 2021)
added a link pointing to Admiralty

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Campact, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Democratic Union.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Protests over COVID-19 policies in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tagesschau.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peng Qi'an has been accepted

Peng Qi'an, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xu Zhangrun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spring Festival.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chaoyang masses has been accepted

Chaoyang masses, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gorden 2211 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

Please help me with... the problem of how long an article essentially just consisting of section headers, as is the case with the recently created article Timeline of reactions to the Hong Kong national security law (December 2021) as of this writing, would be allowed to stand as is. If an article could be regarded as having been created by merely this, and (allowing for some delay, perhaps) putting the onus on other editors to fill in all the other content, then that would seem problematic to me. (Some minor edits which don't essentially change the preceding verdict have been made since.)--CRau080 (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC) CRau080 (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article containing material with neither references nor links to other articles is always going to be at risk. Any editor who objects can summarily remove it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question does have two links to other articles now – just hardly anything else. Unless editors get at filling in "real" content, so to speak, how long is a reasonable time before deletion of the article could be considered? Or does the mere presence of cross-links already advise against deletion?--CRau080 (talk)
There is no 'reasonable time'. Material without sources may always be removed. Deletion of the entire article is a different matter and would most likely have to be discussed at Articles for deletion. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shiny (software) has been accepted

Shiny (software), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-Liancetalk/contribs 18:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Mertens (virologist) has been accepted

Thomas Mertens (virologist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

97198 (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful work - and valuable work too

