User talk:Edge3/Archive 3

Proactiv

I think all the items that have been raised have been addressed now. Thanks for doing such a thorough GA review. I pasted the full-text of the source you asked for on Talk. Since that is copyrighted material, can you remove it as soon as you get a chance to take a look? CorporateM (Talk) 17:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate your hard work on this. I'll look at your comments and provide more feedback shortly. Edge3 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did what I could and posted some comments on my findings. Ball is in your court again.
I put together a re-write of the first two paragraphs of the Products section with better sources, more copyediting, a greater focus on its active ingredients, etc. It may be inappropriate for me to move it to article-space myself on account of my COI. CorporateM (Talk) 01:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the edits, and I plan to provide more feedback within the next day. Edge3 (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diligence
For one of the most thorough GA reviews I have received. CorporateM (Talk) 13:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to step up my game to the FA level; I might take a shot at it with this one since it has already been vetted so thoroughly. BTW- there are a couple articles I am working on in a COI role that are close-ish to being GAN-ready, but I'm having a hard time finding an editor to work with in a BrightLine(ish) fashion. Some editors I know are inactive atm and others are paralyzed by the lack of consensus in the paid editing debate in the wake of the Wiki-PR scandal. I was wondering if you had the time/interest to help out? CorporateM (Talk) 13:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar! It was a pleasure to review the article. I personally think that you still to put in a lot more work to get the article to FA standard, since their standards are much stricter. (For example, the article needs to be expanded to make it comprehensive.)
I might be able to help you on your other articles, but I'm getting busier with my time commitments at work. I might not pick up a GAN this month, but I'll definitely have more time next month. Edge3 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me know and I'll just play it by ear. The articles are Monster (company) and Yelp, Inc.. It's probably not clear on either page what needs to be done next, but well... the whole BrightLine process is rather disjointed and difficult. CorporateM (Talk) 20:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proactiv, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Witch hazel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis?

Hi, Edge3!
I was impressed with the Proactive GA review you did (I was looking over some of CorporateM's work) and I read your User Page which mentions your college thesis about WP and SOPA. Is this posted anywhere online? I'd be interested in reading your take on what happened, WP's response and what impact you think it might have had.
Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:Thank you for your compliments! I always try to be thorough with my GA reviews, and I'm glad that many people liked my approach with Proactiv.
I did write my thesis on WP and SOPA, but it's not posted online. I've actually been planning to reorganize my userpage and add more information about my WP-related work. I hope to include a link to the thesis, and I can notify you once it's ready (probably within the next month). However, if you have an urgent research need to see it, I can also email you a copy this week. Edge3 (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Bednar

Hello, I'm just wondering if you've happened to view the article on David Bednar in the last little while? I'm wondering if the edits I've made over the last few weeks have helped to prove his notability? Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanimum: Thanks for letting me know. I must have accidentally taken it off my watchlist, since I didn't see your edits. I'll take a look within the next few days. Edge3 (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GANs from Sailing to Byzantium: a proposition

Greetings, Edge3. I am reviewing United States v. Jones (2012) for GA status, which was nominated by Sailing to Byzantium prior to his disappearance. My review is at Talk:United States v. Jones (2012)/GA1. I see that you are also reviewing one of his articles: J.D.B. v. North Carolina at Talk:J.D.B. v. North Carolina/GA1. I'd like to propose a trade: I'll do my best to get J.D.B. v. North Carolina into shape, resolving all the issues you identify, and you try to do the same for United States v. Jones (2012). Would you be interested? (Of course, if StB returns, I'll yield to him instead.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Quadell: Thanks for the message! I apologize for the late reply. I might be able to help out with United States v. Jones (2012), but I might be slow in making the needed edits because I've been busy at work. I hope that's okay with you... it's better to make slow progress than no progress!
I see that Khazar2 contributed to both articles. Khazar is active on the GA Project and might be able to assist our efforts. Edge3 (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could help, and I appreciate your thinking of me. I'm tied up with other projects at the moment, though (mostly trying to get United Nations to GA) and in any case my contributions to both were just a few fmt and spelling tweaks. Shame to hear that StB is gone; she/he seemed to be doing some good work. Good luck to you both in steering these through-- Khazar2 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Khazar2. I appreciate your prompt reply. I sent StB an email to ask whether he/she would like to participate in the GA reviews. In the meantime, I would be willing to execute Quadell's proposed trade. Edge3 (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it--best of luck with these! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Khazar. A UN GA sounds ambitious! And Edge: you're on. :) – Quadell (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of United States v. Jones (2012)

