User talk:Marcywinograd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Marcywinograd, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Marcywinograd (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)== How does one edit for additions to the CA Sister Cities page on Wikipedia? Incomplete list--can't edit due to "transclusion." ==[reply]

I live in Santa Monica and see that the list of our sister cities is incomplete and should include the additional cities of: Cassino and Sant' Elia in Italy, as well as Kizugawa, Japan. http://www.santamonicasistercity.org/sister-cities.html

I also see that Alameda is incomplete and should include the additional cities of Jiangyin, China, Dumaguete, Phillipines and Yeongdon-gun, South Korea.

Another incomplete entry is Sacramento, which should also include Bethlehem as a sister city. https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/sacramento-sisters-with-ashkelon-1.5284621

I tried to edit the page, but I couldn't because of "transclusion."

How do we fix this? I imagine there are probably many other incomplete entries and that this "transclusion" document is out of date. I recommend we not "transclude" but actually post the most up-to-date information with credible links.

I would be glad to volunteer to do this.

Thank you.

Anonymity[edit]

Hello Marcywinograd,

You posted a multi-part question at the Help Desk and I tried there to answer part of your question. I did not have the time to discuss anonymity in editing because I was leaving for a family gathering. I am commenting here rather than at the Help Desk because I will share some personal information and want to have the discussion in a lower visibility place.

You asked: "What is the criteria for becoming an editor with editorial control over protected pages? Are there any transparency requirements for such editors to identify by name and bio who they are? If not, why not? Has there been any deep discussion about the problematic nature of having anonymous editors with editorial control over a site designed to engage democratic participation?"

I tried to explain that the concept of "editorial control" in a formal sense is alien to the Wikipedia ethos, although it should be obvious that highly experienced generalist editors who participate in many topic areas and in many of the "back office" administrative functions will be more influential than "newbies". This is not because of any "special powers" they have, but instead because their arguments are likely to be more persuasive based on their long experience and understanding of policies and guidelines. Consensus is the decision-making process, and any editor, even the newest, is welcome to participate in any discussion about improving content. If a very new editor's comments are based in policies and guidelines, then they will immediately be accepted by other editors. However, new editors who persist with wrongheaded notions about how this encyclopedia operates will eventually be ignored and their opinions disregarded.

On to the issue of anonymity. Deeply ingrained in Wikipedia culture going back almost 19 years now is the ideal that people can edit if they wish without creating an account, and that people can create an account if they wish without providing an email address, a real name, or any personally identifying information.

Here is what the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy says: "Because we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement, you may: Read, edit, or use any Wikimedia Site without registering an account. Register for an account without providing an email address or real name." This is policy, and compliance with it is non-negotiable, although many editors disagree with some aspects of the policy. The main point of disagreement has to do with unregistered IP editing, since a substantial percentage of such edits are vandalism.

Wikipedia is the #5 website in the world and by far #1 in the world in educational content because of the genius of its policies and guidelines, which allow anonymous editing, and that simply is not going to change.

Consider these cases: Should our Mexican editors working on accurate coverage of the criminal drug cartels have to disclose their real names? Should Syrian editors covering the horrific Syrian Civil War have to disclose their real identities? Should Hong Kong editors covering pro-democracy protests have to reveal their real identities? How about editors who are employees of powerful corporations who work on articles about the misconduct of their employers? Consider the interests of our editors working on highly controversial topics who live in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Egypt, the Philippines and the People's Republic of China. What fates would befall such people if their identities became public?

I am among the editors who have voluntarily chosen to disclose their real world identities. One thing that you may not fully appreciate yet is that editors who work in controversial topic areas are frequently subject to quite vicious harassment, sometimes including death threats. I tend to edit mostly in non-controversial areas, but perhaps 2% of my work involves controversial topics. I have been insulted, harassed and threatened on Wikipedia many times. People have registered accounts just for the purpose of harassing me (one within the last 48 hours).

