Hello, I appreciate your willingness to contribute to Wikipedia - and reviewing good article nominations is important - but could I suggest holding off on conducting reviews until you're a bit more experienced? Generally GA reviews are supposed to be relatively in depth. I'd suggest trying to take an article or two to GA first to know what the process is supposed to be like. Thanks and feel free to ask me any questions you might have! Elli (talk | contribs) 19:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
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.
I am surprised an article did not already exist. Thanks you for creating it! If you have not already, you might want to check out WP:The Wikipedia Library where you can request access to subscription resources (newpapers.com, proquest, etc.). S0091 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for approving it! It's my first article that I created, and I essentially have no interest in mints, but when I realized that it had kind of taken over San Francisco Mint I decided to do something about it! Thanks for the helpful tip on the library though! Lectrician2 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello lectrician2 its about the metropolitan regions of chicago chicagoland is not just 4 satellite cities and chicago, chicago metropolitan area includes all of chicago the pictures i put there are a representation of all of chicagoland and not just those cities if you look at other wikipedia pages of the next biggest metropolitan areas los Angeles and new york they are using the same technique as there page are representing all of los angeles metropolitan area and new york metropolitan area you are forgetting if we do not include those places the metro population would still be 7 million people so you are leaving 7 million worth of facts and knowledge that we could share in Wikipedia By the way i kind of like those pictures in my opinion as it symbolizes the chicago is not a midsize city but is a large city and the facts and pictures of the wikipedia page about chicagoland look depressing in my opinion i am trying to make it as equal as i can to the other cities and am not trying to be bias one rule of wikipedia is to not list your opinions and in this reply i did put opinions but in the wikipedia page i am not going to
I'd first off to thank you for making your first edits on Wikipedia!
To address your point, the Chicago metropolitan area isn't just those 4 cities and Chicago. But they weren't chose randomly, they were chose off of population statistics, as those are the 4 cities in the Chicago Metropolitan area that are over 100k in residents.
I looked at LA's metropolitan area, and they are essentially using the same technique as what was applied to this page. They used multiple major places in the LA Metropolitan area to add to the photos in the info box. That included Long Beach, and Riverside, which are separate municipalities from Los Angeles. I used the same idea, the 4 cities are major municipalities in the Chicago Metropolitan area.
I personally believe that the idea of Chicago being a large city is fully understood by the skyline photo. I think the largeness of the skyscrapers and the amount emphasize the idea. I see no need to have more than 1 photograph of the City of Chicago in the info box, as it's not just about the city.
I'm going to agree with you that the other photos were relatively depressing, and only 1 I would classify as good. But I don't want the info box photos to be slanted towards Chicago, as in your revision you had 3/6 photos be of Chicago. Again it's about the Metropolitan Area, not just Chicago. I personally skimmed through commons, and found those 4 images of the municipalities, trust me, it's the best of the photos. At this point, we need to work with what we have, and have to live with the fact that they aren't the best photos. Maybe in the future better will be uploaded to commons, but at this point it is not.
I really appreciate your input into this, and especially the skyline photo you updated. I'd love to come to a resolution regarding this dispute, so please reply!
You can ask the ministry of health and sexual contact affairs agency in Bradford by the King's 4th Bovine Ballsuck I shall tell you not to partake in this rude uunsubmissuve you sket. LKattenhorn (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback
Hi Lectrician2. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY00:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Hello, you reverted a change I made momentarily ago to the Greenville, Ohio page. I know there’s no way to prove this to you per say since no matter how deep I’ve looked, no records of this exist, but the town motto of Greenville (my home town) is in fact “We Horse” it is taught in all 4 elementary schools considered inside along with other town and state trivia about our state and town motto, flag, official state bird, and the like. It is a common motivator phrase around here mostly used by the older generation meaning to push forward through hardships. I implore you to look into your decision and allow the town motto to remain to any curious passers by of the page of my humble town, thank you. 107.10.198.166 (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanting to give you a quick heads-up: the person that talked to you above has routinely vandalized the Greenville, Ohio page for the last several months, incorrectly stating that "We Horse" is a motto for my hometown. Is there any way to request a temporary block or something along those lines so that we can curtail the vandalization? COOLRUNNER87 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the page history. The IP address keeps changing, so we can't do a IP block, or a IP block surrounding a range of IP's. I'm going to request page protection, for only auto confirmed accounts, because the majority seems to be coming from IP's or new accounts, a protection should stop this. No idea if it will succeed or not. I'll keep you informed. Happy holidays! Lectrician2 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was just rejected because there isn't enough persistent vandalism. Aka, it doesn't happen every day. Even though its been happening every few weeks for the past year, the admins still don't think its good enough. I'l watchlist the page, it's about all we can do. :( Lectrician2 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! When I reverted your edit, I stated that it was a unexplained content removal. By that, I meant in the WP:ES. Please enter in the edit summary, because people don't read every page in detail when they see a large content removal, especially with no summary, at that point, they revert it as it's likely some form of vandalism. If you stated why in the edit summary, I wouldn't have given it a second glance. I have no interest in the subject, or very much background knowledge, I just care about un-explained removal of content and having a edit summary. You can revert my rollback if you want, just add a edit summary. Happy holidays! Lectrician2 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC) (P.S. make sure to sign talk page messages with four tildes)[reply]
I agree that it is imperative to use edit summaries. Especially when engaging in content removal. See my comment below- this is just what you failed to do just now, yourself. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'd like to say I'm very sorry for this. My finger was on "q", and when I clicked space to skip your edit, I must have accidentally clicked "q". I'll revert my rollback, this was a honest mistake, and I can't stress how sorry I am for this. Sorry! Lectrician2 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind reply. No problem at all. I'm just thankful that you are not like one of those editors I have been running into of late who are nasty and self-important and figure that they can just fight and if nobody else see the dispute .. what can you do? Very frustrating. You are a breath of fresh air. Fight the good fight. Happy new year. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revert of Frank Stillinger
We respect the need for a style manual but simply saying "you messed up; read the Wikipedia welcome pages" is not helpful at all. Specifics about what was violated are needed.
FlutePlayingRockHound (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, per WP:IC, "Many Wikipedia articles contain inline citations: they are required for Featured Articles". Scarlett Johansson is a featured article, I was trying to maintain its article standing, as you added no inline citations. Sea Cow (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC) (Note: Please don't add onto a previous section, create a new section when you are using a talk page) Sea Cow (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you took down my change to the Tasmanian Transport Museum article, saying that I provided no source. I work at the museum and am familiar with plans regarding the future activities of the museum. There is no official 'source' for this information that I can cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LJDJ2003 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Let's not attack other editors. I reverted your change because you misspelled "the" and said "thew" instead. Please read, and follow WP:CIVIL in the future. Cheers! Lectrician2 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Removal
Hi, I’m new to Wikipedia so I apologize if I’m not using the take pages correctly. I posted to edit and realized I had forgotten to cite my sources. I was in the middle of adding them when it was removed. Sorry.