The article United States v. Jones (2012) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United States v. Jones (2012) for comments about the article. Well done! – Quadell (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Quadell: Thank you! I'm glad to have contributed to this article. Edge3 (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NextWorth Solutions

I guess re-directs don't count for de-orphaning. Any ideas on where it should be linked? Need to be free of tags for GA criteria. CorporateM (Talk) 00:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I have no idea. But I might think of something as I'm reading through the sources. Edge3 (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Seems all my GA nominations got picked up at once - please don't interpret any lack of participation on my part to mean I've forgotten this one. Trying to get History of public relations ready for the GA review to continue is killing me. Just 1.5 books, some globalization and maybe another shot at the Lead to go. CorporateM (Talk) 04:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I was about to explain that I've been slow on this review as well -- I had a busy weekend, and I'll be busy working during the next few days. I'll try to fit in a few edits and comments when I can, but if you don't see me every night, you know why. Edge3 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GAN for Finn M. W. Caspersen

I'll get a chance to resolve the issues you mentioned later today, most likely in the afternoon (19DEC2013). Thanks again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I spent most of my day yesterday with Whitman, and today it's two funerals. I was going to take a whack at it last night, but was just too tired. If I have enough energy to fix the matters raised in the review when I get home later tonight (22DEC13), I'll do it today. Otherwise, expect it to be my first priority tomorrow (Monday 23DEC13). Either way, I hope to have it wrapped up before the holiday. Many thanks again for your comments and for your patience.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heading off to Christmas Vigil church services this evening, but I'll address your latest comments in the late hours when I get back. Best wishes for a Happy Christmas.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful for all the work that you have put into this review. It was quite thorough and your diligent attention to it has helped polish the article tremendously. I have enjoyed working with you on this and look forward to the next time we can collaborate. Thank you immensely. Happy Christmas! --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Merry Christmas to you, too! Edge3 (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Walton

Merry Christmas! Thanks for taking this on. I've changed the article as per your review. I'm not sure about few of your recommendations. Feel free to insist if I'm wrong. --AparnajiTalk 01:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

Hey Edge. I'm working on a draft HubSpot article, where I use to have a COI about a year ago. The article has been bothering me, because I want it to be GA like all the others, but I will probably cause a ruckus IRL for improving it. I never had much direct contact with HubSpot even when I had a COI and I'm not actually sure what the communication with them was or has-been, etc. I am also a HubSpot customer and long-time observer of their marketing strategies. I figured the "just do it" philosophy tends to work out pretty well for me.

