Hi Mèþru! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).
Hey Mèþru! How're you doing? :) Btw if you didn't know, you can use ~~~~ to automatically add your signature to the end of a message (otherwise, Wikipedia will automatically fill it in for you). Kuaichik (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned on your user page that you're looking for a little help with bringing the El Goonish Shive article up to Wikipedia standards, anything I can do to help?--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 23:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's been a while since I've logged onto the wiki. Really anything and everything can be of use, I'm pretty new to wikis and have little idea of what I want the article to look like. Mèþru (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, well the good news: The framework is actually pretty solid, the main thing is we need to clean up/update, simplify the synopsis, . (Since it's almost 10 years old, the plot has moved. First bad news: I'm absurdly behind on the series. (I've been catching up, I'm in 2013, and my memory's not the greatest to be trying to do a recap/synopsis. We also need to simplify, if people want detailed plot descriptions, the EGS wiki can help them.)
Now the bad news: The 'lack of notability' problem, and I'm actually stumped by that one. I did track down The History of Webcomics, and it does mention EGS, however it's like two sentences. Not really enough for us to make an article on. The other two articles in don't have good sources either. I'm actually baffled by the lack of information on the series. Further, because this got kicked for 'lack of notability' we need to have 'ducks in a row' on that. (Apologizes if this reply seems to state the obvious, I'm also mulling the project over, I haven't thought about it in a month or two. I start doing some of the cleaning up (getting rid of bad links, updating dates.)
(Also, tip: You can use {{reply to|username}} to tell editors you've replied. It's useful if you don't know if the person will see the reply, like older messages. Template:Reply to has more info about using it.)--The Navigators (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nearlyevil665 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. 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.
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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:El Goonish Shive and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:El Goonish Shive, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Contentious topics restrictions are broadly construed--if you have to think about whether a topic may be covered by the restriction, or refine your wording to avoid mentioning it, you should assume that it is covered by the restriction. Please also see WP:GAME--making rapid edits in order to meet 500/30 in order to participate in editing this topic is going to be interpreted as disruptive editing that will result in a loss of editing privileges. signed, Rosguilltalk15:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to make my argument entirely about whether ADL is reliable for antisemitism, mentioning it only as an example of how one can find the ADL controversial but still reliable. I do not intend to become a very active editor again, and there is no need to worry about my editing in a way that intentionally violates Wikipedia policy. I may be unaware of policy, especially as there have been changes in the years I have not been active, but as you have seen in the noticeboard talk page I reach out when confused and try to comply.
I believe many of the people involved in the RfC are not acting in good faith, but both on the off chance I am wrong and to maintain civility I act as if they were in good faith anyway. All I ask is people extend me the same courtesy. They may believe privately that I'm a sock, a paid shill, a racist extremist, etc all they want, but they shouldn't act on such beliefs if I have not yet demonstrated bad faith. Enbylvania65000 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
