User talk:Gazamp/Archive 3

I have a wonderful idea...

What about a list of countries ranked on armies as a percentage of their population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawroot (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Dmitri Mendeleev

Portal:Dmitri Mendeleev, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dmitri Mendeleev and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Dmitri Mendeleev during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Tashkent

Portal:Tashkent, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tashkent and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Tashkent during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Walmart

Portal:Walmart, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Walmart and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Walmart during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Meszzy² (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Gardens

Portal:Gardens, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gardens and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Gardens during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Zanzibar

Portal:Zanzibar, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Zanzibar and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Zanzibar during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Panasonic

Portal:Panasonic, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Panasonic and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Panasonic during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Alfred Nobel

Portal:Alfred Nobel, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alfred Nobel and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Alfred Nobel during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Men

Portal:Men, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Men and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Men during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Yangtze

Portal:Yangtze, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Yangtze and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Yangtze during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Wonder Woman

Portal:Wonder Woman, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wonder Woman and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Wonder Woman during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Those 36 portals

Hi Gazamp

I just wanted to thank for your very thoughtful response[1] to WP:Miscellany for deletion/36 more navbox-based portals.

It's very rare to see an editor step back from their work creating a page and assess it against broader principles ... but your comment there was one of the best examples I have ever seen of that. Thank you for setting such a high standard. I will try to emulate it, but fear I have some way to go.

In the meantime, I have implemented your WP:G7 request for all except Portal:Money. Good luck with your plans to develop that one.

I note your comment that you plan to rebuild some or all of the others. So I thought I'd offer a few unsolicited thoughts on that.

A you may be aware, the consensus on which topics are suitable for portals is currently unclear. As you rightly acknowledged, the tide has clearly turned strongly against portals which just replicate a navbox. However, recent MFDs have addressed a lot of other issues, esp in relation to the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

I have my own preference to move towards many fewer portals. Ideally I'd like to see between 30 and 100 portals, because viewing figures for narrower topics are so abysmally low and because so may old-style portals are poorly maintained or just left broken and abandoned. In a different world, with vastly more portal maintainers, maybe I might take a different view, but the picture I see now is of a lot of cobwebs on crumbling edifices.

This doesn't surprise me. Wikipedia pages are so heavily interlinked that even a modestly well-written head article on a topic is of itself a portal. This isn't like the mid-1990s web, when web pages were mostly plain text with a few links at the top and the bottom; rich interlinking is now the norm, and portals are redundant.

As web analysts such as Jakob Nielsen noted as early as 1998, good search killed navigation, because users found it much easier to search than to navigate a website's menu structures. That's why search suddenly became de rigeur on web sites, and why the major web portals such as Yahoo fell off a cliff. So it seems to me that readers simply don't need portals any more; they are like road atlases in the era of satnav. I reckon that ultimately a few broad concept portals like the 8 linked on the top right of the front page is as much as readers actually need, and even those would be better done as text menus.

I don't claim that's a consensus view. There are plenty of editors who passionately disagree with my view. Consensus is not clear, and we need a broad RFC to set new guidelines.

But in the meantime, the recent (i.e. March onwards) WP:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates show a fairly steady opposition to portals for individual people, small cities, sub-divisions even of large cities, single companies, single universities, and several other classes of topic.

These debates have also drawn me and other editors to look closely at the viewing figures for portals, and most of them are shockingly low. See e.g. the data at:

• WP:Miscellany for deletion/Some two-navbox automated portals
• English counties, in a draft I am doodling and may or may not proceed with some day.

So I suggest that before you spend time and energy hand-building new portals, you spend some time looking at those debates, and see what you make both of the arguments and of the data, and consider which way you reckon the wind is blowing.

If you reach a v difft view to me, then of course that's fine, and "eff of BHG" is a perfectly legit answer to unsolicited advice.

Anyway, thanks again.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Firstly, thank you very much for your kind words - it's been kinda hard to see the venom with which some users have torn down mine and others portals but I totally agree that now, after the boom and bust of the Portals project, we should focus on a tight-knit, well-built core of portals.

Before I started editing Wikipedia, I had never used a portal and probably would never have needed to but I found them so helpful in my early days here for navigating between articles, files and categories. The automated script made it stupidly easy to just create portals but it was something I could do (to help, I thought!). Most of the portals were absolute rubbish, but every now and then there was a gem (Portal:Banks is my personal favourite). Some survived and some didn't (Portal:Gardens could have been so good...) but now I figure I'll just focus on a select few - most likely Banks, Money, Tashkent and Acipenseriformes. I'm probably going to go on an erratic Wiki-break for exam season and hope the portal debacle has quieted down by the end.

Anyway, thanks again for the message - if there's ever anything I can help with just tell me.