Anyways, I was hoping you might have a minute to provide a quick second opinion on a couple things: if this should be included or if we should wait to see if anything becomes of it and if you had any thoughts on the most neutral/concise way to cover this source. CorporateM (Talk) 07:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: Regarding this article on the lawsuit, I think you should exclude it from the article until the story develops further. I would wait until the lawsuit is settled, or until the story develops further in the news sources.
As for your second question about this, I think the Xconomy article already presents a neutral point of view. However, you should try to find another source that covers the same story, independently of Xconomy. The conciseness of your summary will depend on how much coverage there is in other sources. If you find more sources, then you can provide more details in the Wikipedia article. Edge3 (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's what I was thinking RE the lawsuit. We don't normally include them, unless they have some historic significance or are unquestionably notable. Some larger articles have the source material to state whether they are prone to lawsuits in general.
I don't think there are other sources about the tweetup thing, but my standards for quality of sourcing are pretty low for this article. They are the example the entire marketing industry follows for modern and social media marketing, but I don't have the source material to say it. No doubt, it is because they do not believe in PR and have no PR agency that their notability is under-stated by established news sources. Anyways, I just put "There was some debate in 2009 on if HubSpot was over-commmercializing tweetups". I try to avoid using names of non-notable people, so that was a general way of putting it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful about saying "there was some debate"... seems vague and could be a case of WP:WEASEL. Regarding the quality of sourcing, have you tried searching business journals? If Hubspot is as notable as you say it is, then someone should have written about it in a business school publication, industry journal, or case study. (e.g. Harvard Business Review) Edge3 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch! That looks like a dam good source and I noticed the article was cited by Entrepreneurial Executive. There goes $8 to purchase it, but a small price compared to the $100 or so I've probably spent on books for History of public relations or Fluor Corporation. I'm getting better at finding niche sources that are really good. Today I am off to the library so I can get an inter-library loan to get an article from 1972, from a publication no longer in existence, from the only library in the country that still has a copy. Wish me luck. CorporateM (Talk) 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source basically has everything I knew belonged in the article, but wasn't finding in the source. Thanks again! CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm happy to help. :) Edge3 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Thanks for the feedback at Arlen F. Gregorio I'm looking forward to any further suggestions you have for improvement. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 00:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yum! Thank you for the brownie. I'll provide additional suggestions soon, but the review may be delayed due to the New Year holiday. Edge3 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Keithbob: I've finished posting my additional suggestions. You may respond at a time convenient to you within the next week. Edge3 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look and if this process pauses till the new year, that's fine, no rush! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edge is probably the best and most thorough GA reviewer I've gotten. I count myself lucky each time he picks up one of my noms and it's particularly helpful when I want to make sure my COI articles are impeccable. Wish we had more GA reviewers like him/her! CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliments! You write well and pay close attention to detail, which certainly makes my job a lot easier! Edge3 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sally Death

Hey, I haven't been involved in the edit war, but I have noticed the Paul Sally death issue. (I'm a current UofC student that saw it around Facebook, searched for confirmation, etc.) The main confirmations I've seen are all admittedly just on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/2709015299/permalink/10153658384655300/, but the OP is a recent PhD student. I don't really know what Wikipedia policy is on this sort of stuff. Harpsichorddude (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Harpsichorddude: Thanks for the message. I also saw the news circulate through Facebook, but I couldn't find confirmation on any official UofC pages or news sources. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a reliable source, Wikipedia policy does not allow the article to state that Paul Sally has died. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Regards, Edge3 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Edge3!

Happy New Year!
Hello Edge3:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, — Keithbob • Talk • 16:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Arlen F. Gregorio

Thanks for the heads up, I've fixed that sentence and citation regarding the company name. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hi everyone, I've noticed that a few of you haven't updated your totals as several reviews have passed but on the backlog page, it still says that the article is under review or on hold.

Please update your totals and continue to do so until February 1. If the status of a review is under review or on hold according to the backlog page, even though the article may have passed/failed, it will not count towards your final total.

For those that made pledges during the drive, the final donation amount will be determined sometime in February.

Thank-you.Sent by Dom497 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finn M. W. Caspersen at FAC

Since you did a great review at GAN, just wanted to let you know that I nominated it at WP:FAC for featured article status. If you have any further comments/suggestions for improvement, I'd be glad to attend to them.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ColonelHenry! Thanks for letting me know, and I wish you the best of luck on the FAC! As much as I'd love to get involved in an FAC review, I don't have time to do it now. I've recently reduced my activity on Wikipedia so that I can focus on other things during my free time, but I do check in once in a while. It's nice to hear from you, and I hope we keep in touch! Edge3 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hubspot

My GAN was declined on account of NPOV and COI concerns (I use to have a COI and didn't do a good job and circled back on a volunteer basis to clean it up) but without specific advice except for the overall tone being promotional, etc. Do you think I could bother you to take a look at where the article needs improvement to meet the GA standard? CorporateM (Talk) 02:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: I'll take a look at this, but it might take a while because I'm busy working on some other things. I'll read your article's sources and let you know what I think. Edge3 (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Deeply appreciated and WP:NORUSH. CorporateM (Talk) 14:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Edge. I just thought I would see if you were still expecting to have time to review the Hubspot article. Or, even better, if you could please make clones of yourself that can manage the entire GA review queue. That would really be ideal. :-D CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CorporateM. I'm so sorry for the delay... I've gotten busier with a project at work, so I currently don't have the time to look at your article. :( I encourage you to find another reviewer, but if the article still needs a review when I resume editing, then I would be happy to take a look. Edge3 (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive Award

