Nomination of Cummins Allison for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cummins Allison until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
A Scause for Applause
Hi, and a belated welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unsourced personal observations or speculation on pop cultural references to articles, as you did with these edits to A Scause for Applause, as this violates Wikipedia's policies of Verifiability, No Original Research, and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. With regard to material about the content of fiction that is evaluative, analytical or interpretive, the source must be a secondary source, and it must explicitly mention the information in relation to the work in question. Relying instead on personal observation or interpretation is original research, and using sources to form original conclusions not explicitly in those sources is synthesis, which is a form of original research. In addition, trivial information that is not salient or relevant enough to be incorporated into the major sections of an article should not be included, as per WP:TRIVIA. If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Fixing Your Userpage
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.