User talk:Citing/Archive 2

< Archive 1

Archive 2

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  ... (up to 100)

Congrats!

Congratulations on extended confirmed status!

--MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Super-chicken model

There is a template that an AfD nominator typically places on the talk page of the article creator. I did not see one on talk page of the creator of this article. So I placed a notice there. It is not required, but it is suggested as a best practice and good faith. Lightburst (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I got a bit confused by the deleted revisions in the article history.Citing (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Problems with DYK for Barbara H. Bowman

Hello! Your submission of Barbara H. Bowman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Espresso Addict (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Citing -- it looks like this might be your first DYK? Thanks for starting the article on this interesting female scientist. What's most important for DYK is to explain exactly where the information you've recorded comes from, by using inline citations at the end of every sentence and every fact in the lead & infobox that isn't covered in the text. Also, you can't use Bowman's papers as a source for anything (other than that she published in that subject). You also need to rewrite the material using your own words. Hope this helps to clarify, feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Citing, there has been a new review of the nomination. Please stop by to check; there have been some new issues raised, but nothing that you shouldn't be able to handle. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up: we need to hear from you on the nomination page as to what you've done to address the issues, and what's still left to do. It's been eleven days. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Barbara H. Bowman

On 19 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barbara H. Bowman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Barbara H. Bowman was one of the scientists who discovered the genetic difference responsible for variations in haptoglobin, a human blood protein? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara H. Bowman. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Barbara H. Bowman), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

(edit conflict)Citing, please note that your restoration here [[1]] is a violation of 1RR. The material you added to the lead was already added and removed several times. That means your add was a reversion of an earlier removal [[2]]. With the restoration of your earlier edit and with the notification above you have violated 1RR. I have no intention of reporting this but you should be aware of it. Springee (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

DS Violation

This edit is a violation of the sanctions in force at the Bannon article, namely "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." You need to self-revert that or you may be sanctioned. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Come on now, I have two editors edit-conflicting to tell me I may be blocked for one revert that now counts as two? The various discussions wanted an uninvolved experienced editor to make a rational editorial decision, which I guess I ended up doing. I acted in good faith within the spirit of the rules and in an effort to build a better encyclopedia. I'm not touching the article further.Citing (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are very different versions. I don't think AE would consider the first edit to be a reversion under the 1RR page editing restriction. - MrX 🖋 18:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an AE admin but re-inserting disputed material (not the exact wording that was removed but certainly the content) that goes against whole point of the ONUS thread at AN we had a few days ago, and then reverting to keep it in would be sanctionable. Citing - are you going to self-revert until someone closes the discussions? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I've only made one revert, have justified my edit on the article talk page, and I'm done with the article at this point. I also don't think it's productive or friendly for users to race for to my talk page to throw a bunch of jargon about sanctions at me with demands to self-revert for what should be a straightforward addition.Citing (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, it seems like your energies could be put to much better use if you helped edit the encyclopedia in the spirit of collaboration. As far as I can tell, your article edits over the past five weeks have consisted entirely of reverting other editor's contributions[3] and your talk page contributions have been pretty officious lately. I know I need to remind myself from time to time that this is not a battleground. - MrX 🖋 00:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Imputation (statistics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dummy variable. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaydar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Facial recognition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your unhelpful revision. I think if you put yourself in the position of someone from somewhere else in the world, probably the most important thing to know about the city is where it is situated relative to the largest city in that region of the country. Please try to be constructive in editing articles ratther than destructive. That's what improves Wikipedia.Tetsuo (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tetsuo: No need to be rude, I'm just following the manual of style and helping out, same as you. Also, isn't Charlotte the nearest major city?Citing (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Citing: Sorry you took that as rude. It was intended to be sarcastic/ironic. I don't know about the manual of style, but I took a look at a few articles about smallish places, and they all included, in the introductory paragraphs, some geographical reference to a larger place: Huntsville, TX to Houston and Dallas; Schenectady, NY to Albany, "which is about 15 miles (24 km) southeast"; and Saint-Jérôme, Quebec, "located about 45 kilometres (28 mi) northwest of Montreal." I know the manual of style says that facts in the intro should be drawn from the rest of the article, but that is almost never the case in relative distances provided in the intros of geographical place articles. I did consider making the relative geographic reference for Morganton, NC, to other cities in North Carolina, but figured it would be most helpful to a person from California, Europe or Japan to provide a reference to Atlanta, which is in a "top 10" metropolitan statistical area in the USA. I perhaps should have just said that it was 4 hours by car and not mentioned Google Maps. The distance is a bit shorter as the crow flies, so I thought it would be best to specify that the distance was a road distance. I would respectfully suggest that in your future editing activities, you not be so quick to revert edits unless they are clearly wrong or violate copyright. It is almost always better to be constructive. If you don't like the style, feel free to improve it.Tetsuo (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tetsuo: I felt the information was arbitrary and oddly worded so I thought I was being constructive and improving it, though clearly we disagree. You can re-add or re-word what I've removed, it's not that serious.Citing (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

How about this?Citing (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Akbar Khurasani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Citing. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for African Society of Human Genetics

On 9 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article African Society of Human Genetics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the African Society of Human Genetics was established so that more human genetics and genomics research could be done by African scientists in Africa? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/African Society of Human Genetics. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, African Society of Human Genetics), 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maxime Bernier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supply management.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)