The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
For reviewing 5 Good article nominations during the December 2013 GAN Backlog Drive!--Dom497 (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For reaching your goal to review 5 Good article nominations during the December 2013 GAN Backlog Drive! Dom497 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For being part of the Review Team and making a pledge during the December 2013 GAN Backlog Drive! Dom497 (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to help

Regarding your offer to chip in on areas where I have a COI, a couple easy items I could use help with is for someone to review this AfC submission and this request for a couple factual corrections on a BLP page. CorporateM (Talk) 18:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the AfC submission! The backlog for a review is very long. If you're available to help some more, I need quite a bit of collaboration on the McKinsey & Company page (see here) This page was previously written largely by someone with a negative opinion about the company, so it has a lot of unsourced contentious material or mis-representations of the source material. I made a long list of bulleted requests to help cleanup the page. Capitalsmojo has done a lot of them (see the Insert items), but there are still six bullets left. CorporateM (Talk) 22:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being so thorough on the Act-On page. It seems I need to do a better job fact-checking before nominating. If your offer to help in general is still open, I am still trying to find an editor to review the rest of my suggested edits on the McKinsey & Company page here and I've been trying to find someone to suggest how Hubspot needs improvement since the GA was turned down in January for COI and promo. CorporateM (Talk) 05:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm happy to help. I'll probably look at McKinsey next. Edge3 (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I think we all agree the Notable alumni and Knowledge Management sections use junk sources and shouldn't be there, but that there may be proper sources for a more concise summary. It would really be easier (for me anyway *haha) if we just took them out and sort of made a mental note to cover the topic in a more concise matter with proper sources later on. Both are information that McKinsey would be motivated to share with Wikipedia's readers, so it doesn't seem like there would be any COI criticisms as a result of working incrementally. It's always a bit of a logistical problem trying to tackle such a complex article through proper COI conduct. CorporateM (Talk) 05:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, CorporateM. Sorry for the delay in responding... I was away during the holiday weekend. I'll review this at my next available opportunity. Edge3 (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As a bit of an update, the only remaining Request Edit from that long list is my suggestion to remove the Knowledge Management section, at least until a properly-sourced one can be introduced. My note here mentions how the section is sourced now, but none of the sources actually support the article-text. I've also moved on to the next section here, which would cleanup a lot of junk-sources and whatnot and replace it with a concise, well-sourced section. CorporateM (Talk) 00:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edge. Just a friendly ping - I don't know if you have any long-term interest in the McKinsey & Company page, but I have a section of content that's been on the Talk page awaiting consideration for three weeks now. I still have a lot of ground to cover on that page and at this rate by time it's done it will be outdated! ;-)
So I'm doing another round of pings looking for any editors that have shown an interest in collaborating on this page that might take a look at my Request Edit here. You'll see some vetting by another editor on the draft page already. CorporateM (Talk) 14:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: I'm so sorry to keep you waiting, but I haven't been editing over the past few weeks because I'm studying for an exam next week. I plan to start editing again after the exam. I'm glad to hear that you're getting other editors involved! Edge3 (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! I didn't know if you saw that I also offered a re-write of the environmental section here. If you just didn't have time, that's also ok, just didn't know if you saw it. CorporateM (Talk) 04:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I saw it. That's the next thing I'll look at. Edge3 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Do you think we can take care of the tags too? Certainly the article isn't perfect yet, but it's already better than most org pages and doesn't really warrant a half-dozen tags. CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article has dramatically improved. Edge3 (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McKinsey

Hi Edge3. I just wanted to check-in to see if you were going to have time to look at the other content suggestions in the draft from a couple weeks ago. CorporateM (Talk) 22:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edge3. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-a-thon at the Univ. of Chicago!

Hey there! The Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago is hosting an edit-a-thon to celebrate Women's History Month on Saturday, March 28th from 10 AM to 4 PM. Coffee and lunch is provided for free, and we'll be focusing on building a few biographical and organizational articles. We'll also have full access to archival resources maintained by the Special Collections and Research Center. If you're interested in joining us, please RSVP at the event page here! Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by I JethroBT through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two Chicago edit-a-thons this April!