On Wikipedia, I disclose that I am a Jew. Extremists on one side have accused me of being a racist Zionist nationalist, and extremists on the other side have accused me of being a self-hating Jew and a concentration camp kapo. Garden variety anti-Semites call me "kike" or accuse me of being part of the wordwide Rothschild mind control conspiracy. Some ultra-Orthodox trolls call me an apostate. And I don't even edit Jewish topics very often.

Harassment on Wikipedia is relatively easy for me to ignore because I am a self-employed 67 year old guy with a level head and thick skin. But harassment in real life is another matter, and twice I have been subjected to campaigns of death threats both on and off Wikipedia. In one case, some but not all of the threats came from a US government IP address, and I was interviewed by a detective from a military police agency, which resulted in an end to the threats. In the more recent case, the criminal scraped a photo of my infant granddaughter off my Facebook page and emailed death threats with that photo against me and against my granddaughter, including mention of her home town. I suppose that you can imagine the consternation that caused her parents. Both of these cases resulted from my neutral editing of Wikipedia biographies of career criminals who are in and out of prison. In both cases, I knew with 99% certainty who was responsible for the death threats but lacked the sort of proof that stands up in court.

If only 2% of my editing is to controversial topics, then please try to imagine the level of harassment directed at editors who specialize in controversial topics. I know many of them who do outstanding work, but they would stop editing immediately if their anonymity was compromised.

Editors are judged here only by the quality of their edits, especially by how accurately they summarize reliable sources in compliance with policies and guidelines. Becoming a successful Wikipedia editor requires a unique combination of personality traits that is not strongly correlated with professional status or formal training. I know outstanding editors who began at age 15 and flourished and became highly productive respected editors, and I also know several cases of editors with PhD degrees who crashed and burned because they were incapable of following established policies and guidelines, and unwilling to collaborate with their "lessers".

I hope that you find my observations useful, and I also hope that you too will develop into a productive, long term editor. You clearly have the potential. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain what should have been obvious to me, that editors take great risks when editing and sharing information others with insidious agendas want to suppress, and I'm so sorry you and your family have been subjected to such frightening harassment. You are a courageous man with a deep sense of commitment to the cause of free information and collaborative knowledge-building to press on in the face of such intimidation and bullying, and your experience is testament to the power of information, the threatening nature of it to those who fear illumination of the truth. Your experience does give me pause about leaving my bio and real name on the site. Yikes. I am Jewish, too. I had actually thought of posting (haven't even looked to see what's there) about Saudi dissidents, an LA consulting firm that works with the Saudi government to target dissidents and the impact this targeting has had on family members in SA, but for now I will probably leave that one alone! I'm still a little unclear about who (not by name but by some officially recognized status) has final decision making authority over text, though I hear you when you talk about talk pages and consensus building and not pressing on too much in the face of opposition or challenges from other editors; it's when those challenges are presented by anonymous people with clear agendas, downplaying those motivations, that I shake my head and roll my eyes. Thanks again. Much appreciated, MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question about "who (not by name but by some officially recognized status) has final decision making authority over text" is that nobody has such authority. That power and that status does not exist on Wikipedia, and there is no final text about anything. Every single thing is subject to revision based on new input from editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help -- How do I get back to my draft "Puppets Against AIDS" to continue writing the entry.[edit]

I could use guidance here. I responded to the request for an article on "Puppets Against AIDS" and had begun my draft. I went to save the draft, but was then taken to a page that said I could either continue or submit it for publication. I may have clicked on "submit" only because I was stuck and couldn't figure out how to get back to the draft to edit it. The draft was down below on the page, but I couldn't edit it.

Here's my question: How do I get back to my draft of "Puppets Against AIDS" so I can add more and continue editing? I am not done.