Well first of, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you continue to edit! It's completely understandable when you forget to add sources, I've been guilty of it many times myself. Just add it back with sources, and you are good to go. Cheers! Lectrician2 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You were incredibly quick to remove my link to the Taiwanese Representative Office in Lithuania (at which article there are a whole bunch of source links from which one could post to the article to which I added it...are you constantly scanning new additions so as to swoop in and erase anything not immediately footnoted? 12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I use a tool called WP:HUGGLE that allows me to see suspicious edits, that may have problems that violate WP:POLICY. I then make a decision to revert the edits or not. My WP:ROLLBACK rights make this very quick of process. But if you add anything, just make sure to add a source when you make the edit (WP:SOURCE) and this won't happen again. Also, I'm not a bot. Cheers! Lectrician2 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I think I'd be happiest if I just created and hosted and confined my work to a fork of Wikipedia but the information on what resources would be required that I have seen appears years and years out of date.Is there any place people who do this talk shop?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edit you rolled back was a sentence referring to the establishment of the Taiwanese Representative Office in Lithuania,along with inserting one word earlier to allow for the fact that not ALL such offices use the name "Taipei" for their "de facto embassies" of the ROC.As I stated here,the TROiL article had a number of sources one could pick for that sentence.12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You added that link to "external links". That's not where you place ciatations. Instead, you use the "cite" button on the top tool bar, and you can place in a reference that way. Out of courtesy, I've done this for you. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly not sure if it's more polite to drop the issue or if it would be rude not to respond to an apology, but as far as i'm concerned, we're good. Accidents happen. (What's huggle?) i appreciate the apology, though.
Hi, well again, I'm sorry. WP:Huggle essentially uses WP:ORES and other smart things that I don't understand to find vandalism, and it sends people to go and see if its vandalism or not. You can then revert if necessary. I was using it to combat vandalism, and your edit came up. It's history from there. Sea Cow (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cartoon Network PH
Hello, Sea Cow, you made a mistake because I am fixing the citation link, and some errors that I might have put in the wiki page, I am sorry if you had misunderstand. I have reverted the edit you did. If there’s any concern again, you can just tell me on my talk page. Samueldester1234 (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read on Gerontology Wiki that Everett Lee has died. That’s my source so if you want to see it go to the Everett Lee page on Gerontology Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.228.199 (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, according to WP:UNSOURCED, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." This means that YOU, have to add a source in order for your edit to be included on the English Wikipedia. Along with that, please make sure your source is reliable. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I don’t know how to source and you know you could just go to Gerontology Wiki and find the Everett Lee page. It says on there he passed away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.228.199 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review of the page Jacob Thomas (police officer). Please note that I have not removed any content, but rather added on material found in all leading newspapers along with multiple citations. I hope this looks alright to you. I am re-doing the edits.
Hi! To be honest, I made a mistake, I have no idea why exactly I reverted your edit, as you didn't delete anything. This is completely my fault, I'm going to remove that talk page message on your talk page with the warning. I'm really sorry. Sea Cow (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a citation for Polo G's interpolation of Smooth Criminal
Hello Sea Cow, thanks for pointing out that I forgot to include a citation. I am unsure of what I should use as a citation for my addition. Should I add a citation of the lyrics or get a snippet from Genius explaining the song's reference in the interpolation?
Genius is a user-generated source for the most part, and thus would usually not be suitable as a reference in articles. (An exception would be annotations on Genius by the artists themselves, which may sometimes be allowed under the "about self" policy.) In this case, though, this source seems at least somewhat reliable, and could be used to support this relatively non-controversial claim. (That's indepenent of the question of whether this belongs in the article at all.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)03:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sea Cow, I was literally in the midst of adding a citation when you removed my edit. If you give me about 5 minutes (new user here) you'll see that the citation has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ednagarrett (talk • contribs) 03:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! A-ok with me, just in the future add a citation with the edit so this doesn't happen again. And welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you stay! (Also, just remember to add four tildes at the end of your talk page messages) Sea Cow (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TIAA Bank name source
Re: source for the original full name for TIAA Bank: I simply used the Wikipedia page for TIAA. It seems appropriate to not have to go to the TIAA page to simply expand the acronym. Bhami (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was a interesting issue, at the end of the day, there should have been a source, so I just transplanted the one over from the parent company, all of my issues with your edit have now been resolved, and everyone should be happy. Overall, it was a minor revert, but no matter what, things need to be verifiable in the article without going into a different article to verify it. As far as I'm concerned, your effort of adding the name + the source I just copy and pasted from the parent company, have sourced a unsourced portion of a article, and made Wikipedia better overall. Good job! (P.S. - recently I've tried to push myself to source minor things like this instead of reverting it, and I just failed I guess, fudgemuffins. (That was just a personal note to myself - you did nothing wrong)) Sea Cow (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you reverted a few edits I made on the Randstad page. While the last edit was correct to be reverted, and a source is necessary, why did you revert the others as well? I was updating outdated information, and sourcing in those previous edits.
Also, User:RJP98, can you please tell me what specific section you had sourced the portion on updating culture? If I made a mistake in that area, I would be happy to correct it. Sea Cow (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section on culture was not sourced. However, in earlier edits I focused on the introduction and the sidebar. These edits were proper, but were removed nonetheless. It's okay, though. I will add a source and update the post. I was just letting you know not all edits were unsourced.
Hi! I had rollbacked the page like five minutes ago to go up to the portion where you added the unsourced info. Just add in the info on the culture now, everything with the numbers are back to where you edited. I'm sorry about that again. Sea Cow (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the software I use to revert (WP:HUGGLE) does this automatically as it assumes the other edits are highly unlikely to be constructive. Just add a source, and edit the version before I reverted it, and you will be good to go! Sea Cow (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Sea Cow, please do keep in mind the big warning at the top of WP:HUGGLE: "Warning: You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Huggle." At the very least, you have a duty here to yourself restore the edit you're referring to, rather than to ask someone else to do so. More generally, can I suggest you ease up on some of these reverts as unsourced? I see multiple complaints on this page arising from them, and straight-up rollbacking good-faith, well-written content for lacking a source is often not the best course. Per WP:UNSOURCED,
In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[1] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[2] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
Personally, I only rollback as unsourced if A) I genuinely doubt that the claim in question is true, B) the whole edit is unencyclopedic and that's just the easiest policy to cite, or C) living, possibly living, or recently deceased people are involved. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)03:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I still stand by my reversion, because I see no source on the article that relates to the political climate section added in the culture section. But as a matter of courtesy, I just reverted back to the portion that I didn't have a issue with (everything but the unsourced political climate section). Anytime I make a mistake and am called out for it, which I have done in the past, I gladly revert it, because I take responsibility. As for the idea of adding a citation needed tag instead of reverting, I simply don't believe in them. Far to often I see tags sitting around on articles from 2010. That does nothing to boost the helpfulness of articles, it just makes them less reliable. As for the idea of adding the inline citation myself, it's a encouragement, and in a lot of cases I lack the researching depth to find it myself. I completely believe in WP:GOODFAITH, but at the end of the day, additions without citations blatantly violate WP:V, and it's in my conscious to revert it. I'd say a large portion of the edits I roll back are good faith, and a large portion are well-written, and they don't go past the level one warning stage. Isn't that what level one is supposed to be? Treating everything as good faith, and just a small nudge that they did something wrong, and a learning experience so someone doesn't do it again? Please, if I'm doing something wrong as a editor, I want your help as someone who's more experienced than me. Don't hesitate to reach out again or reply. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the first to criticize our tendency to leave {{cn}}s standing in articles for too long. I've removed quite a few unsourced statements from articles as old as 2004, and it's quite frustrating. But a dislike for overuse of {{cn}}s is not a good reason to remove good-faith, well-written additions rather than tag them or cite them. If a large portion of the edits I roll back are good faith, and a large portion are well-written, that worries me. As the policy section I quoted shows, it is not the default position of the community that all unsourced claims should be removed on sight. It's something that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. If you don't have the time or the research skills to verify something, then sometimes that might even mean skipping past an edit and leaving it for someone else. In the case of Special:Diff/1066145317, most of the unsourced material that was added was just expanding on preëxisting unsourced material, so the article wasn't much worse for it. And with The Randstad is home to some of the most reputable universities in Europe, including the University of Amsterdam, the VU Amsterdam, Leiden University, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Utrecht University and the Delft University of Technology, well... let's be honest, "$university is in $place" is the kind of statement that goes unsourced in plenty of our articles, because our readers can verify or falsify it just by hovering over the link, but if you want to add citations for those six claims, it shouldn't be that hard. Although the "most reputable" part would probably need to be cut.Not to get too philosophical here, but a recent change patroller is still an editor. You shouldn't be removing content from articles because it is imperfect; you, like any other editor, are expected to preserve content rather than remove it, when possible... And if you think that an impersonal templated message to a brand new user provides them with a good learning experience, perhaps you forget what it's like to be a new user. What you can do is, rather than revert someone's edits, reach out on their talkpage with your concerns. It's a bit slower work, but avoids scaring people away. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)04:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. The reason why I revert unsourced edits is not because I dislike CN's, I revert because in some way shape or form, they break Wikipedia policy.
