User talk:Arglebargle79
Arglebargle79, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Arglebargle79! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC) |
Eisenhower Museum reference
Hi, Arglebargle79. In your revision of 07:28, January 31, 2017 on Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, Museum and Boyhood Home, you added some great information but you have an incomplete reference for the source. You cited a web page that lists the journal for sale, not the actual journal itself. If you own that journal, please update the reference using the template I've installed in the article. Otherwise, I have just purchased it myself and can fix the article when I receive my copy. Thanks. See it's talk page for discussion of my recent edits. RM2KX (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
tions on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.
Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.
It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.
The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.
A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.
We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.
Let's do this.
See ya at the WikiProject!
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 10:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.
By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.
Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.
If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.
Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 10:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT
Disambiguation link notification for June 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of volcanism on Earth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tambora (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) 09:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced contentious information related to living persons as you did here. The content has been removed, and will be removed again if it is readded without including reliable sources that verify the content. GMGtalk 22:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
August 2018
Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you recently removed content from Prime Minister of Australia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Also, it's Kevin Rudd -- not Paul Rudd. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Take it to the article's talk page instead of deleting content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Why do you want a complete copy of the List of Australian Prime Ministers page on the Prime Minister of Australia page? You seem to want a copy of an entire separate page on another when it isn't necessary. Why?Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
FYI
Thought you might find this link useful. - wolf 00:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
| Wednesday August 29, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
September 26: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
| Wednesday September 26, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. This month will also feature on our agenda, upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections - you can add yourself as a candidate. We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Timeline of United States history (2010–present) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Timeline of United States history (2010–present), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 11:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of United States history (1900–1929), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Arglebargle79. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Arglebargle79. 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)
The article Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Personally I am of the opinion that it is a little premature to create a long list of events that are still several months away, if they even happen at all
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 13:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 14:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Please stop taking my comments out of context. Your responses have become argumentative and accusatory and I am increasingly becoming concerned by your remarks. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 15:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- They weren't taken out of context. You know that. It appears that you haven't read any of the proceeding timeline articles. If you had, you would have noticed that the Russia investigations are ongoing and are not going to end within the current calendar year, which is currently coming to an end. As to harassment, I thought that was what you are doing. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
December 2018
Hello, I'm DannyS712. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Trials of Paul Manafort, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! DannyS712 (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Office of the Vice President of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Wallace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of minor planets and comets visited by spacecraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page File (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
In regard to this edit, the Democratic National Committee has not actually announced the criteria for candidates to participate in the presidential debates yet. They are planning to do so in January. This is indicated both in the cited source [1] and here, for example:
Anticipating a large field of candidates, the first two debates – scheduled for June and July of 2019 – would be guided by a generous qualifying criteria yet to be determined, according to Perez.
"We need more than polling to measure participation," he told reporters on a conference call. "There will be an alternative pathway to participation."
He listed the demonstration of grassroots fundraising as a potential way for low-polling candidates to make the initial stages, but stressed he was still assessing the exact metric to be used. The thresholds for the first two debates will be released in January.
So I am planning to change that edit back, but if you would be willing to do so, that would be fine with me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
December 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to United States federal government shutdown of December 2018, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Since this would clash with the naming conventions of the other shutdowns, please gain consensus for this first. Jasper Deng (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- does December 2018 end tomorrow night? If somehow there's a December 32, 2018 on tuesday, then you would be right to do this, but all calanders say otherwise.!Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
American politics discretionary sanctions notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- so what did I allegedly do?Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- You came to the attention of a gnome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:115:F:2138:0:0:0:5B56 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- so what did I allegedly do?Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
This user, who has a total of three previous edits, used his fourth edit to level a sockpuppet accusation at you. I haven't looked into it at all because it seems like an awfully trolling thing to do, but I figured you should at least know about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Feb 27 WikiWednesday Salon + Mar 2 MoMA Art+Feminism and beyond
| February 27, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 08:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC) | |
| Saturday March 2: MoMA Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon | |
 Art+Feminism’s sixth-annual MoMA Wikipedia Edit-a-thon will take place at the Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Education and Research Building, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 4 West 54 Street, on Saturday, March 2, 2019 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. People of all gender identities and expressions are encouraged to attend. And on Sunday this weekend:
Stay tuned for other Art+Feminism and related edit-a-thons throughout the month! | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Speedy deletion nomination of 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Why did you do that? There was plenty of support on the primary talk page. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
| May 22, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. Featuring this month a presentation by Interference Archive guests, and a group discussion on the role of activist archives and building wiki content based on ephemeral publications and oral histories. To close off the night, we'll also have Wikidojo - a group collaborative writing activity / vaudeville! We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 17:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
| June 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 05:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC) | |
| Stay tuned for details om next event! Sunday Jun 23: Wiki Loves Pride @ Metropolitan Museum of Art | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Enforcement process
You are invited to comment at the arbitration enforcement process: WP:AE#Arglebargle79. — JFG talk 11:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Arglebargle79, just following up from the above thread. Do you understand what you did wrong that led to the AE Enforcement request being filed? ~Awilley (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes.Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not trying to make you grovel, but could you please elaborate? I'd like to make sure we're on the same page. ~Awilley (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is a small coterie of editors who think that they own the political articles and like to slap down those who disagree with them. That's why they refused to tell me that they had decided to delete an article I was working really hard on. I don't like maltreatment and being insulted (WP:com) and the like, and generally react in a way that's not very nice. I know that not backing down in an edit war they started sort of broke the rules, but I try to have the best interests of Wikipedia and the political history section at heart. I've been doing lots of updating and except with my feuding with @Melequan and some of his friends, I think I"ve had a really positive impact on the site. I've tried to talk to these people in a calm way but they don't listen.Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oh dear.
- Officer: "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
- Person who was driving 65 in a 25 zone: "Because the world is conspired against me."
- No, what led to the AE Enforcement request was you violating the editing restrictions that were posted at the top of the talk page and in the big edit notice. I want to make sure you understand those restrictions now so we don't find ourselves here again in 2 weeks. ~Awilley (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oh dear.
