User:DaneGeld/Archive
Your thread has been archived
[edit]
|
Hi DaneGeld! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Disambiguation link notification for June 29
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kinderling Kids Radio, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alexa and Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | 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 |
Sambo merge
[edit]Just letting you know that you're missing a few steps with the Sambo (racial term) merge you've just proposed. A few things: the template goes on the article page (not the talk page), you should put a template on both articles (so, your missing the merge from), you've suggested a merge to a page that doesn't exist (its a redirect), you haven't dated the proposal (and the dating bots don't check the talk pages), and you haven't started a discussion. For a guide to merging, see WP:MERGEPROP. Klbrain (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Klbrain: - Many thanks for dropping by and giving me some advice on that! I welcome your assistance, and have made what I hope to be, the necessary corrections to the placement of the templates and the addition of a discussion on the correct page. I initially added it to Racial slur because when you look at the Coon disambiguation page, the definition of the slur links the user to Racial slur, which subsequently forwards to List of ethnic slurs. That's the bit I'd missed. I thought Racial slur WAS the target page :) Please feel free to drop by with anymore help if I need it, I don't contribute to enwp so much, so there's bits I'm not entirely sure about. This was one of them! With thanks, Dane|Geld 22:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Mother Angelica
[edit]Hi there. I'm letting you know that I removed the GA nomination you placed on Mother Angelica for a couple of reasons. First, although anyone may nominate an article for GA status, it is generally recommended that the nominator be someone who has actively worked on the article. Second and more importantly, one of the automatic failures for GA nominations is if the article has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid.
Last month, there was a cleanup banner (a fairly important one, saying that a section on calls for canonization has no references) placed on one section. Please do not be discouraged; if anything, take it as a sign to start work on improving the article to get it to GA status. — GhostRiver 18:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @GhostRiver:, thanks for the message. It appears that section was added by a user who is already on warning about adding poorly sourced and unsourced material to articles. I've left a message on the user's TP asking them to provide sources (I've not been able to find any whatsoever). I've also told them that if they don't provide sources, I'll seek to remove the edit from the article. Thanks for getting in touch. Dane|Geld
Our Lady Immaculate and St Etheldreda's Church, Newmarket moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Our Lady Immaculate and St Etheldreda's Church, Newmarket, is not suitable 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. Bruxton (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: Do you always jump on new articles so quickly? I was in the middle of editing that with a load of information which would have brought it to the standard you required, when you R2'd it and shifted it into my draftspace, leaving me with an edit conflict and the risk of overwriting you. You know what? I won't bother. Give people a chance before you smack their work. Dane|Geld 17:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)