2. As the overarching policy for all of sourcing, WP:V states, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". As you said, it's decided on a case by case basis, and for me, in the large majority of cases, it's reverting it. In most cases I revert edits that were made seconds ago, which means the given editor is probably still online. If they put in the effort to place the edit in, I believe they should place a citation in, my efforts in a lot of cases are better served doing other work, and not editing a topic that I have no background in, and would be difficult for me to source due to my lack of knowledge in the given subject. It's not exactly complex to place a citation in from a reverted edit, in fact, if they need help, I am more than happy to help them with the process of placing in a citation.
3. As for skipping past it, I could be leaving unsourced claims on the table, and I am betting that someone else will edit it, I'd rather not take that risk, when it's as easy for me to click two buttons and fix the issue.
4. About the edit on the table, I was more concerned with the section on the politics, as that's a lot of claims that I strongly believe should be sourced, because they can impact the perception of the town, and if they don't have a source, how does anyone know if they are true or not? I was a lot less concerned with the colleges.
5. I'm not removing it because it is "imperfect", I'm reverting it because it violates WP:V in a lot of cases.
6. I never said it was a "good learning experience", it's a learning experience, but it can be flawed in the impersonal type of sense. But the template does reach out in a kind manner, that says that I am glad to discuss with them if they need help, and I've never had a issue with that. I actually love when people reach out to me asking questions, and I am more than happy to respond.
At the end of the day, I think that you and me have a fundamental difference of ideas when it comes to unsourced materials, and I don't think we are going to resolve it at this point of time. As far as I am concerned, I have not violated any Wikipedia policy. When I have accidentally reverted in the past, I am more than glad to clean up the mess. If I violate Wikipedia policy in any shape or form in the future, just message me, no biggie, I understand. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that we have a fundamental difference of beliefs. I believe that a recent change patroller is an editor first and a patroller second, and believe in following the community's clearly-expressed desire that editors not blindly remove unsourced content. I believe that, for instance, a recent change patroller looking at this edit should take a second to Google "Holly Shikada", find that she is indeed the Attorney General of Hawaii, and add a reliable source, rather than make it so that an article that was already a month out of date stays out of date, while sending the an impersonal templated message (the wrong one, at that) to that article's sole maintainer.You, apparently, believe otherwise. Okay. Difference of opinion acknowledged, and I have no interest in arguing with someone with whom I've reached an impasse. One observation, though, from someone who's been here a lot longer than you have: Your outlook tends to fit in well with other people who do a lot of recent change patrol. It tends not to fit in so well with everyone else. And I've seen that paradigm difference play out quite a few times at ANI over the years, rarely in the recent change patroller's favor. I genuinely hope you steer clear of that path. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)06:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
1. About the Holly Shikada incident, was it unsourced? Yes. Did I use the wrong template? Yes. Do I regret that? Yes. Do I stand by the overarching belief of my reversion? Yes.
Overall, the one thing i'm going to take away from this discussion (I wish not to call it a argument, as we have stayed civil) is that I need to be more careful, and place my editor status before recent changes patroller. I plan at this point to make a genuine effort for this to happen. When I see something that is probably true, I'm going to try and find a source for it myself. I personally never want to find myself near of ANI, and if it means not reverting every edit I see, I can live with that. Thanks!
On a different note: I was talk page stalking you, due to this discussion, with you remaining calm and explaining your points thoroughly, even if we disagree, I have no issues giving you a support at RFA when you do run. Sea Cow (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^It may be that the article contains so few citations it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags. Consider then tagging a section with {{unreferenced section}}, or the article with the applicable of either {{unreferenced}} or {{more citations needed}}. For a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.
^When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.
Hello Sea Cow -- Please note that all educational establishments are exempt from A7. I've moved this to draft for the creator to source, but sourced articles on high schools have historically generally been kept at Articles for Deletion, though the climate is more deletionist towards them now than it used to be. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did make several changes to the page for Lettie Alston. She is an important figure among African American composers. I was a work colleague and friend of hers. I was at her funeral as well. So I know some things about her that are incorrect or incomplete on her Wikipedia page. Essentially, I'm the source. I guess maybe that's not enough. But I know everything I changed was accurate and correct, because I know it first hand. I'm not sure what to do in this case. Maybe there's nothing to do. But it's a shame that the information on her page is incorrect, starting with the fact that it says she's still alive when she isn't, and we could correct it. Any solutions? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choralmike (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as much as it sucks, not really that much can be done at this point. I could suggest reaching out to the sources provided and offering them evidence to the incorrectness of their current info. Also, if she is dead, shouldn't there be a obit? I wish you the best, Sea Cow (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine poll
Why was the poll deleted? I explained in the comment line why deleting it is inappropriate. Please read it and restore the poll. I was about to add explanation row, but now i can't, as all my work was deleted within just a minute. Very confused. Thanks for replying. Ofihet (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit as you were talking in the top of the page, I'm just going to revert before the talking, and the removal of the poll. Please use the talk page to communicate about the article in the future, and not add it to the top of the article. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Connected kerb product section
You flagged my edit where I removed a section on products. I removed this as I'm getting a message saying the page contains advertisement material. I've tried to remedy one warning and end up getting another. Doesn't seem right to me. Tariqarafa1 (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! If you look at the difference:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Connected_Kerb&diff=prev&oldid=1067153456&diffmode=source, you can clearly tell the wikitext is screwed up. You still left a source when you deleted it, and a random "park" lying around. You just didn't delete whatever you wanted to correctly, and you still left stuff in. Just delete it properly next time, without leaving in extra stuff, and you should be good to go. Also, as a side note, probably rewriting that section would be better than completely deleting it, as it still had some valuable information. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sea Cow, thanks for the message. I apologize, I was certain I had included the citation. I appreciate you catching that error. Here is the citation for my last post:
Last Name: Chandler
First Name: David G.
The Campaigns of Napoleon
Publisher: Simon and Schuster
Year of publication: 1966
Location of Publication: 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020
ISBN: 978-0-02-523600-8
Page(s): 932-933
Language: English
Hi! The most complete how to guide is at WP:REFB, I would suggest watching the video to learn. If you have any questions or need help with this, please don't hesitate to ask me. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First Monday in October
If you are referring to the 'apocryphal' quote "critics = crickets", it has now 'entered the mainstream' to the extent that it doesn't really need direct 'attribution'.
I think it was first used by Peter Cook (I may be wrong), but I have found references to it by (amongst others) Mel Brooks and David Mamet.
If, however, you wish to know whose 'ideas' those were, they were mine, having just seen the film.
