Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Audrey Macklin, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 . 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!

MurielMary (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Betty Dodson, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cándido Camero, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 15:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A question which is important

Is apropriate to create a hashtag memory article in wikipedia?(contian populars in social network/trends) Im working in another version of wiki

I asked this of you and ask of others too Cus i didnt get it in laws of wiki and Everyone has his/her option So i need to reach an agreement Thx bro Pls check it fast and if you know a source tell me about it Im await you guy Bigbang2024 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been granted new page reviewer rights, and I noticed that it automatically marks pages as reviewed when I nominate it for an XFD process. Is this something I should keep reviewed, or should I mark it as unreviewed, since it's up for a deletion discussion? Hog Farm _Bacon 04:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I generally keep it as reviewed, since the XFD will either establish that it should be kept (and hence meets basic policy requirements, though might need some tags, and is therefore properly marked as reviewed) or deleted (in which case it's irrelevant whether it's reviewed or not). I think you can set your Twinkle prefs to not mark things as reviewed when you nominate them, though? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, you did a lot to salvage the article on failure. I just discovered that its counterpart, success (concept), was in a poor state and drastically stubbified it. Perhaps you have thoughts on how to build it back up again. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter, Hmm, I will think on that. I kind of like the grab bag approach we took on failure, with "highlights" from different disciplines. Perhaps we could do something similar with success. Though I imagine we'd have to wade through a fair number of self-help guides to find the real meat of the concept … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's not a literature review that I relish. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the green check mark was a bit bland for an illustration, so following the example of the failure article I swapped it with one I found more dramatic. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you take a peek at the deletions since your last edit and undo any changes you feel merit undoing. Feoffer (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feoffer, Welp, so the page is now fully protected, so I can't do anything. Tbh there were so many changes I couldn't even read the diffs very well. I'm inclined to defer to whatever consensus emerges at WP:BLPN and/or the talk page. This has gotten so involved that I really don't know what to think anymore. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AleatoryPonderings, I'm just letting recent contributors to Emily W. Murphy know that I've dropped the protection level to extended confirmed and added a consensus required restriction. Please see my explanation on the talk page for more information. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful contribution to Women of the White Buffalo! What do you think of the article? Right cite (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right cite, Thanks for your note and for creating this article! I enjoyed reading it. To the extent there is more, it would be nice to get a little more third-party commentary on the film; it seems a little heavy on plot summary as opposed to critical assessment at present. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, agreed, will do more research on it over time when I next get a chance. Right cite (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for being kind in your response about the Taiwan reference on the Antony Blinken page. That was my first edit to Wikipedia (albeit a talk page), and even though it didn't amount to much, I'm grateful for your kindness.

NotARealCowboy (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NotARealCowboy, Aw, thanks! I appreciate it :) Best of luck all your wiki-adventures to come! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and infobox of Linda Thomas-Greenfield both say she will be the next American ambassador to the U.N. Does it really need to be mentioned and linked a third time? Jonathunder (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder, It should be stated both in the lede and the body, where it can be sourced. I recently moved cites out of the lede per MOS:CITELEAD so there was no citation for the specific claim that she will be UN Ambassador. My preference would be to simply say "She will be UN Ambassador" with a cite for that claim and avoid the "chief of US Mission to the UN" language. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't hurt to have both wordings and informs readers better than simply repeating the same title a third time. Jonathunder (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder, I mean, if your beef is with stating the same title in the lede, infobox, and body, you'll need to change virtually every politics article, since that's what they invariably do. I personally think it's confusing (someone might well ask: is US Ambassador to the UN different from chief of mission, and if so how). We can leave it for now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the press conference held at a Philadelphia landscaping company by Donald Trump's presidential campaign has inspired a virtual charity run to be held today? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference), 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.

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, do you still have anything else to add at the discussion here? It seems to be a pretty clear case of WP:RSOPINION.

Sdrqaz (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]