MarginalCost

Hi, thanks for interest in Earned Income Tax Credit article

Hi Marginal Cost,

Thanks for your interest in Earned Income Tax Credit. And you make a very good point. The RAL section currently does not make a sufficient link between it and EIC. I'm planning to take a good long look at this. And if you get a chance, please take a look at the Cleveland Study on the talk page in the section entitled "Enough people who are eligible for EIC also apply for RALs (Refund Anticipation Loans), that it's probably worth discussing." And in general, I think our EIC article can still use a fair amount of help. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

98.17.84.77

I made an edit to the page "JOJ" that was intended to be factually correct and not a test— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.84.77 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia! JOJ is a disambiguation page that generally exists to point users to existing articles within Wikipedia. Since the meaning you are noting does not have an article associated, and its usage is not a common one, you would need to present a reliable 3rd party source that documents the usage you are claiming. MarginalCost (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi MarginalCost. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

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 troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edit when I was correcting information that was wrong!?!

? Mr.truthspeakr (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr.truthspeakr: You linked the name of a school rector to a pornographic website. This is a violation of the Wikipedia policy on living persons. The edit was clearly made in bad faith. Now if you have a reliable source for a different date for the award in question that you also changed in that same edit, please provide a link and we will happily accept the correction. MarginalCost (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand and I had no Ill intentions and apologise for my comments

. Mr.truthspeakr (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A question about ip 64.134.35.3

Was ip 64.134.35.3 doing something wrong? What if the person was really passionate about comics?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.98.53 (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not claim to make any judgement on anyone's level of fandom, only about the edit itself which was literally just creating a string of typos. Such an edit does not improve the encyclopedia, but anyone is welcome to contribute by adding reliably cited information. MarginalCost (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOS:UNIVERSE listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:MOS:UNIVERSE. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:MOS:UNIVERSE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

i have added more references,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joice_Samuel

i am new to wikipedia. i have made my first article about a music director from my state. Even after adding more citations and reference, still showing it will be deleted. what to do now

@MarginalCost: @Polyamorph: @Cullen328: @Monty845: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu Appukuttan (talk • contribs) 05:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Anu Appukuttan: I appreciate your concern, thanks for reaching out to discuss this more. Polyamorph has gone a little deeper into the sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joice Samuel, but I also want to stress that Wikipedia's policies on articles aren't driven by the number of sources. The bigger question here is whether the article meets the criteria of notability. Wikipedia's criteria for including an article are given at the General Notability Guidelines, and guidelines for musicians specifically can be found here. We use sources to demonstrate that notability, but they have to include significant coverage of the subject - not just quick mentions. It isn't Wikipedia's goal to have an article on every person, even if it can be verified that they really exist; instead we seek to compile knowledge that has been written elsewhere and can be attributed to reliable sources. To keep the article, you would need to show that independent, reliable sources have given significant coverage to the subject. (Even if it is kept, much of the article's unverifiable personal details and external links to blogs, YouTube, Twitter, etc. would probably be removed.) Please don't take the deletion of this article as a personal insult - there are plenty of people who do a lot of good, important work in the world and will never have a Wikipedia article about them, and that's OK.

If you're interested in other ways to contribute to this encyclopedia you can help edit existing articles by finding reliably sourced information and including references as you add it. (You've done a good job with the mechanics of using the citation and reference templates, which can take others a little bit to get the hang of.) If you think you've found a subject that meets the notability guidelines linked above, you can read up on creating a new article at Wikipedia:Your first article, but it's usually best if you don't write about yourself or someone you're closely connected to.

