|This is Dillard421's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Dillard421.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8|
Wiki Loves Pride 2016
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
- Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
- Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
- Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.
This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.
New deal for page patrollers
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Thanks Dillard421, yes it was a mistake. I would like to make the add more information to the page but in the process i erred. my apologies. Thanks for restoring it, i was still figuring out how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMasembe (talk • contribs) 09:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you much once again. I had a chat with Coach Micho and he gave me his biography to improve his page, he was concerned that it says too little about him, despite a career spanning so many years. I will definitely seek your guidance while I try my best to make it better. Thanks for the cookies, your guidance and your support. --TMasembe (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for working together as a team to make the English Wikipedia better! I think its really awesome when new users want to learn and improve the articles. Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 09:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi! On the Cryonics Society page, it was not a test or error. I felt that the terminology there didn't meet the impartial standard I assume Wikipedia aspires to. Especially the use of words like "suspension" or "patient". We are referring to the bodies of deceased people. They are not suspended, they are, sadly, dead, and clearly not patients either. It is the hope of some that some future technology might be found to revive the dead, but to use the word "suspension" is to accept and take for granted that they will be brought back to life. I am not going to devote my time to editing, or reediting such mistakes (as I see them). But I hope that neutral words can be found, rather than words that seem to promote a cause. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable, i have reverted my edit back to your revision. Thanks, by the way, for your constructive edits. You should consider creating an account. I'll put details on your talk page. Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 17:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Martial Law in the Philippines
Hey Dillard421, I apologize if my edits may seem like vandalism. I am aware that there must the neutrality on how the information in the articles are presented. I removed the said sentence regarding this Primitivo Mijares since the contributor seem to imply that this Mijares was the one who started the allegations referred in the article. However, after reading the two cited books, I seem to have not noticed any information that pins Mijares as the sole source of this allegations. I hope that you can understand my justifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lammarck (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Appologies for that! In my experience, when an editor adds the word "alleged," its often vandalism. The Wikipedia Manual of Style has some guidelines on the use of this word. Please see WP:ALLEGED for more informaton. Here is an excerpt of that article for your convenience:
Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.