Hello from Australia. And hats off to you for your work on List of Hong Kong national security cases. Vital someone does it.~~ MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from Germany. Answers to the questions of (i) which articles one should dedicate time to as editor, and (ii) how much the work is valued by readers, are both elusive in general but your opinion serves as a yardstick that is much appreciated.--CRau080 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your encouragement to dedicate time to this article. I mostly focused on having as many of the references to be in English, although I also did some rewriting of entries, to varying extent, to match with the new references, or to add details that I deemed relevant. I also corrected some errors and inaccuracies; I hope I have not introduced new ones. The whole task turned out to be a considerably more laborious than I thought, which is perhaps due to me not having worked often on a project on this scale. I will keep making edits where I see fit, but perhaps not at the same rate as previously.--CRau080 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Piet Groeneboom (January 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mattdaviesfsic was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to
Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
4/9 ref's have Groeneboom as an author: more secondary sources needed to establish notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, CRauo80, I saw that you were the sole author so far of the draft Wikipedia article on statistician Piet Groeneboom. I think he is a notable scientist so one should not abandon the project. I will see if I can help improve the draft. Should not be difficult. Richard Gill (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Richard Gill, thank you for your message and willingness to improve this draft article. I found the decision of rejection problematic. Perhaps some good sources have eluded me – the shortage thereof was cited by the reviewer, so it is the most immediate point that one may want to fix if possible. There is surely space for improvement of the draft in other respects, too. Much appreciated if you can help; I trust that it will make a difference, with your (fully transparent) connection to the subject not being a hindrance.--CRau080 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here are the criteria:
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
We only need to establish one (or more) of these criteria, and we should obviously go for item 1. We need to give hard evidence that Piet's work has had significant impact, by listing independent reliable sources. This means, for instance, listing some research monographs written by others which expose his methodology and results. And the fact that the prestigious journal "Statistical Science" published an interview with him, http://dutiosc.twi.tudelft.nl/~pietg/Conversation.pdf.
Regarding 2, Piet received a very prestigious prize near the beginning of his career. He has given some prestigious invited talks (eg the Wald lectures) and invited (and published) lecture courses and had some notable guest professorships.
Regarding most of the other criteria, Piet kept out of the lime-light and concentrated on research and teaching; not in isolation but together with his students and international collaborators (some of them on Wikipedia, mentioning them with the Wikipedia link shows notability). Some of his PhD students achieved great fame and have Wikipedia pages about them, we should link to them. He is a fellow of IMS, and of ISI. He didn't organise conferences or edit journals or sit on committees very much.
The book of Groeneboom and Wellner got cited close to a thousand times. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wjyI8twAAAAJ&hl=nl There is a wikipedia article on Jon Wellner.
The most cited papers have citation numbers which are pretty large for very heavy theoretical mathematical work. Thing is, this work had big impact deep into survival analysis, missing data theory and the like. See for instance the important survey paper "Multi-state models for event history analysis" by Per Kragh Andersen and Niels Keiding. Amazingly, there don't seem to be Wikipedia pages on Andersen or Keiding.
Piet's homepage http://dutiosc.twi.tudelft.nl/~pietg/ tells some more about him; and his papers are listed on Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wjyI8twAAAAJ&hl=nl
Most recently Piet did fantastic work on the Covid incubation time showing that nonparametric methods were much more reliable than conventional epidemiological methods based on just made up parametric assumptions.
Piet is a world authority in the field of shape-constrained inference. Pity this subject is not itself subject of a wikipedia article. Nonparametric estimation is also missing. Various articles on Cox regression, proportional hazards, etc, never cite the famous paper by Andersen & Gill or the famous book by Andersen, Borgan, Gill & Keiding. The problem is that most articles on statistical methodology are written by and for users who are interested in recipes for use in practice, not in the underlying mathematical justification. Richard Gill (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Academic notability is confirmed by a glance at his citation scores on Google scholar. There are 11 papers with three figure citation counts. The top scoring paper is cited 900+ times. So: add this citation evidence. Add his fellowship of IMS and ISI, and that he has been a Wald lecturer (the highest honour there is in the world of mathematical statistics). Add a reference to his interview in “Statistical Science” (also a sign of notability). Mention his many PhD students including Marloes Maathuis (who also has a Wikipedia page). He currently works in science outreach, through a column he writes for the quarterly news magazine of the Dutch Mathematical Society. Richard Gill (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your suggestions. Several additions you suggest were actually present in the declined version. To my knowledge, PhD students are generally only listed on a supervisor's Wikipedia page if the students themselves are the subject of Wikipedia articles (though there may be some latitude in this; I haven't looked up the rules). I will think about how to further support notability, be it through Google Scholar or otherwise. Regrettably, I do not have access to MathSciNet, as an important case in point. Perhaps other editors can also contribute to the draft in due course; not sure if it will make a difference, but it will certainly help remedy large and small oversights on my part, also given that I am not an expert in much of Groeneboom's research areas.--CRau080 (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to add further information on the specific research area, just let me know when you would like me to step in. Regarding PhD students, see https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=75843, only Marloes Maathuis achieved Wikipedia notability, so only she needs to be mentioned.
I can get into MathSciNet. Groeneboom has 78 publications there. What info would you look for? Richard Gill (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft says "His paper on the problem came to be regarded as a benchmark in the field of shape-constrained inference." Can you support this claim by reference to some Reliable Source? (I think you are right, but who has said this?)Richard Gill (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the interview in statistical science is a good reference. The abstract is by the interviewer, not by the interviewee. "Groeneboom is well known for his work on shape constrained statistical inference. He worked on asymptotic theory for these problems, created algorithms to compute nonparametric estimates in such models and applied these models to real data. He also worked on interacting particle systems, extreme value analysis and efficiency theory for testing procedures." One can support the claim that his methodology was adopted by practitioners in medical statistics by reference to Marloes Maathuis' work. Both Groeneboom and Maathuis have implemented this methodology in the R packages. Richard Gill (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On your four comments above: 1,2) There is now some coverage – from admittedly a non-expert perspective – on several key areas of Groeneboom's research. Checking MathSciNet would certainly still help, but I cannot put specific questions to you on this at the moment. At any rate, I hope I have remedied most of the issues with criterion 1 for notable researcher. 3) I didn't reference each single sentence, but gave them as relating to "chunks" of text. The statement you ask about is paraphrased from Jon Wellner in the Stat Sci interview cited one sentence later. 4) The Stat Sci interview was conducted by a close colleague (this pairing seems common for those interviews, by the way), that is why I am hesitant to use it more extensively than is already the case, even given the peer review. Wherever Marloes Maathuis acknowledges Groeneboom's code, matters are clear, but otherwise one should probably mention both, thereby reducing in my view the matter from "what makes him notable" to "what has he done" (though I admit that there is a slight inconsistency with co-authorship in journal papers, but then papers are perhaps still different from software); while the second matter of these two is certainly of interest to many readers, it is not the crucial one for getting the submission through, at least in my opinion.--CRau080 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More info:

Groeneboom's iterative convexe minorant algorithm (book with Jon Wellner, and a year earlier, Stanford lectures) is used for instance by Wei Pan. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10618600.1999.10474804 See more by googling “iterative convex minorant algorithm”.