I hope this explains things better. Thanks again for reaching out, and let me know if you have any more questions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Petticoat Revolution

On 18 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Petticoat Revolution, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Petticoat Revolution, Laura Starcher became mayor of Umatilla, Oregon, while keeping her candidacy a secret from her husband—the current mayor—until the afternoon of election day? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Petticoat Revolution. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Petticoat Revolution), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your skills as a photo editor, finding those two images for Valhalla train crash, both of which enhance the article, and putting them on Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

women's basketball

so for you it's better not to have a history section at all? no one's going to write it. the only way for me was to plagiarize it from usab.com. and, by the way, i left a copyright notice, i didn't "blatantly plagiarize it".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tektofd (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tektofd: - I understand your frustration. It can be upsetting to see important topics that aren't covered in the detail they deserve. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is unable to accept and host copyrighted content. This isn't because of any of our policies specifically, this is the law. The copyright owner has the sole right to use content they produce, and simply putting a notice that the text is copyrighted to someone else doesn't allow us ignore that. Furthermore, Wikipedia is trying to build a repository of freely available knowledge that anyone can use, and copyrighted content doesn't fit within that goal. As an aside, the content you added was heavily promotional, and not written from the neutral point of view Wikipedia aims for as an ecnyclopedic project.

I certainly agree with you that the article should have a robust history section, but plagiarism is not "the only way" to achieve that. The entire project has been written by volunteer editors summarizing content from available sources. You can start writing that section now. Even if you're not a native speaker - as you mentioned in your edit summary - you can get started, and find collaborators who will help edit your work, and build it up over time to a version you can be proud of. In the meantime, the information you added isn't gone, it's just hosted on usab.com and is available to anyone on the internet searching for it. MarginalCost (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Could you tell where I can find collaborators? Is there some sort portal for the fans of women's sports? I'd like to leave a request for help there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tektofd (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: user was blocked as a sockpuppet MarginalCost (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for not removing my content on assyrian homeland

Hi my friend!

I merged "assyria" article with assyrian homeland because why have two "assyria" when you can have one? Please, remove the assyria article because we have now one assyria only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nemrud91: sorry for the confusion; if you check the page history you'll see I almost immediately reversed my edits and restored it to the last version you used, as I saw I misunderstood what you were trying to do. In the future, as you may have already discovered, it's best if you use edit summaries to help other editors understand your edits. (That doesn't change that I should have double-checked things though, I still take responsibility for that.) As you saw on the Talk page, a lot of editors had questions about why you were taking these actions, and it's usually best to discuss these large changes on the talk page beforehand.

Speaking of merging, I am putting up some tags on the article themselves to attract more visibility to your proposed discussion (and consolidating them to a single talk page area). I personally don't have an opinion on the matter, but it seems worth discussing. You can read more on the full merge process at WP:MERGE. MarginalCost (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand that and thanks for respecting my experince in history. ALso, l am new on wikipedia and l still dont understand everything here, thats why l might have done things wrong:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MarginalCost. 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)

Christina E. Nolan

Hey, I see that there's an image that you added at Christina E. Nolan that looks like it might be causing some formatting issues. I don't know much about formatting photos, but it seems to be causing issues with the references section. Any ideas on how to fix this? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually just took a stab at improving it. Do you think it looks ok now? Marquardtika (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: Yeah, I think in my mind that was a deliberate attempt to use the space efficiently at the time, though in hindsight the photo was probably just unnecessary. In a longer article it would be fine, but in so short an article the picture doesn't add that much beyond what's already in the infobox that it probably isn't worth the formatting problems. I think I also tried {{clear|left}}, but the white space was ugly. I've just removed the photo and added a link to the Wikimedia commons page. MarginalCost (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Corwin Amendment ratification map

About a year ago you added a ratification map to the Corwin Amendment article. Unfortunately, there was an error in the earlier version of the article used to create the map; claiming that Illinois only ratified the amendment at a state constitutional convention (contrary to Congress' instructions), when in fact Illinois' state legislature did ratify the amendment in 1863. I thought I should make you aware of the situation, in case you want to restore a corrected version of the map to the article. Libertybison (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Libertybison: Sure! I'll look into it and adjust the map tonight. MarginalCost (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion continued at article talk page. MarginalCost (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

