Rep07
 | You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS |
Hello Rep07,
I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.
If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! This was for Pran Cola. Thanks again for your positive contributions! Avicennasis @ 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
copy vio edit
please give me a few hours to re-write the offending sections, thank you. riffic (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 19 edit
Hi. When you recently edited Gold nugget, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Placer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 04:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Much-needed edits: "fascinating" edit
Please stop your bizarre campaign to remove the word "fascinating" from Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with it, particularly if it is supported by a source. You have completely misunderstood WP:NPOV. Furthermore, this appears to be your only contribution to wikipedia for months. This disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Re my "fascinating" patrol: please see WP:PEACOCK, which lists several other examples of inappropriate personal-opinion adjectives that violate NPOV policy. "Extraordinary", "brilliant", etc. all equally unacceptable unless they are in an explicit quotation from a reliable published source. Note that in my editing I always check for that situation on each and every edit--OK if it's inside a quote. Again, editors are not allowed to convey our own personal "fascination" with anything here, in any form, any more than we would be entitled to qualify with "wearisome" or "uninspired" or "utterly boring". When I'm done with "fascinating" I'll be going after "strikingly beautiful", "magnificent", and other puffery. :) Rep07 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- 1. WP:PEACOCK is a guideline not a policy. 2. Even that begins with "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia" 3.If supported by sources, there is nothing wrong with it 4.Spending weeks on doing nothing but that is not of use to Wikipedia, and just irritates others. DeCausa (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Rep07,
OK, I do get trying to make this a more objective set of references and entries but when editing something like "City of Glass" please try to look up what is the actual CD or material out there. City of Glass (Stan Kenton/Bob Graetinger) is one of the turning points in American progressive music after WWII (Third Stream jazz). This is well known, I would not have been able to spend so much time on this article otherwise. No, there is NO 'puffery', the playing of this music is brilliant in many ways. I try to contribute and am a known critic for prominent articles and reference books in music and specfically jazz. The reference I made to the woodwind playing (and I emphsize REFERENCE, not in the text) does ring true. I will not go any further but it would be nice to be consulted on certain aspects of what is edited at times. Jcooper1 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Reply Jcooper: While I do agree that this is unnecessary, having entire paragraphs without citations that praise the music directly and make unbacked assertions violates NPOV policy. -Ehburrus (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes it's a common thing on WP for very dedicated editors who have a lot of specialized knowledge, to become entitled and to feel "ownership" of the material and the article, and some of them cross the line to where they feel an unspoken "special exemption" surely allows them (as major contributors and experts in the subject) to express their personal admiration/awe etc. with... gushy unreferenced personal POV. And their peevish indignation flares when some other editor DARES to tone down their elegy. And yes, it IS necessary for "counter-POV" editors to patrol the WP, just as antibodies patrol our bloodstreams. If they want to put praise in the article, all they have to do is add a footnote.Rep07 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- When antibodies proliferate and begin to damage their host, the result is autoimmune disease, which is a pretty good analogy for what you are doing to these articles. Please "cure" it and knock off these edits. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Direct challenge, direct contradiction. We need more antibodies to prevent damage by entitled-POV snobs, and those who like you, quietly feel entitled to sneak POV into articles they edit, need to be blocked and reverted aggressively. Please knock off the personal-POV adjectives--nothing is "breathtaking" or "fascinating" or "magnificent" on Wikipedia just because you say so, and if you disagree, go put your comments on your own personal webpage.Rep07 (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- When antibodies proliferate and begin to damage their host, the result is autoimmune disease, which is a pretty good analogy for what you are doing to these articles. Please "cure" it and knock off these edits. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes it's a common thing on WP for very dedicated editors who have a lot of specialized knowledge, to become entitled and to feel "ownership" of the material and the article, and some of them cross the line to where they feel an unspoken "special exemption" surely allows them (as major contributors and experts in the subject) to express their personal admiration/awe etc. with... gushy unreferenced personal POV. And their peevish indignation flares when some other editor DARES to tone down their elegy. And yes, it IS necessary for "counter-POV" editors to patrol the WP, just as antibodies patrol our bloodstreams. If they want to put praise in the article, all they have to do is add a footnote.Rep07 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Rep07. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The article Loving Hut has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Rep07. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, Rep07. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Loving Hut for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Loving Hut is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loving Hut 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. Normal Op (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)