Thanks,

Marcy

You can find your draft at Draft:Puppets against AIDS. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 01:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Puppets Against AIDS (April 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
please remove the in line external links we don't use them. Content should be based on what independent sources have reported.
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.
Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Marcywinograd! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Agi Orsi (April 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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.
DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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 the submission 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 the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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.
Marcywinograd (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Marcy, the author of the entry: Agi Orsi (female documentary filmmaker)and would greatly appreciate more specific feedback on what I can do to make this entry acceptable. I'm confused because I cited so many reputable sources: New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Variety, International Documentary Association, etc. and wrote in response to a request on your Wikipedia Article Request Page for an entry on Agi Orsi. I did not use promotional words or phrases like "popular" or "internationally acclaimed" and wrote in a neutral tone. I've noticed that Wikipedia has a ton of entries on male documentary filmmakers, but few on female documentary producers. The absence is glaring, really. I've also noticed that the men with whom Orsi has collaborated have entries on Wikipedia that discuss their talents, explicitly promoting these male filmmakers.

Do you want me to remove the mention of the prizes Orsi's films won? Would that make this article acceptable? Do you not want me to NOT discuss the themes and subjects of her films? Please be specific. Thank you.Marcywinograd (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Puppets Against AIDS has been accepted[edit]

Puppets Against AIDS, 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 B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zanimum (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is very cool! You might want to submit this to Wikipedia:Good article nominations. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Medical deserts in the United States has been accepted[edit]

Medical deserts in the United States, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

Excellent work on Medical deserts in the United States Cheers

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Agi Orsi has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Agi Orsi. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Decarceration in the United States (May 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Squeeps10 was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This is a stellar article, but it's opinionated, especially the "Myths" at the bottom. Rewrite it to remove the opinionated content, and then resubmit it.
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.
Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 00:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Decarceration in the United States has been accepted[edit]

Decarceration in the United States, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Bilorv (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
To add to the automatic message about the acceptance of the draft you submit, here's a token of appreciation. An excellent piece of work, there is much potential for it if further tailored it to Wikipedia's standards and formats. Hopefully some other editors will take an interest in it over time - I'm afraid it's not my area of expertise so I can't offer much help, but I have commented with some general feedback on its talk page. Keep up the hard work! — Bilorv (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Electronic monitoring in the United States has been accepted[edit]

Electronic monitoring in the United States, 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 B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zanimum (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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.
1292simon (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:COVID-19 Mask Shaming has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:COVID-19 Mask Shaming. Thanks! Zanimum (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:COVID-19 Mask Shaming has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:COVID-19 Mask Shaming. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

updating critical pedagogy page[edit]

Hi Marcy,

I am no longer doing any active work updating this page. Have at it! I agree that concrete examples from classrooms would be a great contribution to the page. Let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

McGrudis — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrudis (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decarceration redirects[edit]

Hey, I came across several redirects that you created pointing from various generic phrases related to decarceration to Decarceration in the United States. We shouldn't create redirects from general terms to articles about specific countries. In this case Prison abolition movement seemed close enough to the subject matter to be an appropriate alternative target, but in the event that no general article exists, we should refrain from creating a redirect so as to leave red links in articles and thus encourage the future creation of an article on the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Electronic monitoring of immigrants" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Electronic monitoring of immigrants. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Electronic monitoring of immigrants until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Health care desert" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Health care desert. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 19#Health care desert until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced comments at RfD[edit]

Hey there! Thank you for participating at RfD. However both of the comments you posted were incorrectly placed [1] [2]. I already fixed these errors, but please make sure to post your comments correctly next time you decide to participate. CycloneYoris talk! 22:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Agi Orsi[edit]

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

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 edit the submission 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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michèle Flournoy[edit]

Thanks for your recent expansion of this article. I've noticed that you sometimes have included material sourced only to primary sources, such as interviews with Flournoy. Please try to include secondary sources that describe, critique, or refer to those positions stated in primary sources, to avoid selective quotation, WP:OR, and WP:CHERRYPICKING, and potential violations of WP:NPOV. Again, thanks for your contributions! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought I had included a secondary source (as well as primary) on summation of the 1997 QDR, but you removed that summary. This is an incredibly important document that Flournoy drafted, being the principal drafter. I’d like it restored, please. I try to include both secondary and primary because sometimes secondary misquote. I will find a secondary source to back up what you recently removed about her advocating for Syria regime change, as well. In the future, I would appreciate it if you see something that you think lacks a secondary source, to note on the page (secondary source citation needed) rather than repeatedly reverting what I write. Thank you, Marcy 2600:8802:5A00:566E:CCBF:E331:89B5:4A58 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, it is not my responsibility to restore unsourced, poorly sourced, or selectively quoted material on a WP:BLP. See WP:BURDEN. In addition, secondary sources are required to establish that the material is of due weight. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:COVID-19 Mask Shaming[edit]

Hello, Marcywinograd. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "COVID-19 Mask Shaming".

