User talk:Jericho347

Welcome!

Hello, Jericho347! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ciscogate has been accepted

Ciscogate, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrea M. Matwyshyn (May 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CommanderWaterford were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Does unfortunately not pass WP:NACADEMIC

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Andrea M. Matwyshyn 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:Andrea M. Matwyshyn, 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jericho347! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Andrea M. Matwyshyn has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Andrea M. Matwyshyn. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrea M. Matwyshyn has been accepted

Andrea M. Matwyshyn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Chrome month of publication

Hi. I have every reason to believe that that Amazon page is wrong and the first publication of Burning Chrome was in April 1986, not October, but rather than argue about the reliability of sources I have to ask, why do you want to put the month in the lead paragraph? This is not at all common. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging into that book and several others, trying to better flesh out 'cyberpunk history'. I saw conflicting dates but the few times I saw April, I didn't feel they were as reliable as the ones that said October. It's also trickier since it was a story and a collection of stories and even searches forcing the year, e.g. "1986" still return mixed results. My only motivation is trying to get the history (especially dates) a bit more specific than years. Jericho347 (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm primarily using isfdb, which in my experience is extremely reliable. That Amazon reference is suspect because it refers to an Ace release in October 1986, and all the other sources agree that the Ace release was in October 1987. The one published in 1986 was Arbor House. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, will have to dig into isfdb more. Can we put some indication that the month of the release is disputed? At the time of release, obviously not, but 35 years later kind of fascinating. The one thing I keep running into is even when I find a month, definitively, they all seem to default to "the 1st" of the month. I'm sure that is a publishing thing where they print that date, not when it hits shelves etc. I was tempted to buy some older / original copies of this book (and several others) in hopes it would give me a concrete data I could use. Jericho347 (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess I could live with disputed.

BTW, support for my "other sources agree that the Ace release was in 1987" claim above: [1][2]. Though they don't say October. I don't remember where I saw that besides isfdb. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given it much thought, but I think you're probably right about the 1st of the month being a publishing convention. Isfdb seems to use the "0th". Dan Bloch (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can pretty much guarantee, that the 1st being listed among many sources that you and I both trust, and distrust, is accurate. it is the single most common thing I see... YEAR-MO-01 way too often. And this came up in a project trying to document cyberpunk history, where of course, books are the dominant source. I think a way of disputing publication, and citing 2+ sources that would generally be accepted, is kind of neat too. It calls out the problem with citation, with publishers, and general issue of trying to lock down more precise dates. I've been using Wikipedia since it started, my account is old, but didn't really start contributing until recently. So i defer to you for the best way to document and represent that. Jericho347 (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were going to update this, but I gather you're waiting for input from me. My strong preference is still to remove the month. A publication month (or date) is quite uncommon in articles about books in Wikipedia. A cyberpunk timeline would certainly be neat, but this one date in isolation doesn't serve that purpose.

And I did some more searching, and I'm sure the Amazon date is wrong. Amazon says, "Publisher: Ace; Revised edition (October 1, 1986)", but the copyright page in the Ace edition says, "Ace October, 1987". So Amazon got the year wrong.

I could live with saying "April" based on the isfdb citation (which is for the Arbor House publication, not Ace), but I don't think including both sources with a note is reasonable any more. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right if this one page is in isolation. I wish every book had at least month of publication, not just date. Recent entries for books have exact date because it is better documented (e.g. Freedom™) so having more precise dates is definitely a thing when available. That is why I thought if we could find a way to list both and how it was disputed would be neat. That said, if you still feel just revert and remove completely, I will do that. If you like that idea about showing disputed dates (in any fashion), I can come up with ideas for that. Thanks! Jericho347 (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the October date and put the April date in the infobox. Hopefully this works for you and we can call it a day. Note that even if the October date were right, the April date precedes it. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! I wasn't married to October at all! I just want more and more accurate data is all. I really appreciate you taking the time to chat about the best solution here. Jericho347 (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on CrowdStrike

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page CrowdStrike, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on CrowdStrike

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page CrowdStrike, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]