In https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167947398000267, Pan and en Chappell say: The iterative convex minorant (ICM) algorithm (Groeneboom and Wellner, 1992) is widely believed to be much faster than the EM algorithm (Turnbull, 1976) in computing the NPMLE of the distribution function for interval censored data.

Geurt Jongbloed's (former student of Groeneboom) modification of the ICM algoritme (add line search from the method of Armijo) is often mentioned in the literature.

Jewell and van der Laan say (Annals of Statistics 2003, Vol. 31, No. 2, 512–535 CURRENT STATUS AND RIGHT-CENSORED DATA STRUCTURES WHEN OBSERVING A MARKER AT THE CENSORING TIME): Groeneboom (1998) implements the NPMLE by maximizing the actual likelihood with a modern optimization algorithm. In fact this is about an interior point algorithm described: Nonparametric Estimation of the Lifetime and Disease Onset Distributions for a Survival-Sacrifice Model (Antonio Eduardo Gomes, Piet Groeneboom and Jon Wellner). Electron. J. Stat. 13 (2019), no. 2, 3195--3242 R script for the primal-dual interior point method used in the paper: https://github.com/pietg/survival-sacrifice-model

Marloes Maathuis created the R package MLEcens which uses the support reduction algorithm of Groeneboom based on his own C code. She writes something like: “The code, is based on C code written by Piet Groeneboom”. For this algorithm for computing nonparametric function estimates in mixture models, see.Piet Groeneboom, Geurt Jongbloed and Jon Wellner. arXiv:math/0405511v1 (2008). Scandinavian Journal of Statistics (2008). Vol. 35, 385-399.

More recently Groeneboom (2018) with Kim Hendrickx wrote the R package curstatCI (confidence intervals for current status data) gemaakt. This uses innovatively "smooth functional theory" and the bootstrap. The nonparametric bootstrap for the current status model (2017), Electron. J. Statist. 11 (2): 3446–84. Richard Gill (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the 31 references to Groeneboom's work in a standard text on interval censored data, including the remark "the study of asymptotic properties of the NPMLE based on interval-censored failure time data is a difficult, but important issue. For this, much of the important ground work is laid out in Groeneboom and Wellner (1992)”. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/0-387-37119-2.pdf Richard Gill (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The work is frequently cited (positively!) in Handbook of Survival Analysis, edited by John P. Klein, Hans C. van Houwelingen, Joseph G. Ibrahim, Thomas H. Scheike. Richard Gill (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I recently proposed to delete an article about another Dutch statistician which has remained a stub for four years. It seems that my proposal will be rejected purely on the basis of citation counts. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nico_Nagelkerke . This provides a good counter-argument for the rejection of your proposed article on Groeneboom! Richard Gill (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I posit that there is a difference with Wikipedia's criteria for retention of an article, and that of having them added. I could think of several reasons for this to be so. Perhaps an old-hand Wikipedian (or even a newer one) would contradict me on this. What "is" clear to me, however, is that in an encyclopedia of any serious quality, if it has an article on Nagelkerke, I would expect to find one on Groeneboom.--CRau080 (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful responses! We just have to make some improvements, and try again. "Be bold"! I think you did fantastic work and were just a bit unlucky; the article was turned down on *too* formal grounds. As soon as you have resubmitted an improved version let me know and I will see if I can add further improvements. Incidentally, I just started a new article on Niels Keiding. It is quite amazing such an article did not already exist. Richard Gill (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It will probably not be hard to believe that I have spent a fair bit of time on this draft, although I appreciate that this won't by itself increase the chances of it to pass. I already resubmitted the draft after a first round of improvements that mostly targeted the references. Since Wikipedia clearly states that one can keep editing submitted drafts, me having done so should not lessen the chance of acceptance (I hope), also given that the waiting times for a decision can be (and were, in the first round) substantial.
Thank you for starting the article on Niels Keiding. Certainly good that the apparently patchy coverage of statisticians (and probabilists) on Wikipedia is improved. By the way, I recall that my idea to work on an article about Groeneboom came from the list of Rollo Davidson Prize awardees, where many names remain red. Perhaps I will get to further complete this list, with lessons learned from the instance we have here.--CRau080 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, @CRau080, would you like help from other editors - on the existing draft? I can certainly help build out secondary sources for citations.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meantime the article on Niels Keiding ran into copyright issues. I had taken verbatim some biographical information (all completely in the public domain) from an "In Memoriam" written by colleagues of Niels at the request of the international society ISI and published by ISI. I had written explicitly that that's where the information came from. Now those same colleagues have to write to ISI to gain written permission to re-use their own text, or we have to rewrite our own words in our own words. It's a bit tedious. Richard Gill (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that and I am sorry for this trouble. I found very similar text also in the J Royal Stat Soc Series A article I cited in an interim version of the article. I speculate that that journal in turn made requests regarding copyright beyond what ISI may require. Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously, I noticed this previously with images; I am not a legal expert and all we can do is align with Wikipedia's requirements, as you have essentially said on the talk page for the article on Niels Keiding, where I am happy to have further pertaining conversation.--CRau080 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @MatthewDalhousie for your interest in this draft. Any help on it is much appreciated. I have edited the article to the degree that I think it stands a fair chance when re-reviewed. I have trawled the internet for free copies of manuscripts and other material, which on occasion I did find but marked as paywalled in the references, as I rather did not want to risk link rot through linking to the source I had found. From my most recent edits, it may transpire that it got difficult to find new sources without subscriptions (or me heading to a university library, an effort which I hesitate to make). For someone with access rights, I would suggest to have a look at the review of Groeneboom's 1980 book (in German) saying, as far as I can see, something favorable (and not yet in the draft) about Groeneboom's early work on Sanov's Theorem, which Groeneboom also addresses in the Statistical Science interview with him which is already cited in the draft. Once more, thank you for any effort, in content, language, or form, that you may want to spend on this. The same goes for other conscientious editors, should they join in.--CRau080 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff @CRau080, I've founded a couple of extra sources too. I put some of the material about Lucia de Berk up in the introduction, which absolutely deserve to be there. (What a moment! That poor woman - imprisoned because the court didn't understand probability!) MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been improved significantly, lots more reliable sources, and the number of citations authored by the subject is now 5 of 18. Shouldn't we try to publish @CRau080 and @Gill110951? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message, I re-submitted the draft already before the changes, including one you kindly made, were completed, on 14 January (which can be seen in the bottom line of the draft; sorry for this hint if you already knew this). I do not know at present how to hasten the review process, but I hope that we will have a decision soon.--CRau080 (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I shall watch and wait. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