US Court of Appeals maps

Hi. I noticed you made several maps for the US Court of Appeals pages, but did not make one for four courts (6, 7, 9, and 11 circuits). Will you be making one for these as well for consistency? Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: Yes! They're on my to-do list. They're pretty easy, but they just take a little more focused concentration than I have at the moment. I'll probably finish the series this weekend. It's honestly pretty surprising to me they didn't already exist. MarginalCost (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! We do have an existing map that is tucked away in the collapsed template at the bottom of the pages, but that encompasses all the circuits.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: Yes, I'm aware. But it's easier to see the particular jurisdiction at a glance with the circuit-specific maps. The nationwide map also presents some difficulty with colorblindness compatibility, especially making Puerto Rico look like part of the 11th. MarginalCost (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Terrorist96:  Done MarginalCost (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks!Terrorist96 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove my definition of Peng and its example?

@MarginalCost:— Preceding unsigned comment added by EMMA69696 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@EMMA69696: Your edit was not a constructive attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia's goal is to compile a freely accessible encyclopedia available to anyone in the world, and when readers come looking for accurate information they will not find joke edits you make with friends amusing. You are welcome to use the sandbox if you would like to carry out further experiments with the Wikipedia interface, but it is expected that any further edits you make here are intended to help build a reliable encyclopedia. MarginalCost (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@MarginalCost: My definition of peng tells you what it means in British slang, and how it is used, so how is that not constructive?— Preceding unsigned comment added by EMMA69696 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@EMMA69696: I think, you may be referring to this edit, which technically I didn't remove, but another editor did. Wikipedia is aiming to build an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, which generally means that we aren't looking to just define terms - slang or otherwise. Disambiguation pages like the one you edited are for the purpose of pointing readers to full encyclopedic articles. Our sister project Wiktionary is in the business of defining words, sometimes including slang, and peng includes the sense I think you're mentioning. MarginalCost (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Abulkalam Abdul Momen

Whoops, we both cropped the source image at about the same time. Didn't realize you were working on it. Cheers. // sikander { talk } 🦖 17:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sikander: Hah, no problem. Saw you added a bunch of categories on the photo I uploaded - saved me time in the most annoying part of the process! The one thing I thought could use some discussion is the category name for c:Category:Abulkalam Abdul Momen. Worldbruce noted in the en.wikipedia page history that the common name is AK Abdul Momen. I created the category under that name at commons, but redirected to yours for now. Given that other wikis use the full name, either is probably fine, but I wasn't sure if you had given it particular consideration.

I also saw you added the image to the bn.wiki. Do you have a script that automates that placement, or do you do it by hand? MarginalCost (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I used the full name for the category after checking wikidata. Thanks for creating the redirect as that will help people typing in AK Abdul Momen, but I don't mind if you swap the two categories. Unfortunately I don't have a script that automates placement on other wikis. There might be one, but it is difficult to find these utilities. // sikander { talk } 🦖 17:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

changes to Amy Helm

It says just above she tours year round. What is the source for she lives in Woodstock with her two sons? She does share joint custody of the kids with her ex-husband so we do not know where they reside. So where is the reference that the two kids live in Woodstock that their Dad lives in Woodstock? What fraction of the time is Helm on the road? Judging by her schedule reported on her website and by Google (Amy Helm dates) she is not home much. What fraction of the time maybe most does Jay Collins care for the kids at his residence as yet unknown? The nice fantasy that happy Mom and kids live together in Woodstock is both unsupported and unlikely.