Matthau is always 'reliable' (even when 'riled' by Jack Lemmon ! ), and the 'romance' with Clayburgh is well handled (given the 'constraints' of 'life pre-empting art' - Reagan appointing a female Justice necessitating the rushed release).
I didn't want the film to end (a bit like 'a good book'); perhaps a bit 'late' (as are both Matthau and Clayburgh - groan.. [I mean they're dead]) for a 'sequel', but "you never know".
Perhaps I'll make one some time ! 188.30.169.98 (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused on how the citations work, I'd like to have this information added (and I tried doing it again by my citation didn't work). Let me know what I need to do to make it happen!
Drumlineman42 (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumlineman42 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Reverted Edits to Columbia, Louisiana
Hello, Sea Cow. I noticed that you reverted my edits on the grounds that I didn't provide sources or citations. While you're correct that I didn't provide sources or citations, the information I had written is both more accurate and more informative than the previous revision which you reverted the page back to. I wrote that information as a native and lifelong resident of Caldwell Parish. That information is common knowledge to local residents, is easily verifiable by a quick Google search, and is information that likely doesn't need sources or citations, but I will include citations when I re-add that information to the page. Please refrain from reverting edits based solely on the lack of citations.24.48.169.112 (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. Those two outline that you musthave reliable sources in your article, that prove the given topic. You cannot have original research, such as the info you have gathered by being a "lifelong" resident. I see that you have added back your edit, with sources. In that regard, any issues should be solved. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NO! Sea Cow. This user is correct with his comments. You reverted ALL my edits because they did not follow the style guide and treated me like a new contributor. I am not. I might on one of the edits inside the commit have done something wrong. And you are completely welcome to fix or note mistakes by others. But reverting is for cases when just a load of crap was added. Otherwise, stuff needs to be fixed.
Apparently, you think you know UOM and some other things better than me (And for all I know you do). Then show it by fixing or by annotating. As for the above. Your comment is correct (And maybe with mine, too) your actions are WRONG. Using the style guide to roll back edits is certainly not part of the style guide. I am in software and rollbacks are bad (Unless done by the submitter right after he committed his error)
I want to keep you in your right and with your motivation to do things. But don't use your motivation to demotivate others. Your score seems to be at least two on the latter and that's not good!
I am just editing my edit. Just to be clear (And when you make edits, you get warned) if you make false facts about a living person, everybody has the right / duty to roll those changes back immediately. Since you get warned for that, implied in that message is that you should not do this for edits to pages that are not about living persons, except maybe with true vandalism.
Hello, I reverted it because you said in one of your edit summaries, "indian sources were cited, which obviously means the allegations are void". I see no consensus on the talk page that this is the case, if there has been consensus to establish this, please point me in the direction and I will have no issue with your edit. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't have to revert the whole thing you could've just reverted that one part manually. Everything else was backed by authentic sources like "one of the greatest all rounders in cricket".. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittensarereallycute (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another unjustly demoralized contributor because of your actions. Great job Sea Cow. Maybe also take feedback into account. You cannot just roll back to the last point you were comfortable with. I am comfortable with an empty page about trump only. Should I just roll his entire page back (It's locked anyway, for illustration purposes only)
On most addition, you don't have to first get to a consensus on the talk page. The consensus is to prevent flip-flopping that gets noticed by the contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankk20168 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
So sorry for my mistakes with references on the previous pages! I’m trying to get the hang of editing here and I’ve slipped up, I’ll take note of my mistakes and try to improve ☺️ Cornmazes (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slow down with Huggle
This was a bad revert. You removed sourced content and restored unsourced content. Slow down -- I found this because a new editor was terrified they were about to get blocked because of the level 3 warning you dumped on them for adding sourced content. People can and do get blocked for a pattern of edits like this one. Vaticidalprophet01:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...Welp. The best way I can describe this is I messed up. Not much else to say, other than a sincere effort to have this not happen in the future will occur. Sea Cow (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay as long as you don't repeat it :) A lot of people go too fast with Huggle at some point. It's easy to do so. It's important to slow down, and if you're having trouble moderating your speed, consider using a less fast-paced antivandalism tool. It's also not a good tool for borderline calls like that one; true vandalism and BLP violations should be dealt with, but "adding a mix of sourced and unsourced content to an already unsourced article" is something that requires more complex management. Vaticidalprophet06:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, Sea Cow, I was pretty optimistic about how things went in our last discussion of reverting as unsourced, but this revert doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. The content you removed had already been in the article for years, in the lede; meanwhile, Aleksei Smirnov is an FA in Russian, and if you look at that you'll find a reference to https://www.aleksey-smirnov.ru/bio.html, a sufficiently reliable source for this relatively noncontroversial claim. I've restored the section, citing that bio. Please don't just rollback things like this. If you don't feel like finding the sources yourself, that's completely fine. But either move on and leave the edit for someone else to review, or tag it as {{citation needed}} so that another editor can come along and cite it. I would never have found that in the page history if I hadn't looked at why Cornmazes had received two prior warnings.I can't believe that I'm finding myself sticking up for unsourced additions, since a lot of my mainspace work is removing them, but the community has emphatically rejected over the years the idea that all unsourced content should be removed on sight. Please respect that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)06:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
German equivalents for US grades
en.Wikipedia had already the information that eighth grade is equivalent to "8. Klasse". Germany has 16 different school systems - for each state a different one - but how we count the classes (beginning by one and adding one for each year) is the same in all 16 states. Sorry for trying to get the mess in these pages smaller - every grade has a different list of Countries with / without equivalents to the actual grade. I will certainly not try to better en.wikipedia again.Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental issue with all of your edits is that you didn't add a source, in all of these articles, other portions have a source, for each country. Just provide it, but please don't leave the En wikipedia, just add sources next time. Sea Cow (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before: The pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_grade#Europe , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_grade#Germany have all the information needed. If eigth grade equals "Achte Klasse" and ninth grade equals "Neunte Klasse" then it is clear to anybody (obviously but you), that 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5=5, 6=6, 7=7, 10=10, 11=11 in any language. If you need a proof from a book that seven minus one is six - then this is a lost case. You can certainly insist on stupidity - and obviously this is your right to do so. But my time is too short for this kind of obvious nonsense. There would be one chance to keep me collaborating in english Wikipedia - and that would be to accept that you were wrong in the first place and did not act according to basic logic - and add the information you erased yourself again. I am sure this will not happen - so: bye!Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that you didn't provide a source that says that. There's nothing that you provided that says that that is the case. The warning at the top of the article says "This article needs additional citations for verification". By adding something without a source, you don't help the article. Just add a source that nationally says that 9th grade is 9. Klasse. There should be some national education office that lists the grades. Sea Cow (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is a non-issue: You can add one to eight and see yourself that one plus eight is nine. If you don't believe it: Try it with seven = seventh grade has the information needed (without a source, by the way) - and when you add one to seven you get eigth - and "tadaa" eigth grade is eigth Klasse - what somebody in english wikipedia accepted - again without any source I can see. So what you are doing is arguing something that is obvious. If you need lexical proof that one and one is two - you are the wrong person to decide what is "vandalism".Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: Do you even realize that your reverts are critized so often? I don't know one German admin that has as many bad critics as you have - if I would be you I would change my tactics.Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a admin. I'd also confess that I'm still learning more and more about wikipedia, and trying to improve myself everyday. Sea Cow (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you should be even more careful about reverts. I have done a lot of re-writing in German wikipedia if I felt the necessity - but reverts are something I avoid if possible. Especially with threatening an author to ban him if he tries to write here again.Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the Wikipedia article on reliable sources: "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged." I hope you can agree to that. It is not at all likely that anybody challenges one plus eight is nine. So there is NO citation needed. That YOU are nevertheless challenging basic facts as mathematics is a proof that something CAN be challenged, not that it is likely to be challenged - that would be true for everything and finally you could not cite anything because everything can be challenged and that is not what wikipedia says: It says: "likely to be challenged" - "eight plus one is nine" is NOT likely to be challenged. That's my point. And you still ignore that one - misusing the power somebody gave you.Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sea Cow, I have to agree with Andreas von Stackelberg here – that "6. Klasse" means "Grade 6" wouldn't really need a source because it is trivially true. Even if you should feel that a source is necessary for the info about what the term "grade" is in German, it is still a bit over the top to remove it. In any case, on its own that info doesn't tell the reader much, since it's just a translation of the phrase, without any context. I added a bit of (sourced) text about that to Grade 6. --bonadeacontributionstalk13:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andreas von Stackelberg, the source that @Bonadea added should work. I was coming from the angle that the article had a warning about needing additional citations. I really didn't care if it was a translation, but we were actively extenuating the issue that was prevalent throughout the article. It's insanely minor of an issue, and in a well sourced article, I probably wouldn't have reverted it. I hope you can understand where I was coming from, but at the end of the day, this issue has been resolved. Cheers, Sea Cow (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bonadea, for trying to solve the issue. Thank you, Sea Cow, for explaining why you think you had to revert it. But the real issue comes now: What shall we do for first to fifth and tenth to thirteenth class? Have a discussion like this every time? The complete 13 pages are a mess - to put it mildly. Some pages have more than twenty translations - some have almost none (fifth grade for example). I think there should be at least some logic behind the question what we do about these thirteen pages in full. And sorry, my experience here tells me: I won't mess with it again. Too much work, too much discussion, too little effect and no concept at all why these pages exist or wat they should explain. But: I will think about collaborating with the rest of English wikipedia - just the "first" to "thirteenth grade"-pages I will avoid.Andreas von Stackelberg (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re:February 2022
I was aware that I removed those sources regarding CP; it was an accident and I was just about to fix that. And I'm pretty sure the sources I added were reliable. --DannyC55 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you added were great, sadly, the template doesn't offer much in the way of specifics. Just ignore that. Anyways, accidents happen, no harm done. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Rimstead - His 80ish sister, without a computer, asked for those details to be added in.
He was a family friend. There is no reference as he died in 1987 before laptops.
You must be unfamiliar with The Toronto Sun newspaper for which Paul Rimstead wrote since it began until his death so how can that not be a reliable source and where does one go to find one when so little is available for those deaths from that many years ago ?. Did you even review that feature to realize it is an official part of The Sun newspaper history ? 70.27.24.231 (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, you are incorrect in what you say about the last entry above and how can those correct birth / death dates be wrong when supplied from sister as surely that should be something which can be entered as if not then there would be many hundreds to thousands on Wikipedia in question. Please just do the right thing for the family and restore the removed dates and the drumming sentence as what difference does it make just because there is no known ready reference to be found. If there is then why do you not spend a minute and find it for us all to help out. Thank You. PS - unaffiliated is correct word without hyphen. See, you were wrong and we did not remove you. Right ??? 70.27.24.231 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for above comeback, however you must know it to not be a correct fact as here is an example with no source. < In 2006, Roy Hofheinz was inducted into the Texas Baseball Hall of Fame. > We shall not follow up again as you plainly and simply do not wish to do the only right and proper thing in this regard. Shameful. Thank You very much. 01:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.24.231 (talk)
Well, sadly, Wikipedia is ripe with unsourced info that has slipped through the cracks. But removing everything unsourced is delusional, as there is so much. But why would we go ahead and contribute to this problem. Anyways, cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
For your amazing work combatting that bot-user vandalism. I know you received an anti-vandalism barnstar very recently, but you reverted so many edits you deserve another one. Very well done, and keep up the good work! DirkJandeGeer (щи) 00:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit because it was on a disambiguation page. That's not where you put prose. Also, it screwed up the formatting, plus, if you plan to add it into a actual article, please add a source. Please message me if you need any help. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enel
Hi. I honestly thought my summary was clear: "out of context", information just thrown there, smack in the middle of the incipit inbetween the company's shareholders and financial size without recognizable logic. -- Rojelio (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The more I look into it, you are probably right. It was a bad revert on my part, I don't even think the incident has enough lasting impact to stay in the lead. I'll revert my message on your talk page, as well as reverting my reversion on the page itself. Sorry! Sea Cow (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like some supervision in editing the Das Boot article
Greetings, Sea Cow. I would like some supervision in my endeavors of editing the Das Boot article because I am new to Wikipedia. I plan on creating a sandbox where I will implement my edits either in my talk page or on the article itself. If you have any issues with my edits, please respond to this comment and tell me why. Thank you for your time.
CognitiveBehavioralTherapyWizardTheIX (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! I have no problem taking this on. I'm going to put these pages on my watchlist and keep a eye on them. I'll shoot you a message if I have any suggestions. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sergio Michel
Hey, what's the deal bozo? Why's you remove everything I edited on Sergio Michel? I understand that I didn't add the references, but I don't know how to do that, and i knew him personally... he has passed away, how am I supposed to prove that? He's not a famous person there isn't going to be any headlines on his death, or any of his crimes. It is nearly impossible to authenticate, because like I said, he is not a famous person or a celebrity or anything like that 2607:FEA8:5AE0:7800:9B5:F553:FDCD:EF67 (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
1. I'm first of going to recommend you don't call people "bozo", there's something called WP:CIVIL, which includes treating other editors with respect.
3. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. This says that you cannot have original research, such as the info you have gathered by being knowing him personally.
4. If there is no headlines, maybe go to county death records and probate? It seems like a unfortunate situation, but if you don't have a citation, you can't add it in.
5. If there are crimes that have been committed, there is probably some sort of court record.
Please be careful with the assumptions you may make about editors. In this case, both an IP editor and a new editor were reverting vandalism from some very persistent vandals. So, by reverting them, you were reintroducing the vandalism back into the article. Some times, new editors are doing the right thing. Please look at the page history because the vandal had moved the article to an incorrect article title before introducing their vandalism that these editors were trying to revert.
Hello! Well, you are right. I didn't look far enough into the history when I made the revert. I did this off of the page name and seeing that the title was inconsistent. I've apologized to the user who I warned, along with removing the warning. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided a link to the New York Times website, as reliable a source as can be, which I had fully intended to do. Of course I know that in Wikipedia you have to provide a source! You are vigilant which is very good, but nothing would happen if you wait just five minutes before jumping on the wrong-doers, to make sure that they are indeed such. Thanks!93.172.186.189 (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding a source! The policy on Wikipedia is to add a source with the edit, not 5 minutes afterward. If you have any questions, please reach out. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Melecie has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
I posted one paragraph "Early life" you deleted the entire thing? I was in process of completing references. The paragraph is same early life narratives of countless Wikipedia pages. I have cited as many aspects as possible. Please leave the page. Are you working for AK-eater06? You deleted the paragraph within minutes of it being published. What are the odds of that? If you could be specific regarding the reference for a person being "Born" I would like to see those on other pages?
If you look at the message and the edit summary, I deleted it because you provided no sources. Wikipedia policy is to add sources with your edit, not 5 minutes afterward.
In terms of "leaving the page", if you read WP:OWN, a editor doesn't "own a page" and can't tell other people what to do.