Best wishes, Gazamp (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Bacenor moved to draftspace

This article, Bacenor, created on 10 October 2018, does not have enough content, sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more content and citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved this article to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the title) where you can incubate the draft article with minimal disruption. When you feel this draft 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. JoeHebda (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Dublin

Portal:Dublin, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dublin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Dublin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Michael Faraday

Portal:Michael Faraday, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Michael Faraday and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Michael Faraday during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Stonehenge

Portal:Stonehenge, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Stonehenge and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Stonehenge during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

2 more portals

Hey GA, question about Portal:Banks and Portal:Demography: do you make the same improvement/maintenance commitment for those to as you did for Portal:Money? Let me know, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: I do for Portal:Banks but I know very little about demographics so I would be hard pressed to improve that portal much if at all. Being nosy, could I ask why you are interested? Gazamp (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I am going to take them both to Miscellany for deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Shall we G7 Demography now? I can't imagine there is great need or want for it so it would be slated at MfD anyway... Best wishes, Gazamp (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you could, that would be great. I changed my mind on Portal:Banks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Well delete Portal:Demographics per G7 then. I'm glad about Portal:Banks too. Thanks very much for contacting me about it before going straight to MfD. Gazamp (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I need you to edit the portal and put {{Db-g7}} onto the page. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Many thanks Gazamp (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019

Back to the drawing board

Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

• Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
• The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
• They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

• Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
• The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
• Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.

Curation

A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.

Traffic

An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Some potential future directions of development

Quantum portals?

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated components

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' on

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue...    — The Transhumanist   00:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Outline of Cornwall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Democrats (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 02:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liu Xiaoming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Dancing Chancellor

Hello Gazamp,

I noticed that you created multiple "Dancing Chancellor" redirects. After doing research, I noticed that it does have something to do with the subject. Is it possible for you to add a bit in the Hatton article so the redirect makes sense?

As of right now, the redirect seems useless as a result of "Dancing chancellor" being nowhere in the article. I know it is good faith, but if the Hatton article continues to have no mention, your redirect risks deletion.

Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Thanks for telling me, I'll start to patch it in now. Gazamp (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Woohoo

Hey, Gazamp. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Private Members' Bills in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Foster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Commonwealth Youth Games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of The St George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2014 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The St George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2014 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/The St George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust (Transfer of Trust Property) Order 2014 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. Fram (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Salary of Sir J. Lawrence Act 1864

The article Salary of Sir J. Lawrence Act 1864 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Salary of Sir J. Lawrence Act 1864 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines.

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. Abductive (reasoning) 04:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bacenor (September 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Andrew Base were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bacenor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bacenor, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Andrew Base (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Gazamp! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Andrew Base (talk) 12:44, 28 September 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A40 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

                                                 

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Gazamp,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mockbul Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Campbell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Pack (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mark Pack and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mark Pack, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep it up!

I just saw this... I'm glad to see you still around, keep up the good work, we need more good articles... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adolphus79: Thank you! Gazamp (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Bacenor concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bacenor, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevada State Senate

Hey Gazamp,

Thanks for your help with the Nevada senate districts! I've been kinda on a roll with them and would appreciate you letting me do the rest (I made the maps, etc.). There are loads of other state legislatures I haven't gotten to yet that could use some help!

Blizzardwind (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Blizzardwind: No worries - Sorry for interrupting your roll! I think I'm going to stick to governor's elections anyhow. Thank you for your work on the topic though! Gazamp (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bacenor

Hello, Gazamp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bacenor".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! TheImaCow (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bacenor

Hello, Gazamp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bacenor".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Atlantic Computers has been accepted

Atlantic Computers, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Banking

Hi Gazamp: I updated the focus of Portal:Banks to to include Banks and Banking. Some of the articles in the portal were already about banking in general, rather than separate individual banks, so I didn't view this as a controversial or major change. The Banking article redirects to the Bank article, and topical information about banking is in the bank article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Look great! Well done and thank you... Gazamp (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Well thank you too. I also added a couple of GA-class articles in the process. The portal is ripe to receive updates from time-to-time, imo. Have a good one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Copying between articles at Wikipedia

Gazamp, thanks for your contributions to Gender star. In this major addition you changed it from a redirect to a 5kb stub. It appears that you copied some or all of the content from the Binnen-I, revision 945802269, or translated from Gendersternchen, and adapted it. That's fine, but WP:Copying within Wikipedia has certain obligations due to Wikipedia's licensing requirements, in particular, placing some boilerplate text in the edit summary spelling out the details of what was copied. Unlike Wikipedia policies and guidelines which are anywhere from recommended, to advisable, to very strongly advisable, licensing requirements are obligatory due to copyright law, so this step must be followed. When you inadvertently forget to provide proper attribution, you can add it after the fact: see Repairing insufficient attribution for how to do this. If you don't understand or need help, feel free to ping me here or at my Talk page. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: - I think I've rectified it, but please tell me if I need to do anything else. Thanks for notifying me. Gazamp (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what needed to be done. Nice, but not required, is to add some wikilinks to show why you're doing it, and help point the way to relevant policy: '''[[WP:RIA|Note:]]''' Content in the edit ([[Special:Diff/949301209|949301209]]) of 18:12‎, 5 April 2020 was [[WP:TFOLWP|translated]] and adapted from the German Wikipedia page at [[:de:Gendersternchen]]; see its history for attribution. But that's just a nice-to-have, and your version fully satisfied the licensing requirement, and needs no amendment. (When it's copied and not translated, then: ...was [[WP:CWW|copied]] from.)

A recommended, but not required feature, is to add a {{translated page}} template to the Talk page, which I see you've already done, so good job. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make sure I add the extra links next time I do anything like it. Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)