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 edit the submission 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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your email[edit]

Hi, Marcywinograd! You emailed me, though I'm not quite sure why – there didn't really seem to be anything in your message that couldn't be discussed openly here. Anyway, I've taken a look at the article and the formatting seems to be OK now. Can I take it that the matter is resolved? Just a suggestion: if something like that happens again, the talk-page of the article is probably the best place to mention it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your response. Sorry, I left the message in the wrong place! Yes, it's resolved. Best, Marcy

Email reply[edit]

Hi, unless something is confidential or private editors do not generally use email for reasons of openness and also privacy (of email addresses). I only tweaked Draft:Women Cross DMZ in passing as I'm limited in time. I can say the tool we use does not flag any of the sources as known unreliable sources which is good, and it's clear there are several very mainstream reliable sources. Apart from that all I can say is it will be reviewed with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) in mind. Apart from that it is just waiting for some reviewer to pick it up and at the moment we seam to be shorter than normal in number of reviews/time being volunteered but still lots of submissions. So unless you can find a Wikiproject or editor with a particular interest it's just a waiting game. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Puppets against AIDS[edit]

Information icon Hello, Marcywinograd. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Puppets against AIDS, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Puppets against AIDS[edit]

Hello, Marcywinograd. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Puppets against AIDS".

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 edit the submission 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! --Ferien (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Women Cross DMZ has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Women Cross DMZ. Thanks! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Women Cross DMZ (July 8)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
There is some confusion in my mind about this article. Is it about the organisation or is it about the event of crossing the DMZ? You need to write one article on one topic. If about the org, then there is the (brief) history to be included. If about the event then the org can be included briefly. I think you have attempted both, and risk losing sight of the prime objective, which is to get one or the other published, followed by the other.

Each has notability, and i was tempted to accept out on that basis, bit I think you can do better and submit a pair of drafts, one on each topic

I am concerned that you have loaded the draft with copyrighted pictures. Perhaps slightly outside the scope of a review since they are on Commons, it is still unhelpful to do this
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.
FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Women Cross DMZ has been accepted[edit]

Women Cross DMZ, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

―Qwerfjkltalk 21:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redacting other users posts[edit]

Please read wp:talk you should not remove other users' posts.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Taiwan, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the lead, then was reverted, have not edited anything else on the main Taiwan page. Are you telling me I will be blocked for posting objections on the "talk" page?

Are you aware that you removed other peoples talk page posts not once but twice?[3][4] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all aware of having removed anyone's talk page comments. ??? If I did, it was not intentional.

Well you are aware of it now because I just provided you with the diffs. I will also note that in that second edit you didn’t actually add any text of your own, you just removed two additions by someone else while disputing their additions in the edit summary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove any of my posts again I will take you to wp:ani, as I note that your second removal was after I has asked you not to do it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent work on Environmental Movement[edit]

Hey! Saw your recent work on the environmental movement topics such as Greenpeace, and wanted to make sure that you saw the group working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change. The work you do on these topics matter, and if you are looking for inspiration you might check out our simple edits, or this recent blog post. Using the actions of GreenPeace USA as kindof a filter for looking at specific power plants, companies and other actions seems really appropriate, for example, Sadads (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sadads, for reaching out and informing me of various opportunities to work collaboratively on climate change topics. I'll check out the links you sent and read the blog post. I appreciate hearing from you. Best, Marcy Marcywinograd (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Opposite of mass incarceration" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Opposite of mass incarceration has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 30 § Opposite of mass incarceration until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

––FormalDude (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcywinograd&oldid=1187219963"