I see no citations (WP:CITE) that you provided on the section you added. If you don't know on how to add ciatations, I would suggest visiting WP:REFB, it has a easy to follow guide.
I am not working for anyone, and I am generally confused by this section of your message.
I use a tool called WP:HUGGLE which allows me to quickly see suspicious edits, and revert them. That's what happened with yours.
I reverted your edit because the entire section you added was unsourced, not a specific part about "being born". This includes the schooling and all.
Well then there seems to be a misunderstanding of source on my part... are you saying that linked portions such as RCAF is not a source it has to be in the footnote as well? How do you source someones Schooling when its Elementary school 20 years ago? You can't source a records department and pages report that sort of thing all the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greysierra (talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! Linked portions are not a source. I am referring to a inline citation. If you do know know how to add one, visit Help:Referencing for beginners. You have to find a Wikipedia:Reliable sources stating the fact (in this circumstance, elementary school), put in the prose, and cite it. In terms of research, a biography on the subject by a news provider, or a book covering the subjects history is the best recommendation I can give you to finding a source. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Joaquin natividad, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GPL93 (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would rather not have the less than ideal page to be in my page creation history, to compensate for your mistake, can you please go throughout the proper CSD avenues to remove this from my account? Thanks. Sea Cow (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
I've just found out from olympedia.org/athletes/84763, His name was Gordon Christian, an Olympian, and Silver Medalist in 1956, he used as Gordy Christian. He is the brother of Olympic Gold Medalists Bill Christian and Roger Christian from Squaw Valley 1960, and uncle of Gold Medalist of Lake Placid 1980 Dave Christian, a Miracle on Ice. It's all in the story. 72.69.243.12 (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you did indeed a mistake because it doesn't require a source to know the website is down. Just follow the link and try any article, and you'll see for yourself. 198.58.162.238 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @62.189.22.38:! Please read WP:CITE, you need a citation. Next, per WP:COI, you need to disclose your conflict of interest, also per WP:NPOV, it's not a good idea to write in articles that are closely related to you. Next time, please click the "new section" button to put something on a talk page, as it screws up the formatting. Also, make sure to use four ~ to sign your comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at your Talk page, Sea Cow, I saw this exchange between you and 62.189.22.38 and determined more information is required as to handling conflicts of interest. It is wholly inappropriate and against Wikipedia policy for the son of a subject to edit that subject's Wikipedia article. In following policy, (WP:COI), the son should discuss his edit proposals on the subject's Talk page where other editors can investigate and assess the need for and validity of the proposed edits. In creating the Talk page post, the son must disclose the nature of his conflict of interest. If a consensus is reached that the edit proposals are valid, then an unrelated third party should ensure proper sources are cited and make the edits. If no consensus is reached, then the edit proposals must be dropped. Thank you, Sea Cow, for catching this, but you stopped just a smidgen short in directing this editor on the proper procedure. As it stands, all edits made to that article by the son must be removed from the article immediately. The content should be included in the Talk page post along with proper sources. If there are no proper sources provided, then the issue is moot and the edits should not be included in the subject's article. 69.180.218.186 (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected errors on Sarah Blake's page and added her book and it's ISBN number. I'm not sure how that can be cited???
TYPO: "Blake was worked" should be "Blake has worked"
WRONG ATTRIBUTION: Let's Not Live on Earth was not published by Alice James Books. It was published by Wesleyan University Press
WRONG ISBN: The ISBN for Let’s Not Live on Earth is also incorrect. It should be 978-0819577658 (I didn't make that edit before. Can you?)
ADDED: Clean Air, its publisher, and its ISBN number.
ADDED: List of reviews of Clean Air. I don't have the citations for those so right to drop that list.
Best...Cris
@173.72.97.42:, I reverted your edits because of the "Clean Air has received rave reviews from Oprah Daily, Publishers Weekly, Apple Books, and Booklist." portion, as it was unsourced. I really have little interest in the page other than that to be honest. Sea Cow (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which fact about software engineering in particular did you not believe so much that you have removed it? I would like to iteratively and incrementally provide citations for all facts that you are not convinced about. Please do not remove the facts I have added unless you provide a citation that says otherwise. It is kind of rude to remove. You could have added "citation needed" and I would have added the citation for your placeholder. OK, you have removed the entire thing. How rude. I will in fact start discouraging everyone from using wikipedia. First of all, the text written there (after you've removed mine) is not what the references that it links say. My reference for what software engineering is [1] IEEE, ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010 Systems and Software Engineering—Vocabulary, ISO/IEC/IEEE, ISO/IEC/IEEE, 2010, and my reference for the more detailed explanation of what "systematic" means in software engineering is Sommerville (software engineering 10th edition, page 23), and my reference for more details on what engineering means in software engineering is the SWEBOK http://swebokwiki.org/Chapter_15:_Engineering_Foundations and my reference for transforming the inputs into outputs using a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach is http://swebokwiki.org/Chapter_8:_Software_Engineering_Process
Now, you will obviously behave like the communist that you are and you will not revert what you have deleted, neither correct the things that are written there incorrectly. So, in fact, I hope something very bad happens to you as a karma for causing harm to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.123.164.79 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao, I'm not going to go in depth after you start calling me a commie. I removed it because it was all unsourced. Add sources, you can add it back in. Easy. Adios, don't expect further correspondence. Sea Cow (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was not all unsourced. It linked to the required references from IEEE in the very beginning and then other wikipedia pages. Yes, you are a commie and you do not know what you are doing as you are deleting true, verified facts that have their proper references and you are only causing harm to the community. 37.123.164.79 (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you understand what a communist is, I would suggest you pop over to Communism and take a gander on what communism actually is. I reverted your edits because of this, very unsourced, paragraph. "With regards to software engineering, as intended in 1968 when it was coined at a NATO conference to address software crisis, the intended meaning is to avoid processes for software development that are ad-hoc, informal, undefined, open to interpretation, or otherwise left to chance and to establish and use instead processes that are systematic, disciplined, quantifiable. The IEEE defines engineering as "the application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to structures, machines, products, systems or processes". Software engineer is therefore someone who applies, studies, or teaches systematic, disciplined, quantifiable processes for all stages of software development, including requirements, design, construction, testing, and software project management." Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@sea cow: About the reversion of my edit to the Abel Prize: You seem to doubt that there is a genuine controversy in mathematics about the geographic and gender diversity (or lack thereof) of Abel Prize winners. One could of course provide a citation for that, but I'll have to ask: What's the point? I mean, the table right above the edit is pretty clear, and as a professional mathematician, I can assure you that the debate is real and obvious. That's not limited to the Abel Prize. [1] has the same kind of issue.
So my question is: Do we really need references to the obvious?
@Bangerth: well yes. It's quite a serious accusation, and something that's as heavy handed as that should be backed up by a reliable source. Also, take into account, your "whereas that is only true for maybe half of all professional mathematics" which is toeing the line of WP:OR because of the "maybe". This entire paragraph you wrote reeks of original research because of your background. Sea Cow (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@sea cow: I'm not sure what you mean by "reeks of original research". But be that as it may, I'm mostly interested in figuring out ways how we can come to text that would satisfy your standards. So first about the "maybe": It's of course hard to come up with statistics about how many faculty in typical math departments are in pure math and which are in applied math. The best survey by the American Mathematical Society at [2] doesn't actually break things down, which makes sense because people are often between disciplines, and not everyone would know how to self-identify. So I'm going by my 17 years of being a professor in two math departments, and having seen many more around the country: about half of math department faculty are in pure math. There is likely no better statistics than the observation of a typical faculty member for this; if someone said it was 60%, I'd believe that too, but in the end, one will have to live with a vague statement -- which is what I was going for.
As for the serious accusation: I suspect you mean that there is controversy. That the winners of the prize are from a rather small subset of mathematics, are overwhelmingly male, white, and from a small subset of western universities isn't controversial -- it's clearly tabulated, with pictures and text, in the section above. That's also a well documented problem, see for example [3]. So the question I believe you bring up can only be whether anyone cares about the lack of representation from other communities, i.e., whether that is "controversial". I don't know how to answer that other than saying "Yes, everyone in the profession is talking about it and is appalled by it". What would be a good way to document this? Would the following article count? [4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangerth (talk • contribs) 03:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bangerth See, you are approaching this from the wrong angle, you have the idea in mind, but you are researching the specific idea and trying to reach a specific point. It should be you research a given point, and then formulate the idea. Please read Wikipedia:No original research, it essentially says that a idea you formulated yourself (or your experience in this given case) cannot be included in a article. In this case, the original research policy came into play with "nearly all recipients worked in various fields of pure mathematics, whereas that is only true for maybe half of all professional mathematics." But overall, the entire formatting of the paragraph is a bit off. It seems more of personal criticism. If you take media outlets criticism, compile them, and add a few quotes, that's a much better section. I'm going to give you general ideas on how to write this paragraph:
Find media outlets (WP:RS) criticizing the diversity of the Abel Prize
Have something saying to the tune of "many media outlets have criticised the abel prize because of the lack of diversity"
Maybe find a mathematician talking in a Wikipedia:Reliable sources talking about how it's not good with less diversity.
Overall just look at a criticism paragraph in any other article, and format it like that. Your section had all your own opinion that this is bad. If you have reliable sources saying that the lack of diversity is bad, other than just Wikipedia, than the article is much more trustworthy, and better as a result. Now this is all being said in the assumption that you can find sources stating this. If you can't, the info is not suited for inclusion in the article. Sea Cow (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I just give up. You make it sound like I'm expressing a fringe opinion and that I should find a professional opinion to back this up ("maybe find a mathematician talking in a reliable source"). I don't know how to express this, but I find that insulting. I've been a professional mathematician for 25 years. I've served on executive committees of math departments for half of that time. I've served on review committees for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and half a dozen other organizations with budgets of many billion dollars a year for even more than half of that time. I've won math prizes myself. I consider myself well connected to the mathematical community, and I talk to a lot of my colleagues who are also professional mathematician. I think I *am* a reliable source, and I have a professional opinion. You say that I started with an idea and then did some research to confirm it, but that's not true: I'm simply expressing the majority opinion of professional mathematicians. What my own opinion on the matter is is not even relevant. I believe that what I wrote is about as controversial as if I had told you that "For integrating cell matrices in the finite element method, it is sufficient to use a Gauss quadrature formula with the same degree as the element itself." I'm just relaying a widely known fact, not an opinion.
I'm not going to futher this discussion until you read WP:OR, as it's non-productive until you read one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read and appreciate the policy, both its existence and why it's there. I think I just don't understand what specifically you want me to provide a reference for. My take is that everything I said in that addition falls in the category of "Paris is the capital of France", for which the policy states that the statement "needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited."
To be specific, let me take apart the sentences I had in [5]:
"Similar to Nobel Prizes, recipients of the Abel Prize tend to poorly reflect the geographic, ethnic, and gender diversity of the world." -- There is a long table above the paragraph I added that shows pictures and affiliations of the recipients. They really are not very diverse: 24 out of 25 are male, and at least 22 are quite clearly white. We all know that this is not true for the population of the world.
"For example, in its first twenty years, only one woman has received the prize, and all recipients have worked in the United States, Western Europe or Hungary, or Israel." -- The same applies: The table lists affiliations, and the gender is easy to infer.
"Likewise, nearly all recipients worked in various fields of pure mathematics, ..." -- The table provides the 'citation' that for every recipient lists the area they work in, and nearly all of these are in pure mathematics. I linked to the pure mathematics article, which touches on many of the referenced areas of specialization.
"...whereas that is only true for maybe half of all professional mathematics." -- This falls in the category of "most mountain goats are white"; it's a statement everyone who, like me, lives in Colorado knows to be true because they will have seen these animals many times. Likewise, every working mathematician will know that only about half of all professional mathematicians are in pure mathematics.
So the question I continue to have is this: For which of these four parts would you like to see a reference to a trustworthy source? And if so, why is this necessary given that all four claims are of the "Paris is the capital of France" category to my understanding? Bangerth (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The overall section name is called "criticism", instead of taking specific instances of criticism, you took your own. Is it really that hard to find a RS criticizing this obvious major issue? Sea Cow (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you deleted about −4,330 bytes of information off the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo_High_School wiki page. You wrote that the information deleted was unsourced, but large amounts (about 50% of the edit) had citations (specifically a section about awards for the Robotics program). Is there something wrong or is this a mistake? I am also working to gather the citations for the other information you removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeveloperBlue (talk • contribs) 05:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sea Cow, this is Will Thomas, novelist. I want to keep my edits as made yesterday. My wife and I created this Wikipedia page and I want her mentioned, as she has been since we first made this page. Someone incorrectly added to my bio that I co-wrote her books, which I did not. I merely wanted to add her newest book. I would appreciate it if you would not edit my page without my knowledge. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Writers (talk • contribs) 12:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop reverting things as unsourced. I think before I said to stop reverting things as unsourced that could in fact be easily sourced, but this makes me think you just need to stop doing it at all. (As I explain in my edit summary there, MOS:LEDECITE.) Looking at your recent edits, this can be verified just by clicking through to Parsloes Manor. That kind of situation, where the reference is in a linked article, is the exact kind of gray area with sourcing that underlies why we don't categorically revert unsourced edits. This, while a bad edit for other reasons, is implicitly sourced to the books themselves. This removes a bunch of other work that IP had done, and the unsourced material is partially sourced—to the scholars in question, just not to the specific works. Another example of a situation where it's better to let someone come along and complete the citations than to revert. This (a manual removal as unsourced) is also implicitly cited to the work being discussed. This doesn't need a citation per WP:LISTVERIFY: It is self-evident that UAB Hospital is a medical center. This is something the article already claims. UHF (film) makes the same claim, implicitly sourced to the film itself.
You're also making lots of valid reverts as unsourced, especially to BLPs, but this is an unacceptably high false-positive rate. Removing something as unsourced is, in all but the most egregious cases and in BLPs, a content decision. And I strongly get the impression that you do not understand the content policies and guidelines surrounding reliable sources. You and I have gone back and forth on this before, and asking you to moderate your use of rollbacks unsourced seems to have not worked, so I don't know what other direction to take this:
This is disruptive editing. You are actively making content worse across a large number of articles. Please stop rolling back edits as unsourced, except to BLPs.
Almost all of your valid non-BLP rollbacks as unsourced could just as well be rollbacks under other rationales anyways (vandalism, original research), or could be undone purely on content-quality grounds. Your removal of unsourced content manually has a much lower error rate (although still nonzero), so it seems the issue is Huggle. Huggle is a rollbacker-only tool, so if this continues, I have no other option than to go to ANI and ask for your rollback right to be removed.
On 3 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lucy Westlake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lucy Westlake summited the highest peak of each of the 48 contiguous U.S. states by age 12? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lucy Westlake. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lucy Westlake), 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.
Less then neutral respones to Christianity in Pakistan Wikipedia
Hello,
I am new to the writing of wikipedia articles. I got a message that my post wasn't neutral. I found an old article from 1997 when the attack happened as my source. I do appreciate the response, but there is nothing on wikipedia about this incident, and the people who suffered and lost everything in the attack. I would love add more about the village of shanti nagar and its rich history. The current Shanti Nagar Wikipedia page is incorrect, and I plan to find the sources to update the error with the corrections as well. If it can be better explained why my edit wasn't neutral, and what I need to do to make my edit acceptable, that would help me understand as a newbie. I have below what I attempted to add to the Christianity in Pakistan article
The Shanti Nagar, Khanewal Incident of 1997
On February 5th 1997, accusations were made of a Qur'an found torn apart in a mosque, just miles from Shantinagar; a predominantly Christian village. It was said that written on some of the pages were the names of Christians. Reports indicated that some Muslim religious leaders encouraged people to punish the Christians in the nearby village of Shantinager. On February 6th, a mob of 15,000-20,000 Muslims attacked Shantinager while 300 to 400 policemen stood by doing nothing to stop the violence. 800 Christian homes and 2,000 Bibles were set on fire along with schools, shops and 5 nearby villages. Witnesses reported that the Christians were beaten for not reciting the Islamic creed. The District Administrator requested the army to intervene, but was misled by the local police who told them that the smoke coming from the village was just burning tires. The Army eventually was able to go into Shantinager, turning in some of the attackers to be arrested. The people of Shantinager were left without food or shelter for two days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgulzar (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit for a litany of reasons. #1, it was not in MOS standards, and there were numerous issues throughout like incorrect placing of sources and links. For instance, you cited Wikipedia in source 62, which is not considered a reliable source, but you also incorrectly linked to the "Shantinagar" article by adding a external link when the article is inside Wikipedia. You also put a reference and a external link in the header which is also not up to snuff. Finally, the largest issue that I saw with your edit was your summary: "I am adding an incident that occurred in Pakistan that my family experience back in 1997." This is a clear case of you having a Wikipedia:Systemic bias, if your family experienced such a horrific event, this probably has effected you deeply, and I have no hope of you remainig WP:Neutral. Such a sensitive event should not be written by you, do due facts possibly being miswritten. Sea Cow (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recent "vandalism" accusation.
--2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)What was your point with the following because a quick review would show, as was the decision of the administrator, the accusation resulted from some confusion because I may on occasion record something that i had never intended but that many times in such quick succession. Sounds like there may have a quick knee action involved. I hope the comment that I have a vague recollection concerning a racial rant was not thought the basis of this editing work. I hope this type of action is something that is not to be expected often. It clogs the WP system and cannot develop an appreciation for WP.[reply]
Jumping to an accusation of "vandalism" does not appear very cooperative, especially toward someone that uses an IP. A misspelling issue should seem simple enough to go slowly with potentially negative results. This is not an attack and this is not a "pick a fight" just that if I am an IP WP participant I expect from those with far greater participation in and understanding of WP to have greater judgment and opportunity to offer counsel. There are only so many reasons why a perceived misspelling should be corrected and I believe as the administrator implied the action instigated was not supported by what was submitted. Nothing personal but was something somehow to jump from the written page that was not there?2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to say the same thing. Thank you for your speedy reverts on articles like Tom Cotton. This is one persistent vandal and he just moves from one biography to another. We rely on editors like yourself to keep that garbage out. Thank you! LizRead!Talk!04:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the contribution to the Minstrel Boy entry: while dry historians may not find thematic interactions between this folk tune, Mozart, and Bizet, it is a useful and interesting topic for musicologists. While the entry was not definitive in terms of which piece may have been derived from the other, the undeniable similarity of the initial melodic line and the chor progressions are constructive and informative from a musicological viewpoint. Additional materials showing the parallel melodic lines and chord progressions could make this entry even more informative, but would not be critical. Maestro d'Musique (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback is only meant to be used for obvious vandalism, and I do not see how it was appropriate to use rollback in this situation. --Ferien (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edit that said "see the wiki page" was the reason why I reverted. This is literal talking in the article. As well as completely screwing up that portion article in terms of MOS and weird formatting. That's why I reverted it. Sea Cow (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure you give an explanation either in the edit summary or on the talk page in future, particularly with newer editors like Maestro d'Musique. It is relatively obvious that the change was made in good faith (saying "see the wiki page" is not vandalism, let alone obvious vandalism), so rollback was not appropriate, please be more careful in future. --Ferien (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually look at the result of the edit, it wasn't just the "see the wiki page" issue. He put his own text inside a link, of which that was also improperly formatted. He did a direct link to wiki, instead of just throwing in the actual title. He then created a inreadable sentence by saying "Article see the wiki page." So yes, it wasn't vandalism in the normal sense, but it was a combination of just about 5 different issues creating a rather large hodge-podge of formatting and MOS issues. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First edit reversion reason: Unsourced, as well as being placed above templates and not being with the rest of the lead. Also, it's not exactly a descriptive sentence, and it seems like you start it in the middle of a sentence. It barely makes sense. Throwing in random sentences isn't how you make a article.
Second: Essentially all the issues above, except with a source.
Hey Sea Cow! Hope you’re doing well. I’m kind of new to Wikipedia and don’t know how to reference an article. Can you please help me with this? Tentemp (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've noticed that you've been uploading many great photos including aerial shots of downtown Naperville, IL. I was wondering if you are also able to upload shots of downtown areas of places like Lisle or Plainfield, because there aren't any good photos of them on Commons. If you can that would be fantastic. Best, ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk18:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've incorrectly rejected my update to baue miles page. The reference i added links directly to his youtube published by him, I even added the exact time of the quote. 79.69.129.227 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to let you know that soon it will be possible to automatically display nearby articles in a map on Commons and other Wikimedia projects using Kartographer. This feature is one of the improvements to Kartographer the Technical Wishes Team from Wikimedia Germany has been working on. Each Kartographer generated map in full-screen mode is now given a new “Show nearby articles” button at the bottom. It can be used to show and hide up to 50 geographically close articles.
The deployment of this feature is planned for 12 October on a first group of wikis. After the first feedback phase, more wikis will follow. Read more on our project page. Your feedback and comments to our open questions on this feature are very much appreciated on this discussion page. Thank you! -- Timur Vorkul (WMDE)15:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid needless butchery of the kind that you did at the article Newmarket High School. Not having a source is no excuse for that behaviour. A few keystrokes would have led you quickly to the source (I Googled "Newmarket High School history" and up it came). You also made complete nonsense of the history section of the article (what does it mean when it begins with "In the same year..."?). I have now inserted a crude reference, which you may repair. It comes straight from the school board that runs NHS. We endeavour to expand knowledge here at Wikipedia, not shrink it. Thank you. Kelisi (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you also mindlessly deleted an historical image of the school (which I have reinstated). Be a bit more careful with your editing, please. Kelisi (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]
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.
Thanks for uploading File:Ospreypackslog.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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.
Hello! This is User:Luiysia (IRL name is Kelly). My main interests are fashion, music, literature, and history. I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing and I found that there has been very little activity from the Chicago Wikipedia user group since 2020.
I'd like to host a casual meetup in Chicago to celebrate Wikidata Day on Saturday, October 26.
Proposed location is Engine Coffee in the Wicker Park/West Town area, at 11AM.
Hello! This is User:Luiysia again. At the last meetup, people expressed interest in having a Wikipedia meetup bi-monthly (that is, every other month). So, here's our December meetup!
The meetup will start at The Bourgeois Pig, in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, at 11 AM.
_auf_einer_Kartographer_Karte_II.jpg)