As to proof of the "No drop ins allowed" would a photograph I take and post be sufficient? As to the no fan mail the reference is her own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.221.211 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has very strict rules about how we write about living people, and any contentious material not attributed to a reliable source needs to be removed quickly. Your diagnoses of addictions to food and cigarettes, and especially your diagnosis of autism are exactly the type of accusations that should only be included if they come from a medical professional's official diagnosis published in reliable sources. Your concern for the accuracy of existing information on living arrangements with her family is not unfounded, and since there is legitimate dispute another editor removed the material in question, which I agree was the right move. But we can't replace one unsourced statement with another. You can read up on what counts as a reliable source at our policy on verifiability, and on the limitations of using primary sources at our policy on original research and synthesis. MarginalCost (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Tonda L. Hughes page

I deleted the picture bio, so I assume there's nothing more for me to remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westernmeadowlark (talk • contribs) 22:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Westernmeadowlark: The {{revdel}} tag isn't there to say something currently in the article is a copyright violation, it's to say that some part of the page history holds a copyright violation. Since one of your paragraphs came from a copyrighted source, I removed it the first time. But the text still exists in the page history, and Wikipedia legally cannot host copyrighted content in any form, even in the page history, and even if it has already been removed from the current version. The {{revdel}} tag is there to ask an administrator to delete the revision history entirely - it's something ordinary users like you or me can't do ourselves. An administrator should be by in the next few hours to delete the relevant page history and remove the tag, so don't worry, it won't be there forever. Your picture was tagged for deletion at Wikimedia Commons, one of our sister sites, so I will let them sort out the photo's copyright status - and if/when it is deleted there, it will be automatically removed from the page here; we won't need another revdel tag on the article, since it's just a simple link between the two.

I know it can be a little discouraging to see large paragraphs removed in articles you create, or files you upload deleted, but Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. The whole encyclopedia was built on the basis of people freely contributing their work, and it's totally possible to write great articles without using copyrighted material. MarginalCost (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to June 30 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the content guideline and the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking me on this Toddst1. To clarify, one of the linked sources on Reuben Garrick's page did contain his birthdate (and while it might not be the best source it seems reliable enough for basic information like this), but are you really saying that it is required that a direct source has been provided on that day of year page itself? There are only 4 references on that page out of hundreds of list entries. Are the old ones grandfathered in, or ought they all be removed? MarginalCost (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - direct sources on the DOTY page. About a year ago, the DOTY project changed the rules requiring direct sources because those pages had become filled with errors and unverifiable info. Several of us have been cleaning them up but there's still a lot of work to do. May 11 is an example of where we want to be. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Susan M. Phillips, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond (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) 14:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hope you're doing well!

Hi MarginalCost! I wanted to message you and wish you a great day and happy editing, and let you know that I was thinking about you... hope life is treating you well! :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Hi MarginalCost. Thanks for the guidelines given for new article creation. Will work on implementing the suggestions given for Ibrahim Al Banna. Recommendations appreciated. Dedangk (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

At Which Point are stubs allowed in article creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedangk (talk • contribs) 09:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dedangk: Good question! Stubs are always allowed as part of the article creation process. But the issue is that even stubs need to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. The article in question (Ibrahim Al Banna Law Firm) wasn't deleted because it was too short, it was deleted because it didn't have any "credible claim of significance" - in this case, a reason why the firm would be of encyclopedic interest to the world at large. Generally speaking, the best way to show that is to find significant coverage from independent, reliable sources that are writing about the firm's impact. Wikipedia isn't looking to have an article on every business in the world - even if it can be proven that the business exists. We are seeking to compile information other sources have written about the company, which can't be done if no one else has done so. MarginalCost (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Les Filles de Illighadad

Thank you so much for adding that photo. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: You're welcome! There are several compatibly licensed photos in this Flickr album towards the bottom. I picked the one that seemed to best illustrate the group as a whole, even if the spacing makes it look a little bare. This one has less dead space, but seemed less representative. If you're planning on continuing to expand the article, and are able to identify the artists, you could also use some of the photos to profile the individual band members. I of course, have no idea who's who, but I'm happy to help with cropping or something. MarginalCost (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ha thanks. I wrote about as much as I could write with the sources I have. The woman on the right is, I think, Alamnou Akrouni ("the cousin"), who plays this calabash in a bucket of water. There's a video with a show recorded in a theater in France where it's in a white tub. (I love the idea of her having rider that says "tub or bucket, at least four gallons".) I think the drum in the background is the tende, but I don't know who plays it. Now, I got their album via Bandcamp, so I don't have a nice booklet and all that with a list--in other words, you know as much as I do. Except, maybe, for this: the last song on that album (which you can pick up for $7) is a 17-minute all-female romp with singing and drumming. It is the most amazing and beautiful and honest piece of music and culture I've heard in years.