- No, it was more. like this: Q: why did you punch that guy in the face? A: Because he gratuitously hit me on the back of the head with a beer bottle. If you look at the 2020 Democratic Debates article (which I created BTW)
- Yes.Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@David Johnson reverted a small change I made and said it was because the candidate had just withdrawn, which he hadn't, him having announced his candidacy earlier that day. He hadn't bee invited because he announced too late. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Sunday July 14: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island
| July 14, 2-7pm: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island | |
|---|---|
   You are invited to join us at the "picnic anyone can edit" in the lovely Southpoint Park on Roosevelt Island, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. This year the Wiknic will double as a "Strategy Salon" (more information at Wiknic page), using open space technology to address major questions facing our social movement.
Celebrate our 13th year of wiki-picnics! We hope to see you there! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
| August 28, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. Featuring this month a review of the recent Wikimania 2019 conference in Sweden! We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 17:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC) | |
| Edit-a-thons at Interference Archive and The Met | |
|
Also check out these editing events, before and after our WikiWednesday Salon:
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Saturday Sept 7: Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
| Sept 7, 12:30pm: Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art on the Upper East Side. Together, we'll expand Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion topics for basic clothing types that can be illustrated by the Met collection, and also past Costume Institute exhibitions! It's the last weekend for Camp: Notes on Fashion, and we will have an intro talk to the exhibit by a guest from the Costume Institute, and participants will then be able to visit it on their own. Galleries will be open this evening until 9 pm. With refreshments, and there will be a wiki-cake! Open to everyone at all levels of experience, wiki instructional workshop and one-on-one support will be provided.
Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends, colleagues and students! --Wikimedia New York City Team 19:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Oct 23: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| October 23rd, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 05:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Assuming good faith
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.
This message is specifically in reference to your conduct on Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries and Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. I understand that you are passionate about Wikipedia and want the best. However, in recent days, your attitude toward other editors has been increasingly belligerent. Please refrain from using all caps, excessive bolding, multiple exclamation points, and other things of that nature. Also, please try to be more accepting of established consensus, even when you do not personally agree with it.
Very best regards,
Jacoby531 (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- it's their attitude towards me. They pretty much delete everything I do. There was no consensus, BTW. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Hale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Please use WP:PROSE
Please stop adding lists to Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. It is a really bad writing style and makes for a bad encyclopedia. Use full sentences and paragraphs. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
November 2019
Hello, I'm CentralTime301. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cheers! CentralTime301 17:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019-
Per this, we may need to rename back to Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) from Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020). Please discuss these things BEFORE doing them. X1\ (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- the investigation is over,and is winding down. The McCann thing and two sentances, are all that's left.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- See Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)#how to end this timeline. X1\ (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- the investigation is over,and is winding down. The McCann thing and two sentances, are all that's left.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:39, 15 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 |
Nov 20: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| November 20, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 16:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Disambiguation link notification for November 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1968 Democratic National Convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I'm reviewing your latest article, Impreachment process against Donald Trump, and I'm wondering if you are aware that we already have an existing article on this topic, Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. I'm sure you know of this article, which begs the question: What exactly is the purpose of this article? Additionally, is this new article related to the proposed rename of the "Impeachment inquiry" article over here? Thanks, –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 20:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes indeed I am aware. The article you referenced is about the process from Nancy Pelosi's announcement through the issuance of the report sometime next week. That thing is cooked for the most part and is, in fact, getting a little too long. So what I'm doing is getting a new article ready. This article will focus on what comes starting next week. The House Judiciary Committee has announced that there will be a set of impeachment hearings beginning on December 4th, which is a week from tomorrow. The impeachment report is being written as we type and, according to all the media reporting on what the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee said, will be issued either on Monday or Tuesday. I am getting ready for that and hope that a bunch of other editors will help me make this better and properly prune the other article so it makes sense in a way that isn't too bloated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arglebargle79 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Impreachment process against Donald Trump moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Impreachment process against Donald Trump, duplicates the topic of another page. Mainspace content forks are not permitted, and deliberately introducing a mispelling to create one is disruptive. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. If you gain consensus for your changes through discussion at Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, you can merge the text to that article. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Impreachment process against Donald Trump
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Impreachment process against Donald Trump. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. UnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Republican primary articles
Hi,
I've noticed that you've been bolding Trump in the results section of multiple articles (e.g. here:2020 Arkansas Republican primary, here: 2020 California Republican primary and others). There's a Wikipedia policy called WP:CRYSTAL that might be of interest to you. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've noticed that you've been keeping a notable candidate out of the main primary page wherever possible, even though he's already on 80% of the ballots that have been published. He's been declared a major candidate by Florida's Republican state committee. As to the WP:CRYSTAL thing you've mentioned is not that at all. As a popular (with his party) incumbent it would be WP:CRYSTAL and against the NPV policy to NOT have him bolded. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia
You have just copied significant text from Rocky De La Fuente to his campaign page without attributing the source. This is a no-no per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Please undo your edits and start again, following procedure this time. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
November 2019
Your addition to Rocky De La Fuente 2020 presidential campaign has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
...please note that I didn't DO that and if you stop me from creating this article, which was started by someone else (did you know Wikipedia has no copyright!!!!!!) .Arglebargle79 (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- You DID do that. Wikipedia DOES have copyright. If you will check the notice at the bottom of this very page, you will see that it operates under a share-alike attribution license... which you have not been following. I have pointed you repeatedly to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, which you have chosen to ignore. -Nat Gertler (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
"Playing nice"
I am moving the furthering of this discussion from Talk:Rocky De La Fuente so as not to distract from the relevant discussions going on there.
please show me one instance of a person posting an attribution from one Wikipedia page to another.
You just want one, and not, oh, twelve thousand? And that's just the most-easily-searched method of maintaining a trail of attribution.
I'm on YOUR side
- I am utterly unclear on what side of what you think I am on.
When you request "So let's play nice, okay?
": you are certainly free to stop violating copyrights of myself and others, stop ignoring it when you are pointed to Wikipedia procedure, and stop personally attacking me. If your idea of my playing nice is to ignore when you are violating federal law and Wikipedia procedure so that you can do whatever you feel like, then I turn down your request. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Continuation of campaign talk page discussion
So as not to clutter up the discussion about merging, I am copying here my latest reply to you and will hat that discussion.