That section delete you did yesterday on 2022 Russian invasion article does not seem to work, because it appears to want to alter the TOC level 3 to TOC level 4 transitions in the sections which you edited. The section you deleted served as a transition section at TOC 3 to introduce the the two TOC 4 sections which follow it. Could I suggest keeping that section which I'll restore now with an 'undo', and you can shorten that section, even by half, if you would like to reduce ambiguity. Let me know if you have an alternate solution to preserve TOC integrity in that section of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation of this technical matter. I am sorry that I had not understood this unintended consequence of my deletion. This being only a short paragraph, I am happy for it to stand, even as a duplication of material further up, as is, as this should be tolerable to most readers.--CRau080 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Input sought on list article

Recently, I started a discussion on the talk page for the article, List of Hong Kong national security cases. As no other editor has commented as yet, I'd like to draw attention to that discussion with this post. Any constructive thoughts are of course welcome and no deeper knowledge on the subject area of Hong Kong is required in my view. I wish to add that while much of the data presentation in said article is not in summary form, a substantial part is (the "Other publication/online post-related" category and the pie diagram, for example), and this motivated me to raise the matter.--CRau080 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the pie and bar charts.--CRau080 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Piet Groeneboom has been accepted

Piet Groeneboom, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

scope_creepTalk 10:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Last Generation (climate movement)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Last Generation (climate movement), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of Hong Kong national security cases

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Hong Kong national security cases, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard D. Gill (statistician)

