User talk:Dnllnd/Archive 1

Luella Creighton

None of the things that you raised are important things for an encyclopedia to highlight about her. For instance, her husband and daughter are named in the article primarily because they're also notable people who have their own separate encyclopedia articles to link to — but we don't care about the names of any other relatives (father, mother, other kids, etc.) who don't have articles, and aren't named in any reliable source coverage about her in media. We don't care about her views on poetry unless they've been published somewhere. We don't really care about what her signature looked like. And on and so forth. It's adding stuff that might be interesting on a Luella Creighton fan site if one existed, but none of that is information that's important or relevant or useful for an encyclopedia article to concern itself with.

Normally, the external links section of an article should only contain the closest thing available to an "official website" for the topic — it's not meant for the creation of a comprehensive directory of every document you can find on the web that happens to have any connection to her at all. Individual pieces of private correspondence aren't suitable external links just because they happen to be available in an archive somewhere — if her private correspondence had been published in book form as some writers' letters sometimes are, then mentioning the title and ISBN number of that book would be appropriate, but it's not relevant to an encyclopedia article if it's just unpublished private correspondence. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piet Oudolf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High Line. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Helen Lucas has been accepted

Helen Lucas, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Mduvekot (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stelco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles S. Wilcox. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alexandra Chreiteh has been accepted

Alexandra Chreiteh, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

—Anne Delong (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Bryce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Pleasant, Ontario. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	for your improvements to Marian Engel. I was planning on improving her article, and it is great to see you getting there first! :) The Interior (Talk) 02:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Interior: That's so nice - thank you :) This page has been on my radar for a while so I'm glad to hear someone else has their eye on improving it!

Ways to improve Naomi Jackson Groves

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Dnllnd, thanks for creating Naomi Jackson Groves!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for your contribution!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Mduvekot (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dnllnd. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Account creator granted

After reviewing your request for the "accountcreator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:

The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]] if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 22:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added for special event, for throttle override only purposes, do not override blacklist or spoof list; subject to removal after your event. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Event listing

Hello, thanks for creating this page! I hope this event goes well. Just a recommendation - when you create an event like this, it's best to add it to the calendar template and A&F template. This allows people to find and track it, and also will likely increase the likelihood of remote support from experienced contributors who can correct mistakes on pages created and give feedback to new contributors. Hope this is helpful to you, let me know if any thoughts or questions. Blythwood (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood:Thanks for the suggestion! Should I be adding the event to the template pages manually or is there a template tag I should be adding to the event page..? --Dnllnd (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bit primitive, I'm afraid - you edit those pages I've linked you to manually. Blythwood (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017 at Women in Red

If you enjoyed participating in the recent Art+Feminism event, you'll want to check this out...

Welcome to Women in Red's Women's History Month worldwide online editathons,
ongoing through March 31, 2017.

"Role Models"

"Art+Feminism"

"The Women You Have Never Met"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Confusion about the TRC

@Dnllnd: I thought we might settle this issue here, since a couple pages are effected by a misreading of this passage. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada did not confirm findings of "Physical Genocide" or "Biological Genicide" nor have they claimed that they have. I understand how you would misread the passage--there's been a formatting error in the reference PDF. Here is the passage.

"The establishment and operation of residential schools were a central element of this policy, which can best be described as 'cultural genocide.'

Physical genocide is the mass killing of the members of a targeted group, and biological genocide is the destruction of the group’s reproductive capacity. Cultural genocide is the destruction of those structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group. States that engage in cultural genocide set out to destroy the political and social institutions of the targeted group. Land is seized, and populations are forcibly transferred and their movement is restricted. Languages are banned. Spiritual leaders are persecuted, spiritual practices are forbidden, and objects of spiritual value are confiscated and destroyed. And, most significantly to the issue at hand, families are disrupted to prevent the transmission of cultural values and identity from one generation to the next.

In its dealing with Aboriginal people, Canada did all these things"

It seems that this page is missing a carriage return. There is supposed to be a line break after "...continue as a group." The later phrase "Canada did all these things" refers back to the list of things that would be considered examples of "cultural genocide." The preceding paragraph "Physical genocide ... as a group" is intended to give the reader a feel for the difference between cultural genocide and other forms of genocide. These types, defined by Lemkin as physical and biological genocide, were the forms adopted by international law and what is the consensus view on what genocide is. This paragraph effectively says, we aren't saying this is genocide according to the concensus view of what that entails. The report itself contains no evidence that would confirm "physical genocide" or "reproductive genocide." No discussions about the report talk about "physical genocide" or "reproductive genocide." Here is a site that somehow has managed to publish a version of the report with the right paragraphing: http://www.lynngehl.com/black-face-blogging/the-trc-on-physical-biological-and-cultural-genocide . Here is a Washington Post article, splitting the concepts up as I've indicated here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/05/did-canada-commit-a-cultural-genocide/ . And there are dozens of articles that interpret the report in precisely the same way.

Is this sufficient evidence to settle the matter? JamesStanley (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]