- EVERYBODY posts attribution when copying from one article to another. The full notice I use is something like "material copied from Rocky De La Fuente, see that article's history for attribution", but a shorter version is OK. If we forget to say that in the edit summary, we make a second null edit so we can add it. As for your comment here -
Rocky is treated as primarily a joke in the press when he's mentioned at all.
- exactly. He is not being treated as a serious candidate by reliable sources, mostly not even mentioned. There are, according to Ballotpedia,[2] 964 people who have registered to run for president. They aren't all getting a page here about their campaign; not even being on ballots (and otherwise ignored) is enough for an article. Only the ones who are treated seriously by the press are getting an article, per GNG. Yes, you were asked for your opinion on what to do about this campaign page, whether to merge it to his biography article or not. You have given your opinion. That's good. Several others have given their opinion. They will all be taken into account by whoever closes this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed an editor moved your article to Draft:2020 Texas Republican primary as it was unfinished but didn't notify you, so am just notifying you here. You can of course move it back when you're finished. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Impeachment of Donald Trump (December 10)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Impeachment of Donald Trump and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Impeachment of Donald Trump, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
AfC notification: Draft:Impeachment process against Donald Trump has a new comment
Your submission at Articles for creation: Impeachment process against Donald Trump (December 12)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Impeachment process against Donald Trump and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Impeachment process against Donald Trump, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your contributed article, Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Praxidicae (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Dec 18: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| December 18, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 02:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
ITN recognition for Impeachment of Donald Trump
On 19 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Impeachment of Donald Trump, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Nixinova T C 02:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (before July 2016)
Per your !vote here, also see Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Requested move 23 December 2019 along with Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day). Thank you. X1\ (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Second inauguration of Ronald Reagan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capitol Center (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Why do you remove Iowa , New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from the Primary and caucus calendar? Moving them up to other event? I have seen several of your edits being questionable, what are you doing? --Anjoe (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Updating. The Iowa caucus was only 32 days away when I did that, and it's about four weeks away now. On the Republican side, Hawaii is already over, Kansas will have it's State Convention to choose delegates and bind them to Trump in three weeks, and in six weeks the whole article will be totally different, so we might as well get ready. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey.
This ?
You've been here long enough to know why you shouldn't do things like that. Not only is the statement you added completely unsupported by the article you cited, it's inflammatory — perhaps dangerously so. DS (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Burke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of U.S. presidential impeachment
Hello! Your submission of U.S. presidential impeachment at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
check my work please
As you created this page, please check if I populated the Template:Copied correctly. I don't know if "diff" is appropriate, but illustrating the continuity of connection is important. X1\ (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Saturday Jan 25: Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
| Jan 25, 12:30pm: Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for the Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art on the Upper East Side. Together, we'll expand Wikipedia articles on American history and art, and the understanding that all communities bring to American culture, as reflected in the Met collection up until ca. 1900. With refreshments, and there will be a wiki-cake! Open to everyone at all levels of experience, wiki instructional workshop and one-on-one support will be provided.
Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends, colleagues and students! --Wikimedia New York City Team 21:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Disambiguation link notification for February 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited U.S. presidential impeachment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
2020 US presidential election
Would you please respect WP:BRD & stop trying to force your changes into the 2020 United States presidential election article. If you don't change your behaviour, you'll end up blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me sir, could you please read what I wrote? Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Read what I wrote. Take your proposals to the talkpage first. If you don't smarten up, you'll end up blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Feb 19: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| February 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 20:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
2020 Michigan Republican primary moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 2020 Michigan Republican primary, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. buidhe 17:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
February 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Tom Steyer are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Some important improvement I made to the article were removed and my name disparaged. I just replied to the charges leveled against me is all. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Sanders didn't win Iowa caucuses
Sanders didn't win Iowa caucuses, because "Democratic Party is encouraging news outlets to use the state delegate numbers instead of popular vote in Iowa". Buttigieg gathered more SDE than Sanders. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/01/us/politics/iowa-caucus-delegates-winner.html
You wrote: "the numbers are clear. Sanders won". No, popular vote is not relevant. Following your lead, Hillary Clinton should won 2016 elections... Bielsko (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- LInk, please? I don't think I said that in relation to Iowa. In fact, I'm sure I didn't. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Your opinion, new infobox 2020 Israeli legislative election
What is your opinion because you made the infobox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Israeli_legislative_election#new_infobox_with_pictures? Shadow4dark (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
2020 West Virginia Republican presidential primary moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 2020 West Virginia Republican presidential primary, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. buidhe 16:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- this does not help.Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
2020 Tennessee Republican presidential primary moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 2020 Tennessee Republican presidential primary, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. buidhe 16:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- this does not help.Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
2020 Oklahoma Republican presidential primary moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 2020 Oklahoma Republican presidential primary, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. buidhe 16:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
2020 Mississippi Republican presidential primary moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 2020 Mississippi Republican presidential primary, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. buidhe 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
2020 North Carolina Republican primary moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 2020 North Carolina Republican primary, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. buidhe 16:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- this does not help.Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Please don't create articles without sources
It's against WP:V, which is a core content policy. It's much better to create a redirect to another place on Wikipedia where the content is already discussed, in this case 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. buidhe 16:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not really. The constested primaries are notable and require their own pages. It might be nice if you helped both me an wikipedia by putting thses stubs back on the mainspace and added an link from that state's secretary of state's office for a reference. I was going to add the link after lunch, but since you know that getting something out of the draftspace can take weeks, and these results, which come out tomorrow, after all, will thus be unavailable. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Arglebargle79: Buidhe does not seem to be saying that these subjects are not notable, but is simply saying that we can't have articles in the mainspace that are essentially blank. You can work on articles in the draftspace until they are full enough of content to move into the mainspace. Getting something out of the draftspace doesn't necessarily require a discussion. You can move them out of there yourself, but other editors will object to you publishing articles devoid of content or sources. Work on them in the draftspace until they are presentable to readers. — Tartan357 (Talk) 22:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020 Mississippi Republican primary (March 2)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2020 Mississippi Republican primary and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2020 Mississippi Republican primary, 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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020 West Virginia Republican presidential primary (March 2)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2020 West Virginia Republican presidential primary and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2020 West Virginia Republican presidential primary, 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.
| March 18, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 04:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Discretionary Sanctions Notifications
First notice:
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Annual re-up:
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
April 2020
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Cisgender. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This edit and others on that page are not acceptable. Please see WP:NOTFORUM as well EvergreenFir (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
April 22: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| April 22, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! This month, we've invited Esther Jackson of the New York Botanical Garden to join us for an Earth Day focused conversation. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 23:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Sat May 9: Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19
| Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19 (May 9) | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for a Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19, which aims to answer questions the public may have about Wikipedia's coverage of the pandemic. The event includes four speakers, all of whom are active contributors to the topic area on Wikipedia, but bring different perspectives, backgrounds, and interests. The event is free and open to the public, broadcast live on YouTube and Facebook, and questions taken from viewers on these platforms. Abstracts and speaker bios are available on the event page. Saturday May 9, 6:00PM - 8:00PM EST (22:00 - 24:00 UTC) online via YouTube and Facebook | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
May 20: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| May 20, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! This month, we'll focus on WikiProject New York City and our favorite local articles, as well as Wiki Loves Pride past and future. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team 15:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
incomplete Header for Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2020–2021)
I have started the header for Talk:Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2020–2021). It makes sense for you to fill it in since you created the page. X1\ (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Edit warring warning for changing Biden’s photo at 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Tartan357 (Talk) 19:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- YOU were the one edit warring by putting back that fugly picture. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Arglebargle79: That’s not what edit warring means. It’s not about who’s right, it’s about discussing and agreeing on changes before they’re made. You removed a picture that has stood for many months and is a consensus picture. You’ve continued to put it back even after this warning and after other editors have reverted your edits. You need to discuss and gain a consensus to change it. You’re now violating the three revert rule. — Tartan357 (Talk) 17:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- No one else edited it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Arglebargle79: In addition to myself, TDKR Chicago 101 and David O. Johnson reverted your edits. You were reverted six times, twice by me. Here's a full list of the reverts of your edits, including my reverts:
- Please remember to remain civil and assume good faith. I and the other editors informed you that there was a consensus, and you responded with hostile comments in all caps and many exclamation marks in your edit summaries. You also accused an editor of vandalism simply for restoring the picture. I've seen such aggression escalate easily. Luckily, everyone else remained calm this time. Please consider how to remain civil when writing edit summaries, and avoid using inflammatory language, such as "fugly." I'm glad to see you took the issue to the talk page, but you also behaved aggressively there. You stated that "someone tried to put a horrendously ugly picture of Biden" up on the page. Assuming bad faith and attacking others' contributions as malicious won't get you anywhere in a discussion. You also stated that you "had removed the picture and replaced it over a month ago," which is simply untrue. I first reverted your edit on June 12, five days after you changed the picture on June 7. Also, the picture has stood continuously for several months on the main page (2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries), representing a silent consensus in line with a multiple discussions on the main talk page, including this one about portrait standards and this one about Gabbard's photo. Assuming you mean me, "the kid" is not "out of line," and has remained civil and explained his responses thoroughly. I'd appreciate you removing your hostile comment from my talk page, in which you made personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations with unacceptable language. — Tartan357 (Talk) 21:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- No one else edited it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- A "silent" consensus is something that doesn't really exist. If you want to remove that "offensve" post you said I made on your talk page, you can do it yourself. I won't complain.Arglebargle79 (talk)
- Aesthetics is important, and Let's have the best pictures we can have. That objectionable picture ain't it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Arglebargle79: That’s not what edit warring means. It’s not about who’s right, it’s about discussing and agreeing on changes before they’re made. You removed a picture that has stood for many months and is a consensus picture. You’ve continued to put it back even after this warning and after other editors have reverted your edits. You need to discuss and gain a consensus to change it. You’re now violating the three revert rule. — Tartan357 (Talk) 17:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
June 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| June 17, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! This month, we'll check in on the global WikiCup race and have as featured speaker our local champion and frontrunner, who is trying to win it by writing as many new New York City articles as possible, as well as other local and global topics. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 3-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Tartan357 (Talk) 02:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Arglebargle79. As an admin I've been looking over the open reports. Now I have left a proposed closure on the report about you, calling for a block of your account. You may still have time to avoid this. My advice is that you promise to make no more edits regarding Joe Biden pictures until a clear consensus has been reached on a talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this article is under a 1RR restriction as well as discretionary sanctions per this notice. It would probably be better to seek consensus at Talk:Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign#The_Long,_Hot_Summer first. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: The editor has broken their promise not to change Biden’s photo until a clear consensus has been reached. See this revert removing a photo from the same series as the one they objected to before. — Tartan357 (Talk) 20:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I reverted the picture to the one that was agreed to before. The whole thing was cleared up. There's a consensus now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Arglebargle79. See the AN3 complaint closed on 18 June in which you were excused from the edit warring charge under a promise to leave the pictures alone: "Arglebargle79 may be able to avoid a block if they will promise to make no more changes to Biden photos until clear agreement is reached on a talk page." Now on 25 June Arglebarge79 made this edit changing the top picture of Biden in the infobox. I believe this violates Arglebargle79's previous assurance so I intend to proceed with a block. I don't see any talk page consensus for your change. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I didn't make the change. The consensus was on Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention#Biden's image, in the top infobox, as you can see, there WAS consensus. and as to the pages in question (And this isn't one of them), the pictures are still there. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please tell me which editors have expressed support for your image on a talk page. When you made your June 25 edit, your edit summary was Please note, I REVERTED back to the previous picture, which is far superior. If an EDiT WAR starts, I wasn't me. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Arglebargle79: That discussion ended after you made your revert and did not reach a consensus to change to the picture you reverted to. You promised to refrain from changing Biden’s photo without consensus on any page. — Tartan357 (Talk) 00:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Just those two. Besides, there had been several reverts by others. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Those two what? I initially reported you for edit warring across four pages. You quite clearly promised to refrain from making changes to Biden’s photo on any page without clear consensus. — Tartan357 (Talk) 00:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- TWO pages:Candidates and Results. The main election pages and the primaries page were never touched.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I reverted it BACK to the previous picture, which was there about ten minutes before. The people who put the image originally had the support, and @GoodDay had put it there and was approved by @Aricmfergie and @SecretName101. Then it was changed and i put it back. this violated no agreement. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: While not a violation, I just found that Arglebargle79 created this talk page which shows, I think, a lack of respect for the initial AN3 decision. — Tartan357 (Talk) 04:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Those two what? I initially reported you for edit warring across four pages. You quite clearly promised to refrain from making changes to Biden’s photo on any page without clear consensus. — Tartan357 (Talk) 00:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Just those two. Besides, there had been several reverts by others. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Arglebargle79: That discussion ended after you made your revert and did not reach a consensus to change to the picture you reverted to. You promised to refrain from changing Biden’s photo without consensus on any page. — Tartan357 (Talk) 00:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please tell me which editors have expressed support for your image on a talk page. When you made your June 25 edit, your edit summary was Please note, I REVERTED back to the previous picture, which is far superior. If an EDiT WAR starts, I wasn't me. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnson: no it only shows that I loathe the photo. I clearly want Wikipedia to look as good as possible. The purist of reasons.Arglebargle79 (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I didn't make the change. The consensus was on Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention#Biden's image, in the top infobox, as you can see, there WAS consensus. and as to the pages in question (And this isn't one of them), the pictures are still there. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Arglebargle79. See the AN3 complaint closed on 18 June in which you were excused from the edit warring charge under a promise to leave the pictures alone: "Arglebargle79 may be able to avoid a block if they will promise to make no more changes to Biden photos until clear agreement is reached on a talk page." Now on 25 June Arglebarge79 made this edit changing the top picture of Biden in the infobox. I believe this violates Arglebargle79's previous assurance so I intend to proceed with a block. I don't see any talk page consensus for your change. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I reverted the picture to the one that was agreed to before. The whole thing was cleared up. There's a consensus now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Angela Davis
Yes, she was indeed. Sourcing it helps our readers. Thank you for adding the reference, as you should have the first time under a variety of policies starting with BLP. Acroterion (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1948 Democratic National Convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:2020 West Virginia Republican presidential primary, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
2020 Democratic conventon
I'm not certain what it is you're trying to do at the 2020 Democratic National Convention article. But, you're making a mess of it. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: The business end of the convention will take place during the first hour. this is the only part that technically counts and the only reason why this whole thing is here in the first place. You have the two candidates placed into nomination, then there's the roll call, and viola! Biden's the nominee!!! The rest is superfluous. If you wanna help, go to the DNC's website, find the press release and get the rest of the speakers in order. Arglebargle79 (talk)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion (2)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Tartan357 (Talk) 18:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Arglebargle79. Please explain why you shouldn't be blocked per the new complaint at WP:AN3 about warring on Joe Biden's photograph. I wrote on 18 June: Arglebargle79 may be able to avoid a block if they will promise to make no more changes to Biden photos until clear agreement is reached on a talk page. The history shows you making about 15 edits on 18th August on the disputed article, 2020 Democratic National Convention, which may suggest to some people that we have an edit warring emergency. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: A clear agreement was made on the talk page. The picture in question was used afterwards on the page for well over a month and a half. Nobody minded. We had all agreed to the consensus photo. then Tartan, out of nowhere changed the picture. That was vandalism. AS to all my edits today, I have links to the latest press releases. Press releases on the web are not original research. IT's published information. If you're going to after me, you might as well go after User:SecretName101, who has done at least a thousand edits in the past 72 hours and made the article rather ugly. No consensus there either. So what am I to do? Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
You should not have deleted my post at the EW page. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: That was unintentional and I apologize. My stuff was erased and i was trying to put it back.Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Arglebargle79. Please link to the 'clear agreement on the talk page' in favor of the version of the picture that you saved to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston:: Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention#Biden's image, in the top infobox. There was a discussion after you said there had to be a consensus. SO I got oneArglebargle79 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Tartan gave good reason for changing that use of that image. First of all, we never discussed what images to use for the table on the roll call vote, so there was never concensus (just because something remains unchanged for a long time does not grant it consensus). Their argument, which made sense, was that the images in that table should be consistent with those for the primary article. Currently all other candidate's images in that table are consistent with that, bar Biden's. Even Warren, who has a different photo used for her speaking slot elsewhere in the convention article, uses the same image as the primary for that table. To call it vandalism is plain inaccurate. SecretName101 (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- I created both charts. I should be free to use the photos i want within reason. You did. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
There is NO OWNERSHIP on Wikipedia articles. I beleive this is the second time I have had to tell you that regarding this article. SecretName101 (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
This is very clearly specified by Wikipedia:Ownership of content SecretName101 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
And with each image change I made, I usually gave justification. Such as an image being superior quality, more recent, a crop correction, etc. SecretName101 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Arglebargle79, what I'm getting is that there is not a clear consensus in favor of the version of the picture that you prefer. Your claim that "I should be free to use the photos i want within reason" does not contain the words 'clear consensus'. Your situation is different from that of the other editors since you are still working under your agreement to wait for consensus regarding Biden photos. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- I asked for consensus, at least on that page, and I got it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fine, but the same goes with @Tartan357. I gave an explanation for what i was doing the entire time. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- To help you out, putting "@" before a name does not ping someone. You need to use the template {{ping}}. For instance, you were trying to ping Tartan 357, you would need to type, "{{ping|Tartan357}}" which would create @Tartan357:, pinging them. SecretName101 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify, it seemed to me more that @Nojus R: more or less relented to use that image in the infobox oval, rather than anyone agreed with much of a consensus that we should. Both Nojus R and I seemed fine using the image you hate so much. But you strongly objected to it. I was fine using the different image that was similarly recent, but didn't necessarily agree we needed to use it instead of the one you hate. SecretName101 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm curious, though, what I did that "made the article rather ugly." Not that it had any relevance to this issue. SecretName101 (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
when making edits relating to post-1932 American politics, you are under an indefinite WP:1RR per 48 hours, which means that you can only revert once every two days; furthermore, whenever you make a revert, you must discuss the issue on the article's talk page, unless it's a blatant case of vandalism or a clear-cut WP:BLP violation.
You have been sanctioned in the light of the evidence provided in this report at WP:ANEW.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Salvio 20:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Arglebargle, as I have said on WP:AN and on my talk page, I have clarified the scope of the sanction, pointing out that it only applies to edits relating to post-1932 American politics. Salvio 09:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Strongly suggest you withdraw and reword your appeal
As I said at AN, whatever the merits of the Biden photo, it's clear from even a quick look at the issue that there is no vandalism involved. I strongly suggest you re-read WP:Vandalism since false accusations of vandalism are something a number of us strongly dislike. Please remember that many bad edits are not vandalism, indeed some of the worst edits aren't vandalism. By making such a false accusations in your appeal, you've seriously damaged your credibility, so people are likely to find it hard to trust anything else you've said. You've also made a personal attack in your appeal. You really should at a minimum withdraw and re-word your appeal to avoid making false accusations of vandalism. Frankly it may be too late by now, it may be better to withdraw and wait a few weeks or even months before you make a new appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC) @Nil Einne: It kind of was. I'm the one being punished for what he did to me.Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- No one forced you to make a false accusation of vandalism. You did that all on your own. It does not matter what anyone else did to you, it does not excuse false accusations. The changes to the picture were clearly good faith edits trying to improve Wikipedia. You may disagree whether they improve Wikipedia, that's part and parcel of editing here, disagreeing with other editors on whether edits are actually an improvement. However you should not accuse someone one of trying to intentionally damage Wikipedia (i.e. vandalism) unless you have very good evidence that's the case and you can't have such evidence here since it's clear from the discussions that a number of edits genuinely feel the image you oppose are better than those you support. Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- There was no false.accusations. It was deliberate malice on his part.Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne:: From the article stating the rules on the subject: "Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place."
A perfect example of this sort of thing is deliberately replacing certain pictures with ones All knew were objectionable to a certain party (me). The changing of the picture was admitted by Tartan, and yeah, doing that sort of thing is a form vandalism. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
No one needs to admit they changed the picture, well unless they used socks to do it. That's an absurd thing to say. We can see it in the edit logs.
As I said at ANI, I don't really give a flying flip about your objections to the picture and frankly I think few of us do. You've provided no real policy backed reasons for your objection instead about nonsensical claims about how bad that image is when even many supporters of Biden do not see any problem. Worse, you've continued to make ridiculous claims like calling it vandalism when it's clearly not. As long as you make such silly claims, no one is likely to listen or care what you say. If you want people to actually listen to what you're saying, please take a time to actually read and understand our policies and guidelines and then properly articulate the problems based on our policies and guidelines. Don't just keep randomly bringing up vandalism when the stuff you're complaining about isn't vandalism.
To be clear, if Tartan is changing images just to annoy you, that is indeed a serious problem. But you've provided zero evidence for this. The only thing you keep telling us is that you hate them, but as I said, that isn't evidence. Nor is Tartan being aware you hate them evidence they are changing them to annoy you.
Just to emphasise once again, please stop with the silly vandalism accusation. If you make such a silly accusation again, I will not reply to you further and my only likely involvement with you will be to support a block or cban if it ever comes up. I'm sick and tired of you continually calling stuff vandalism when it isn't along with all your other accusations which seem to be unsupported.
September 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Timeline of protests against Donald Trump. — Tartan357 (Talk) 22:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Tartan357: what the hell are you talkimg.about? What unpublished information?.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your claim that the George Floyd protests and related protests against police brutality are protests against Donald Trump. You did not cite any sources for that claim. — Tartan357 (Talk) 22:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- You have been warned about this repeatedly, most recently regarding the nonsense you added to 2021 United States presidential inauguration. It's getting quite tiresome. — Tartan357 (Talk) 22:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- The "nonsense" all had references and was relevant. The other article just. had links. How is that origianal research? Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- The nonsense at the inauguration page was filled with WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP violations. You implied that various people and groups would reject the election results. As for the article I just warned you about, look at all the other entries. They have citations. You introduced an extremely controversial claim by adding George Floyd protests to the list. You cannot just assume that those protests are about Trump. Their article does not indicate that. — Tartan357 (Talk) 23:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, I never said that they were ONLY about Trump. Obviousy they weren't. But they deserved to be listed as anti-Trump, and there were signs and chanting about him as well as Floyd and a bunch of other things. That wasn't original reaserch. As to the other thing, Trump said that he might not accept the results if he lost a "rigged" election, and so have many of his supporters...and I had links to all of them. As to being warned about that article. The first time I heard about it was from you just now...why did you love that awful picture of Biden so much? I really want to know. There was no consensus about it and the other was far superior. It seems that you have been stalking me ever since. Why did you make the change knowing it would trigger me? At the beginning, what the hell did I do to you?Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Articles cannot rely on other articles to support them. While sometimes people may make changes without directly adding references, especially when an article is poorly cited in the first place (I actually did this a few days ago), it's a practice that should generally be avoided. And once someone has objected, the WP:ONUS is on you to provide the references. You cannot simply say the references are in the other articles. You need to bring the references into the article you are trying to introduce the information. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- The "nonsense" all had references and was relevant. The other article just. had links. How is that origianal research? Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Notice of ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Tartan357 (Talk) 23:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- may have been involved?Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
"Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place."
A perfect example of this sort of thing is deliberately replacing pictures with ones All knew were objectionable to a certain party (me)
- You really need to provide evidence for these claims or stop making them. IMO you're coming very close to a indefinite block. Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Handling disputes
Having looked into this a bit more, I have some very minor sympathy for you although not much given your persistent accusations of vandalism and other claims which seem lacking in evidence. Anyway I made this point at ANI and wanted to bring it here to it isn't lost. Part of the problem seems to be your lack of precision and accuracy in your statements. For example, you claimed your were sanctioned in June. AFAICT this never happened. You escaped with a final warning after promising to only change the image if there was consensus. Maybe the difference doesn't matter to you, but it matters to many of us.
But another and more important example. You've twice now linked to the unarchived version of Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1#Biden's image, in the top infobox. But there is nothing close to a consensus, not even an agreement in that discussion at least as they relate to your concerns and preferences.
In this discussion Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1#Biden's photo, the only people involved seem to just accept your suggestion. But it's a separate discussion and you cannot assume linking to the first discussion will lead people to the second discussion. When you link to the first discussion, people have no idea why you claim there is agreement or consensus when they see nothing.
For the second discussion, although there is some agreement it's so weak I wouldn't call it a real consensus, especially when it comes to trying to justify your position, and especially in an edit war. Also in so much as there is agreement, it really should only be taken for that one particular location i.e. the image. Anywhere else e.g. a chart is a different kettle of fish, especially other pages since there were concurrent discussions Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Biden's photo. To be fair, there doesn't seem to be consensus to use any other image either, so it's bit of a crap shoot and first contributor's choice may be as good as anything. Frankly I think the reason those discussions are so poorly attended is because no one cares as all the images seem fine.
And coming to my key point. If instead of edit warring on the DNC page, you had opened a new talk page discussion, pointed to that previous discussion with the very weak agreement to use your preferred image, and I mean the right one, the Biden's photo one not the earlier discussion; and importantly not accused anyone of vandalism or trying to trigger you, the photos may have been returned to your preferred image because of that weak agreement and the lack of any real reason to change the image in the chart you created. Because you handled this so poorly e.g. edit warring after a final warning, combined with edit warring in other situations and other concerns, the result isn't surprising.
What I'm trying to say is if you would handle disputes better you'd have a far better chance of success. This means opening discussions on article talk pages rather than reverting straight away, even more so when you've agreed to stop. Clearly and precisely articulating you reasons and not making incorrect or misleading claims, this includes linking to the correct discussion. And especially not accusing people of trying to trigger you or vandalism or any of that crap without very good evidence. (And that sort of stuff doesn't generally belong in article talk pages anyway.)
Nil Einne (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Appeal declined
Please see the closure of the arbitration enforcement appeal, which you filed at WP:AN. The original sanction, imposed in August by User:Salvio giuliano, remains in effect indefinitely:
When making edits relating to post-1932 American politics, you are under an indefinite WP:1RR per 48 hours, which means that you can only revert once every two days; furthermore, whenever you make a revert, you must discuss the issue on the article's talk page, unless it's a blatant case of vandalism or a clear-cut WP:BLP violation.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Notice of community-authorised general sanctions regarding COVID-19
| This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
--OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I forgot to add the reference at six in the morning. Sorry. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
October 21: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| October 21, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! In honor of Wikidata's 8th birthday earlier this month, we especially encourage lightning talks related to Wikidata and Wikidata adjacent projects and tools. We'll also discuss the recent proposal to change the Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws, including the Statement of Opposition from Wikimedia NYC.
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia 2
Can you explain what you meant when you said in your edit summary "this is a draft, so i can do this..."
What you did is copy without attribution material from another article, specifically, Presidential_transition_of_Donald_Trump
That's not acceptable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick:: You will notice that significant changes were made almost immediately, and this is a DRAFT. Some boilerplate is necessary to start things off. If you wish to help make the article presentable should the former vice president actually Win, I would be most appreciative. This is, of course, a DRAFT, which means while some of it is attributed, it's all pretty much WP:Crystal and will disappear if the former Vice President legitimately loses.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Arglebargle79, Actually I did not notice that substantial changes were made immediately but that's not relevant to the issue. I did notice that it's a draft which is also not relevant to the issue. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is a guideline, one with legal ramifications which means it can't be summarily ignored. Your first edit included information written by others and must be attributed. Please do so, or let me know what you do not see how to follow the instructions at the guideline (ideally attribution is done at the time of the added but the guideline talks about how to add the attribution after the fact.) S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Arglebargle79, FWIW, I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that you need to be crossed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick:: the damn thing won't work...I put the proper attribution(copied content from Presidential transition of Donald Trump; see that page's history for attribution ) in the thing and nothing happens.
Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Arglebargle79, I'll fix it, thanks for trying. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Arglebargle79,
Done (It isn't very obvious.) S Philbrick(Talk) 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Thank you!!!!Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Draft:Presidential transition of Joe Biden. "Biden will be formally elected by the Electoral College on December 14, 2020"? Really? Even coming from you, this drivel is shockingly absurd. Keep it up and you'll earn yourself a WP:TBAN. Wikipedia content policies still apply in draftspace. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 21:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ping:Tartan357 you mean a DRAFT? if it were up on the mainspace, you might have a point, but as we all know, it's not. If Trump or Biden wins a clear and decisive victory, it all goes down. you object to everything i do. jeez!!Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, I keep hoping that you'll learn to stop being so disruptive because you have dedicated a lot of time to the project. Despite universal rejection of your crystal ball edits, though, you eventually come back around to trying to add them, even with the same text that had previously been rejected. I have a hard time understanding why you're so impervious to feedback. Such is the nature of conspiracy theories, I suppose. If you want to continue to write about "conspiracy theories and worst-case scenarios" I will no longer try to stop you; I've given you enough warnings by now. If you persist, other editors will push back and you will likely find yourself under more sanctions. I truly hope you'll be able to avoid that outcome. I'll disengage now. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 07:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- The election is on Tuesday. We will know if I'm right or not on Thursday. IF Biden has a clear, unequivocal victory on Wednesday, I will totally thrilled to delete the stuff on the worst-case scenarios as there would be no reason for them anymore. The same in the unlikely event that Trump wins in that way. However, I doubt it. we will see...Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, I keep hoping that you'll learn to stop being so disruptive because you have dedicated a lot of time to the project. Despite universal rejection of your crystal ball edits, though, you eventually come back around to trying to add them, even with the same text that had previously been rejected. I have a hard time understanding why you're so impervious to feedback. Such is the nature of conspiracy theories, I suppose. If you want to continue to write about "conspiracy theories and worst-case scenarios" I will no longer try to stop you; I've given you enough warnings by now. If you persist, other editors will push back and you will likely find yourself under more sanctions. I truly hope you'll be able to avoid that outcome. I'll disengage now. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 07:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
You must not editorialize to the point of violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, as you did here. None of the sources you linked support the claim that this is a SLAPP suit. Your edit summary - speculating that "riots could result" - is also your own opinion, not supported by your own sources, and seems to serve no purpose other than fearmongering. Please stick to the facts as reported by reliable sources. ST47 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ST47: So change it to something that you find more acceptable. Anyone can edit wikipedia. It wasn't me who editorialized, it was my sources. Hanen's reputation is well known. That the hearing is scheduled for tomorrow is a verified fact. That the case is about nullifying 120+ THOUSAND early votes is also a verified fact. Do you really think that if Hanen throws out that many votes, people will take that lying down? Plans for massive protests are zinging all over the internet. If he throws it out, we can change it. If you want to change it now, please do. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- The term SLAPP suit was not used in any of your sources, and that statement that it "will start riots" (used in an edit summary and on a talk page comment) is not in any of your sources. We add things to mainspace after they happen and are reported, not on the basis of our own speculation. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, if they follow content policies such as WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. ST47 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I got the term "SLAPP" from a couple of lawyer friends of mine. I said that it COULD (not WILL) start riots to explain why I put it there. The suit is so outrageous that if successful...well...we'll see tomorrow.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ST47: So change it to something that you find more acceptable. Anyone can edit wikipedia. It wasn't me who editorialized, it was my sources. Hanen's reputation is well known. That the hearing is scheduled for tomorrow is a verified fact. That the case is about nullifying 120+ THOUSAND early votes is also a verified fact. Do you really think that if Hanen throws out that many votes, people will take that lying down? Plans for massive protests are zinging all over the internet. If he throws it out, we can change it. If you want to change it now, please do. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
November 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at 2020 United States presidential election in New Hampshire, you may be blocked from editing. Come on. Don't add election results without citing any sources. You've been here long enough to know that sources must be cited on Wikipedia per WP:V. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 12:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination
On 6 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the date of Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination – September 26, 2020 – was the nearest to a presidential election in U.S. history? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination), 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, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Biden has won the election!
You're now free to contribute to Presidential transition of Joe Biden, which somebody else created. The draft material can be added as long as it's all cited in reliable sources. I do think that there has been a lot of news about risks, like if Trump refuses to step down, etc but please look for news articles that describe this.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Cut and paste moves
Please in the future avoid edits like this one. It makes it very difficult to attribute the history of the article properly (i.e. is a WP:Cut and paste move). Given the size of the one article was 1700 kb, you should have asked an administrator or a page mover to perform a round-robin move. --Izno (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Bare URLs as references
Please stop just putting bare URLs in <ref> tags. That is not a proper way to cite your sources. It leads to WP:LINKROT. Use the citation templates available in the edit window. I'm sick of seeing other editors have to clean up the mess you create because you don't bother to fill in the details of your references. You've been here long enough that you should be able to properly create a reference like the rest of us do. This is a basic editing skill. Specifically, I'm responding to your recent edits at Jo Jorgensen in which you dumped bare URLs in <ref> tags. Please go back to that page and actually fill in the reference information using a template. ― Tartan357 Talk 12:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- then why have the tool then? Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Arglebargle79, what tool? You mean the citation templates? That's what I'm telling you to use. ― Tartan357 Talk 12:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you mean. There's a tool in the edit window to insert <ref></ref> tags. That's for people who want to fill out their refs manually. You seem to have mistakenly assumed that you can just put a URL in there and be done. At the top of the edit window, click "Cite" and then "Templates" to get the complete citation tool. This is in line with WP:CITECONSENSUS. Does that clear things up? ― Tartan357 Talk 12:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sure.
- Great, thanks. Also check out WP:CS:EMBED: "Raw links are not recommended in lieu of properly written out citations, even if placed between ref tags". ― Tartan357 Talk 12:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Here's an example of another editor filling out your refs; I thought it might be helpful: [3]. ― Tartan357 Talk 12:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sure.
- then why have the tool then? Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
October 18: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC (plus weekend editathons)
| October 18, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! This month we've invited the creators of instagram accounts @depthsofwikipedia and @wikipediapictures to chat with us about their Wiki* appreciation accounts. If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or responding to this message.
Editathons this coming Saturday You are also invited to join thse two editathon on Saturday November 21:
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump tweet
Heads up – Trump just tweeted about your latest edit to Matthew W. Brann. It has since been reverted and restored with better wording, but I thought you should know. – bradv🍁 05:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bradv: Cool!!!!!...Better wording is never objectionable to me, thanks for the heads up!Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:23, 22 November 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 |
December 16: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| December 16, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! This month will include a discussion of the sixth annual Community Wishlist Survey, an opportunity for editors and other community members to submit proposals for fixes and features you'd like the Wikimedia Foundation's tech team to address. As always, it's the agenda anyone can edit, so please feel free to add any projects you'd like to share.
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Electoral Count Act have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. I have reverted this edit. I see no support for the assertion in the source cited, and your characterization of such certificates as "counterfeit " is both inaccurate WP:POV.Template:Z186 Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Even worse POV edits have been made by you on Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. This is deeply concerning behaviour. I urge you to not make any edits that are likely to be reverted for neutrality purposes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Letting you know I asked for an admin to take a look at your comment on the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
This and this are beyond the pale for discussing living persons. Please turn your rhetoric way, way, way down, or you are likely to end up with a topic ban from modern American politics. —valereee (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The question was, did she do it and was it appropriate?Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Arglebargle79. For goodness sake STOP, just STOP :( GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, @GoodDay:, Did the GSA Administrator refuse to sign the asertainment papers for two weeks and delay the cooperation between Biden transition and the administration? Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Did she or not? I'm serious. That's the question.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)