I know you love copyediting... I worked on this a while it was a complete mess to start with, and I found a ton of references... I have probably read and read it a couple dozen times ;-) wanna do your magic? ha ha slulek (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is pretty big now.. There was so much in the middle that I didn't even get a chance to touch... The original edits and adds on it didn't flow very well and a few parts were repetitive... I know it still probably needs a bit of work .. ha ha slulek (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I notice that the two of us are both members of the rather non-exclusive group of those bullied by KidAd. Oh, the joys of Wikipedia. 😄
Matza Pizza (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mustache? No, I was just referring to how its second edit ever was to break news of the collapse. I'm glad DavidWBrooks started the page when he did so that we at least got to cover it in the present tense for a short while haha. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are "autopatrolled" rights? How could I get that "right" if it is useful? I'm looking for things that will make my "Notable people" birth/death date updating mission easier/more streamlined etc. If you believe my efforts have been helpful to the encyclopedia, I'd appreciate your help in getting the "auto-patrolled" rights if its helpful. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk)07:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Th78blue: I think you can hold off on seeking autopatrolled rights at this point. That is a feature that expedites the process of article creation, and has no effect on projects like yours which are editing large numbers of existing articles. I recommend continuing to establish a pattern of productive edits, as you are doing, and down the road that pattern should help when you are ready to produce new articles. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries on the AP rights. I don't make many articles anyway, but I DO try to make many helpful edits. Especially with this "Notable people" "campaign" that I am working on. , though I am trying to make sure I have consensus on it before moving ahead. I added a new comment on the page that you commented on now too, if you wish to add a follow up. I really deeply appreciate your comments, and I hope to reach "consensus" soon. That has always been something that I don't quite understand when you "have it" or not. Given that many people might not contribute a response or not on something, so often it is just one or two people against another, and then the 2v1 beat the 1. Consensus? Seems small. But anyway, I digress. I think not using the [when?] tag is a-ok, but I would love to have a suggestion for what to use instead. Also, if I am not to use unsourced birth/death dates that are on a persons actual article page, I'd like for us all to decide what to do instead. Leave it blank? Remove the birth/death dates from the primary article as WELL? Use the dates, but add a [citation needed] tag (my personal suggestion)? Thanks!!! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk)16:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
Have this 'Barnstar of Diligence' for you persistence in helping out with the "Notable people" discussion. I look forward to some closure/consensus on that soon so that I can get back to my work on that effort! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk)05:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the "All around good guy" edit popped back up. I reverted it as vandalism. The edit was made by an IP address, not a registered account, otherwise I would put a warning on the page of the user. I'm still new to the "counter-vandalism" stuff. So if you have any tips, I'm open. I'll watch Greenfield, New Hampshire otherwise though, and suggest perhaps that you do the same since I know NH is your focus (whereas mine is all over the place with the "Notable people" stuff). Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk)20:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, with the IP addresses, there's not much you can do other than keep reverting. I have seen IPs get blocked, but it doesn't keep the user from logging back in another way. Greenfield is in fact on my watch list, as are all the other towns in the state - it's how I first picked up on your activity... --Ken Gallager (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only just now seeing this, sorry! Please {ping} me if you don't mind and I'll respond much more promptly. Also, would you be able to please weigh in on the "Notable people" consensus gathering? I think that since I am JUST collecting information from the main articles and then pasting it over to the various states "Notable people" lists, that it really should be on the onus of the primary article to be properly sourced etc. I will have to abandon this project altogether (and I think it was a value add in NH at least, in addition to Wyoming, Alaska, and many other places), but I continue to run into one obstacle and one obstacle only, the user Magnolia677. I understand their concern, but I asked them if we should then be going into every primary article and deleting the birth and death date information over there if in fact it is "unsourced", to which they have thus far failed to respond. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#NEED CONSENSUS FROM ALL PLEASE (on Birth/Death date year adds for "Notable people" lists)!!!Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)23:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I saw your comment just now. Much appreciated, and I agree that 'mission creep' is something worth avoiding. This project has just turned out to be somewhat frustrating after some initial success with several states (NH, Wyoming, Alaska, and part of Delaware) until I was halted. So I'm still trying to figure out how to proceed. I don't believe it looks aesthetically pleasing (nor is it harming any real integrity of the encyclopedia) in my view to add only some, but not all birth/death dates for a list. Granted, where it does not exist, I have already stopped using the tags ([when?]). That was a worthwhile and valid criticism. So I'm hoping I can get some kind of consensus soon and get back to it. Until then, I'll just peruse the "Recent changes" feed for vandalism.Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)17:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on South Setauket, New York (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.
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.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweety Walia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