Hi CRao080,, the article about me is currently being edited many times because of my public support of a re-trial of the UK nurse Lucy Letby. About 50% of the UK public "knows" she is a serial killer of defenceless babies, the other 50% is rather concerned that her trial does not appear to have been very fair. The second half are painted as nutty conspiracy theorists. There is a Wikipedia page on Lucy Letby which largely reflects the prosecution view since that is the view which has been largely broadcast by the UK main stream media. Saying that you think she is innocent, or that you think her trial was unfair and a retrial is needed, arouses intense aggression. Maybe you are interested to take a look. I think both the articles need to be looked at by people from outside the UK who are perhaps less emotionally involved in the case. Richard Gill (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Richard Gill, thank you for your message as per WP:APPNOTE. I saw the recent flurry of editing on both Wikipedia pages you mention, and believe that I have, even as a non-UK resident (which I agree with you may have some advantages), at least a basic appreciation of both the weight of the Lucy Letby case also beyond what is currently found in reliable sources, as well as of some of the main Wikipedia-related difficulties which include your own involvement in the case in a prominent position (at least among the doubters regarding the sentencing). The latter issue appears to me to have prompted some of the recent edits to the Wikipedia page about yourself, some of which – possibly future ones – may need to be scrutinized from this particular point of view, while being mindful of WP:ASPERSIONS. I intend to keep an eye on both articles and make edits where I see fit, taking into account the discussion on the relevant talk pages taking place on this or that particular point; I believe it is understandable that, while I trust Wikipedia to be a fundamentally supportive place, I need to look out for my own needs when there is a possibility that my editing may cause myself to be subject to heavy, and perhaps disproportionate, criticism; heavy or especially heated discussion of a particular point may be a subjective predictor of this possibility.--CRau080 (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes, I understand! This area is a mine-field. Emotions are running incredibly high. Richard Gill (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for repairing all those citation errors on the Javier Milei page. I noticed the copious errors earlier today, and I was dreading having to fix them myself, and just as I said to myself, "Go on, sit down and do it, who else is going to if not you?" I saw that someone else had already done it!

Cheers! You get some copyediting kudos from me.

Joe (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words regarding my cite repairs. I had been rather surprised that these things could stay for any amount of time on a page which I (correctly) expected to get many views; and that bots, if existent for this kind of problem, hadn't already taken care of this. During editing I was thinking a bit about how this would be received, and your message is a true encouragement and validation of what I did, so thank you again. And I am glad that I saved you the effort of fixing!--CRau080 (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saleh al-Arouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Democratic Party of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al Jazeera News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 German anti-extremism protests, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Borken and Bocholt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 German anti-extremism protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Herne.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two substantially overlapping articles

I noticed that the articles Democracy Party of China and Local Committee of China Democracy Party, which concern the same party, have substantial text overlap in their first halves or so. I think they should be merged.--CRau080 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin climate hunger strike article

With reference to the article Starving for honesty climate hunger strike, Berlin, Germany. Thanks for looking over my shoulder. Some of that material came in via translation of the German equivalent and deserved more copy-editing. Other material needing work was due to debatable editorial decisions by me. As always, an iterative process. With best wishes, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I have just noted the provenance of some material from the equivalent page in German, although you clearly put lots of other efforts into this. I hope that my editorial decisions were an improvement and of course they, as future ones, are subject to further revision including possibly by yourself. The article is informative and I hope to be able do some more work on it in the future. Best wishes,--CRau080 (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might find this recent Pressenza Berlin publication of use:[1] I reworked the table of strikers on the article talk page (the one with orange duration values) and they now align with Pressenza except my values are conservatively one day less. But nice to have a list of strikers and durations nonetheless for the main article. Best RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits toward the end of June look really good. I went through the revision log carefully. Thanks for leaving very clear commit messages. I just made a couple of style tweaks to the article too. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your messages. I am glad to hear that you found my edits valuable. I have just made another few edits to replace references to an Instagram post by ones to a non-social media (though still primary) source. I decided to not use the Pressenza Berlin publication you mentioned as, while informative, it seems to be too strongly pro-protesters slanted and also, the portal as such seems not very widely referenced. Best wishes,--CRau080 (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good! I will finish processing the photographs I took of these events in around two weeks time and will progressively upload the final images to Wikimedia. Just for the record, I know or knew none of the strikers or organizers prior, but my wife had interacted with one of the strikers, Richard Cluse, about three years ago regarding rapid decarbonization. I guess the camp has gone? Their website has been abandoned in any case. Kia ora, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pressenza Berlin (13 June 2024). "Die Kampagne "Hungern bis ihr ehrlich seid" beendet nach 100 Tagen den Hungerstreik und ruft zur Selbstermächtigung und Widerstand auf" [The "Starving for honesty" campaign ends hunger strike after 100 days and calls for self-empowerment and resistance]. Pressenza (in German). Quito, Ecuador. Retrieved 2024-06-21.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anya Kamenetz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Gross.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi