Hello, SharkxFanSJ! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New to this stuff. I took onboard the advice, researched and added as much context as I could find and replied in the 24hr window. What happens now? Is it okay? 123.243.186.46 (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in another one you wrote <ref name=population></ref> in stead of <ref name=population/>. And in another one you forgot |title=
OK, bottom line is that the titles were there, I just messed up the tags. Thanks for fixing them. I just was a little confused at first because you said "you must provide a title."--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake for choosing the wrong formulation (which I use a lot when working on this kind of errors on a daily basis). Good luck, Debresser (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vacaville edits
Nice job on providing refs for the Notables list on Vacaville, CA. I actually read one of the refs about a football player and learned he's a tuba player! Anyways, it was nice to see someone helping out there. Just wanted to drop a line, let you know you can ask me if you have any questions or anything on Wikipedia (since you seem relatively new) :-) Killiondude (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Thanks for the kind words. I am only moderately familiar with the topic, and I really only cleaned up the text that was already there. I agree that inline citations are needed. I haven't plowed through the listed sources, but from the tone of the original article, I'd be willing to bet that it was originally a cut/paste from a government hearing report, or the like. The page is on my watchlist, so if nobody takes an interest in improving it, I'll make some additional improvements, including some citations. Take care.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfC
Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for helping out at AfC. We can always use some more reviewers. I just have one request though: when you decline a submission, please leave the parameters (ts, u, etc.) in the template, as these are used to properly categorise the submission. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see "As a courtesy, please do not edit this request while this message is displayed."? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was just getting ready to leave you a message to apologize. When I was looking at the page, it was in still "submitted" status. When I hit edit, I cleared the "R" tag without thinking about it. I didn't realize it until after I hit save. Very sorry about that. Hope I didn't mess you up.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, we were just editconflicting with each other. That submission hardly touched the ground :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that the article on Adam Bold you reviewed is on hold as you are looking for secondary sources. This is the first article I have submitted to Wikipedia, so I may need some further clarification on what you are looking for. I cited Ernst & Young to reference his nominations and subsequent Entrepreneur Award. I also cited Random House to reference his book that was just published this year and I linked to The Mutual Fund Media Center where his interviews with networks like FoxBusiness and CNBC are posted. Can you tell me what other secondary sources you may be looking for as I thought these were all secondary sources and I looked at other postings on Wikipedia and found my sources to be quite similar to those of other postings? Thanks so much for your help.Sunshine1021 (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added another source from the Kansas City Business Journal, which I believe is a secondary source. This article discussed Bold as the founder of The Mutual Fund Store and the host of The Mutual Fund Show. Once this article is posted, I can link various radio stations that have articles already on Wikipedia and include Adam Bold as a syndicated host in their radio programming. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. I will check this page for your response. Thanks!Sunshine1021 (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BS for you
The Articles for Creation Barnstar
I've seen quite a few of your AfC edits as I've been patrolling recent changes in the past few days, and wanted to say thank you, keep up the good work. Every AfC article you give a good start to is potentially one less speedy delete, and one less disgruntled new user. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for accepting my AFC and your further comment[1] about double disambiguation. I have a concern, though: this creates a complete duplication of information between the album list at Devotion and the one at Devotion (album), something that should be avoided too — people will update or refine only one or the other of these lists, and up-to-date information will be lost for some readers.