Anyway, thanks again, for the photo and the advice--this isn't my area of expertise and I was SO happy to see that picture. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your RfA comment

Try this one (it's a reconstruction of a mailing list). 2003 was really, really different. Cabayi (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Help me?

Hi, could you help me with the Draft: Enriqueta Otero Blanco and tell me if it's ready or not to publish it DJose Méndez (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@DJose Méndez: To put it simply, Draft:Enriqueta Otero Blanco is not ready to publish. At the moment it is just an infobox that gives very general information about the subject. To move into a full article, it would, at a minimum, need 3 primary things it doesn't currently have: 1) Actual article text. At the moment it's just an infobox. But infoboxes are meant to supplement the full text of an article, not replace it. 2) A demonstration of notability. That is, why is the subject is significant enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia? 3) Reliable sources that reference the subject.

In many ways, these are not 3 separate things, they are all part of the same big idea. That is, when you write the article text, the significant events you reference should be backed up by reliable sources, which will help to demonstrate notability. The good news is that the Spanish Wikipedia seems to have an article on es:Enriqueta Otero Blanco which can be a very valuable resource to you in writing the article here in the English Wikipedia. My Spanish isn't great, and Google Translate doesn't seem to be doing a great job with the Spanish article, so I can't say for sure, but I will warn you that just because an article is on the Spanish Wikipeida doesn't necessarily mean it will meet the notability requirement of the English Wikipedia. Some of the links are dead, others seem unreliable, and others don't mention the actual subject very much. Still, I think a well-written and well-sourced article would likely survive here. Letras Armadas seems to be the strongest source, and some introductory chapters seem to be available online, but my Spanish isn't good enough to really evaluate its quality or contribute much.

I appreciate your interest in bringing this biography to the English Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any more questions! MarginalCost (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DJose Méndez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 16 November 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Armada Music

Hi, thank you so much for the warm welcome! I have a question though, I made an edit on the armada music page adding an artist that is on the come up and that is part of the record label, armada is part of NoFace records and he released a song through them, I just linked the Wikipedia page that was shown. Why was the edit deleted if he’s part of it? Thank you so much! OrangeDuty23 (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@OrangeDuty23: Apologies for my delay over the holiday. It looks like the article in question was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mawsua. You can find the guidelines for what articles are typically given Wikipedia pages at WP:NMUSIC. Generally, in articles with lists included (like at Armada music) the only entries listed are those that meet notability guidelines and have an article already written. It may have been slightly premature to remove the link (and the list entry) while the deletion discussion was still pending, but it is unlikely to be restored now. MarginalCost (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Equity Premium Puzzle

Please take a look at [[1]] when you have the time. Thanks, JS (talk) 12:20, 31 May 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

my bad

i am just teaching my student — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.177.9.83 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not the best way to teach students about editing Wikipedia. If you want to illustrate how to use he editor and wiki syntax, you can use the sandbox. If you want to teach students about vandalism on Wikipedia, you can point them to our article on the subject, and the numerous academic sources it cites. For instance, this 2011 paper found the median survival time of vandalism was 12 minutes, and this 2007 paper found 11 minutes. In the past decade we have only gotten better at detecting and reverting vandalism, and a 2018 paper found a mean time to revert vandalism of about 5 minutes. this section gives an alternative list. Consulting published sources like these will be far more beneficial than defacing an article and preventing others from finding accurate information. MarginalCost (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Your Reverted Edits for Linus Sebastian