Hey folks! We've got two exciting edit-a-thons happening in Chicago during the third week of April:

If you're interested in meeting up and working together with other Wikipedians at these fantastic institutions, please RSVP at the event pages linked above. If you know someone else interested in learning about or editing Wikipedia, invite them! We will provide training and resources for new editors at both events. For questions about the events, please refer to the event pages or contact I JethroBT (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT through MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ University of Chicago

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ University of Chicago on October 15! (drop-in any time, 3-7pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Editor @I JethroBT: submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate @Edge3: for his work in developing Good Articles in both a reviewing and writing capacity, particularly on Proactiv, for their participation in the 2013 GAN backlog drive, and their work on Advanced Placement Statistics and List of Benet Academy alumni, a featured list. Edge3 has recently returned from being inactive, and has expressed interest in participating in edit-a-thons in his area. Editors with a desire to engage their community and who help ensure the quality of our articles are both very valuable qualities, and Edge3 exemplifies them both. 

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Edge3
Flag of Chicago, Illinois
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning February 7, 2016
Develops Good Articles as both a reviewer and author, active participant in the 2013 GAN backlog drive, and works on Advanced Placement Statistics and the featured List of Benet Academy alumni. Recently returned to active editing with a desire to engage the WP community and help ensure the quality of our articles.
Recognized for
Good Articles, Proactiv, GAN and much more
Nomination page


Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 15:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@I JethroBT: Thank you! This is very nice of you. I know that I haven't been very active lately, but I do hope to stay involved in some way. Edge3 (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago!

Come join us on Saturday, March 5th between 12PM - 5PM for the Art+Feminism 2016 edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago! We'll be focusing our efforts on women involved in the arts, and a list of articles for artists in Chicago and the U.S. Midwest has been compiled at the project page. The event is free, but only if you register at the project page ahead of time. I'll be there, and I hope to see you there too! I JethroBT (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Edge3. 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)[reply]


Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald Trump

Hello Edge3, I just saw you reverted my close of the infobox RfC, although consensus looked clear. The outbox draft has been moved to the article and the discussion on extensions about Trump's business career is taking place in a new section, to which I point in my summary. I think it's best to continue there, wouldn't you agree? — JFG talk 22:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JFG! I agree that the consensus on the RfC question was pretty clear. However, I was just concerned that several people were still participating on the WP:OUTBOX subthread. I wasn't sure whether it would be proper form to cut off that discussion.
I'd also like to point out that a formal close isn't strictly required. As per WP:RFCEND, "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance."
Further down the page, it also says that using {{Archive top}} isn't required. I think it might be fine to end the RfC without using {{Archive top}} to end the discussion. What do you think?
From my perspective, I'm just interested in making sure that the consensus-building process continues, so that we can find the compromise/alternative solution that satisfies a wide variety of people. I'd welcome other suggestions you may have. Edge3 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your remarks; glad we agree on substance. I chose to archive the thread so that RfC advertising stops (we don't need new opinions) and so that visiting editors see clearly that we have moved on. This will avoid back and forth while preserving the full discussion so that prior arguments can be referenced. If you don't mind, I'll re-instate the close. Tehcnically, it's not a formal close, it's a "we reached consensus and we moved on" close; that is sufficiently rare in those protracted discussions on politics pages, so let's celebrate! — JFG talk 23:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, this thread reached consensus on some issues, as summarized in the close, and discussion on further developments continues in a new thread below. One ladder step at a time… — JFG talk 23:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I also saw that Bockmanrocks consented to closing the thread. You may carry on as you'd like. Unfortunately I can't do it myself because I have to head out right now, but if you need anything then I'll respond in a few hours. Have a good one! Edge3 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on 5% threshold

You may want to participate in this RfC regarding to the inclusion of candidates in election infoboxes. MB298 (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Meetup at Sulzer Regional Library!

Hey there! I'm hosting a meetup at the at the Sulzer Regional Library on Saturday March 25th from 12 PM to 4:30 PM. You're welcome to come and work together with other editors on articles or other contributions, get to know other editors around Chicago, and ask any questions you might about using or contributing to Wikipedia. Food will be available, and we'll likely go out for dinner afterwards as a group. If you're interested in joining us, please RSVP at the event page here! Thanks, I JethroBT drop me a line 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Edge3. 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)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prince Harry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry, Prince of Wales (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) 09:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Edge3. 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)[reply]