P.S. Good news, most of the 100+ links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Union (album) seem to be only an artifact from the inclusion of Template:Yesband on them. I have disambiguated the genuine links on the main pages (band, discography, prev/next albums) plus the Yes template, but the Special:WhatLinksHere/Union (album) isn't refreshed in real time (and the &action=purge trick doesn't seem to work there), so I'll have to wait later today or tomorrow for all these fake links to evaporate, hopefully leaving only a few dozens of real links to fix. 62.147.37.184 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just one small last thing: the Anchor template will work better on the line above the target rather than next to it, as I changed it here[2], or the browser will scroll too low and the "Music album" header will not be visible. But now all is accomplished, thanks for your extra help above AFC duty. 62.147.37.184 (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ThankSpam
My RfA
Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Murat Saygıner. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murat Saygıner. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? And not at all respectful of the fact that you've made enough edits to warrant a personalized comment? I'm sure Viriditas feels the same way. This is meant in good humor, but hopefully offers some insight. Best wishes. - Arcayne(cast a spell)19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if you act like a newb, you should expect to be treated like a newb. Reverting the same section title 3 different times when there's clear consensus (nearly unianimous consensus) to the contrary is just bad. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, man. Sure, consensus can change, but without it there is no collaboration. Someone who continually edits an article in direct contradiction of the clearly stated consensus is nothing short of a vandal. Of course, here on WP we never call a spade a spade without getting a little love note on our own talk page. But some people seem to have no idea what a collaborative effort is. Maybe they should find another hobby to occupy their time. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring report
Thank you for reporting Veriditas' edit warring. Just a suggestion to let a few others of the affected parties know when you do, so we can support you. I think the admin thought that you were just one person in the mix, and we could have offered support. Just link us to the report on our talk pages. I have no fear that Veriditas' edit warring will come up again since he has been blocked before and is a repeat offender. Manyanswer (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manyanswer, thanks for your support and suggestion. By the time I got the report put together with all the different links/diffs, the page had been protected. At the time, I figured that the response would be "problem resolved." In hindsight, I probably should have pursued it a little more. At least the diffs are available to point to if/when he does this again.
William, I attempted to contact Viridat on his talk page when I first noticed his edit warring. He deleted my message with a flippant comment and did not respond. He continued to revert stuff, so I made the report.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but (for future reference) when you make an AN3 report it is general good manners to inform the reportee (unless there is some good reason not to). It is often not done though William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you need to inform the reportee. In a case like this one he probably would have showed up an incriminated himself. I know that it is troublesome to deal with someone who ignored repeated warnings (deleting them with "false" in his edit comment, and in a couple of cases retaliating with baseless accusations) from about four or five editors. Thank you for your effort. Manyanswer (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming to the feeling that perhaps we should no longer take Viriditas seriously, as every response will cause him to fire back with an essay (exact description of Wikipedia:FILIBUSTERS). Obviously, the worse thing to an editor is if no one will listen to him, and he will soon realize that getting heard is important to getting things done in Wikipedia. GoldDragon (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've created some lessons learned regarding edit war issues to keep myself sane. Take a look and feel free to comment. Note that I kept it universal - not regarding any specific users. I think that helps. I put everything on my talk pageManyanswer (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Peer Review and Assistance
We worked together once on the Henry Louis Gates arrest article, and I wanted to ask for your assistance with something.
As a part of my work on improving and wikifying community college articles, I am working on Rock Valley College. As can be viewed by the history, I have made several changes to the article by adding appropriate references and and NPOV content. However, there is a section called Rock_Valley_College#Controversy that was put together by an editor that only edits this one page. I have entered into a discussion with the talk page and the room agrees the section should be removed or rewritten. I have not edited it yet but made a suggestion for the section at on the talk page atTalk:Rock_Valley_College#A_review_of_citations_and_suggested_text_for_controversy. However, the user,Weezer4718 (talk • contribs
has begun to get personal. I have pointed him in the direction of the appropriate policies, but the editor seems to have an ax to grind, and I wish to avoid any edit war before it begins. I would appreciate any thoughts any one has on how to improve the suggestion, and the section mentioned, and if you do or do not agree the section violates WP:NPOV, WP:POV, WP:BLP, orWP:Universities standards. Also, feel free to tell me if I am in the wrong as well. All comments appreciated. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 John F. Kennedy Airport runway incursion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ...William01:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Male until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sam Walton (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Danburry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – FayenaticLondon06:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