Hi, I saw you reverted my edits from the "Linus Sebastian" Wikipedia page. You mentioned in summary "This is not how external links work, and the additions are not referenced by third party sources". Could you please explain. See I am a new user at Wikipedia, I can be making mistakes, but I am pretty sure I am providing really valuable information. I could have made mistakes, and I am willing to discuss it with you. My edit was earlier reverted due to lack of links, so I added links for all the companies, added links for Linus Media Group, and added links for the 2 YouTube Playlists that were mentioned on the Wikipedia page. However, you said "This is not how external links work", could you please explain how they are supposed to be added. I added links only when 1 used asked me to add the links. Then what do you mean by "the additions are not referenced by third party sources"? Amitbajaj1973 (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Amitbajaj1973: Sure, thanks for asking. The best place to go to understand external links is Wikipedia:External links. The key phrase here is External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. There are a limited number of exceptions described in What can normally be linked, the most common of which is the official website of the article subject itself. (Sebastian's is already in both the external links section, and several more in the infobox, which is probably too many anyhow, but we can leave that to another day.) That's why the first set of links had to be removed.

The second section you added on a particular video series had a few issues. First, in general, Wikipedia articles do not need to document every video series someone puts out, even with 10 million views. The section in this article is titled for notable projects, which generally means that we expect that someone else will have written about them in an independent and reliable 3rd party source. Many people will disagree on what is and is not important about an article subject, and seeing what has been written about in third party sources helps establish a common standard. Second, at the top of the article you'll see a tag that explains that this page already relies too much on primary sources, and links to our policies on primary and secondary sources. As a comparison, take a look at the page for YouTuber SethBling. I have no affiliation with this guy, and never heard of him until 15 minutes ago when I started looking for examples, but his article has reached Good Article status in Wikipedia, meaning it's an article that can serve as an example for what a biography in this domain can look like. You'll notice that the large majority of references come from third party sources, not just a links to a YouTube page. There are a few citations that link directly to his videos, but these are almost always alongside third party sources discussing their significance.

If you do find third-party sources discussing these videos and need help formatting your citations, you can see the help page at Help:Referencing for beginners. MarginalCost (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@MarginalCost:Hey, thanks for the reply. I read the link that you provided for external links.

I reread the wiki page and I agree, Linus page has already been mentioned me mentioning it again was just spamming. Sorry for that.

As far as the series being worthy of being mentioned in notable projects. You said "Wikipedia do not need to document every video series someone puts out, even with 10 million views. The section in this article is titled for notable projects, which generally means that we expect that someone else will have written about them in an independent and reliable 3rd party source." and I totally agree. If you read the Linus Sebastian page currently (my edits are all gone as of now), you shall see that the Part 1 of the series is already there in Wikipedia. A link to PC Gamer has existed even before I edited the page that mentioned about the series. So technically, the series already has an authentic source from 3rd party that was already their in the Wikipedia. I just added the name of the series, because the series had a name 'Gaming PC Secret Shopper' and added information about 2nd part.

So my thought is that their is already a link about this series from 3rd party. And I just further elaborated it, so it should be "worthy of being in notable mentions"

Now, I am willing to further discuss, but my strong opinion is that the information I provided regarding Secret Shopper Part 2 is quite relevant. And as far as links are concerned, Yes I agree, the link for YT playlists are irrelevant... So what's the solution, here's what I propose, would the article be fine if I bring back all the text, but remove the link for Linus's site, and remove YT playlists. What else can I change, because the 3rd party link is already there from PC Gaming's blog. Amitbajaj1973 (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Amitbajaj1973:: sorry for the long delay in my reply. Pandemic life. This conversation should probably be continued at the article talk page. Personally, I am still unconvinced. But as this is not my area of expertise and your compromise sounds much more reasonable than the original edits, if you were to restore the more limited additions you mentioned here, I would not revert them, and trust it to those more knowledgeable watching the page. MarginalCost (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Please update the Federal Funds Rate graph

Please update the Federal Funds Rate graph located here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_funds_rate_history_and_recessions.png

Last year the Federal Reserve published historical data extending Federal Funds Rate data back to 1928: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/new-daily-federal-funds-rate-series-history-of-federal-funds-market-1928-1954.htm

The four data series have been added to FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/33951

I have graphed it using FEDFUNDS for 1954-present, and the four historical data sets for 1928 - 1954: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=GNZw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c5d:4500:af86:ac1f:5a9:b50a:b6de (talk • contribs) 19:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hooray! This is an exciting addition, and I'm really glad to see it in FRED. Unfortunately, I have two concerns about adding it to Wikipedia.

The more important is that I'm unsure/skeptical of the copyright status of the data. The vast bulk of that time frame is within the period of copyright in the United States. Not everything published on FRED is in the public domain, and while the chart presentation doesn't meet the threshold of originality, I am less certain of the underlying data.

The second concern is more minor, which is just that I'm not sure we should be presenting it with the same graph that covers the Fed's own data series. The financial market conditions are so different, the data collectors/reporters are different (and sometimes disagree!), and the regulatory environment was so different, I'm not sure to what extent we can really say the series is measuring the same thing in 1930 as it is in 2020. If we can get nail down the copyright concerns and can include it, I'd prefer to keep it as a separate graph of the historical record, maybe showing something like this. MarginalCost (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Ayesha Singh

Ayesha Singh is currently playing a major role in Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin. She also played an important role in a TV Show Zindagi Abhi Baaki Hai Mere Ghost and also did a major role in a movie Adrishya. Kindly requesting to please stop the deletion process. Fierce lady (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fierce lady:: to be clear, I neither nominated this article nor voted for its deletion, just added some category tags to helps others knowledgeable about the areas find it. I'd encourage you to keep all your comments about the article on the deletion discussion page, because leaving repeated comments on other uses' talk pages as I've seen you done, 1) won't actually be seen by the administrator who closes the discussion. The nomination is not going to be withdrawn, so give any arguments you have on the deletion discussion page, and 2) it can be seen as annoying to the other users.

In any case, I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?#What_you_can_do_about_it. Keep in mind that not all subjects are fit for inclusion in Wikipedia, even good and talented people, and it's not a judgement against them personally. Second, the best arguments in a deletion discussion will reference Wikipedia policies. The criteria for actors is given at WP:NACTOR, and most of the time you'd be looking specifically at criteria 1. Alternatively, you can show she meets the General notability guideline. But if she does not meet these criteria it is okay if the article does get deleted. If her career continues, it is possible/likely that if she lands another major role her article can always be recreated. MarginalCost (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

She was a female lead in a movie Adrishya. Fierce lady (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"Firefly Lane (upcoming TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Firefly Lane (upcoming TV series) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#Firefly Lane (upcoming TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

US Labor Force Participation Rate by Gender

Hello! Could you please update this graphic? Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nerd271:  Done File:US Labor Force Participation Rate by gender.png MarginalCost (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

File:3rd Circuit map.svg

I would 'be bold' and try to fix this, except I do not know how with an image. Am I right in saying that this image has a small inaccuracy, in that in the box placed in the Gulf of Mexico, the upper right corner has items that are green, which are in fact not part of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which suggests just Pennsylvania & NJ)?

Please do not take this as criticism, as I respect and appreciate the work you have done, both with those images and elsewhere on Wikipedia. MollyRealized (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@MollyRealized: The Third Circuit also hears appeals from the District Court of the Virgin Islands. Though the later is not an Article III court, the US Virgin Islands are still within the Third Circuit's appellate jurisdiction. MarginalCost (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The article's text may need to reflect that, then? MollyRealized (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@MollyRealized:It does. Note the first full paragraph in United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the lede after the bullet points:

This circuit also hears appeals from the District Court of the Virgin Islands, which is an Article VI territorial court and not a district court under Article III of the Constitution.

The Third Circuit infobox also lists the Virgin Islands. The District Court of the Virgin Islands mentions the appeals to the 3rd circuit too. MarginalCost (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)