User talk:The Banner
- 1 The Signpost: 24 November 2017
- 2 Not useful
- 3 Women chefs with Michelin stars
- 4 Please comment on Talk:Energy East
- 5 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 6 Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
- 7 Promo-campaign
- 8 Please comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate
- 9 Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin
The Signpost: 24 November 2017
- News and notes: Cons, cons, cons
- Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely
- Technology report: Searching and surveying
- Interview: A featured article centurion
- WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects
- In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution
- Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate
- Featured content: We will remember them
- Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text
- Block evasion, FFA P-16. A block is requested. 17:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Women chefs with Michelin stars
Heya, I was wondering if I could get some advice. I'm thinking of creating a list of female chefs who have held Michelin stars (I've been doing quite a few of them over the last month as part of the Women in Red contest). I know for example that there are relatively few with three (Anne Sophie Pic was only the fourth for example, and in certain areas I've seen the first women in regions to have won one (i.e. Titti Qvarnström was the first Nordic woman to hold any stars). The difficult part I imagine will be working out the French women who held one and two stars during most of the 20th century. Bit I figure that'll get worked out after we get started. The more immediate issue is that I can't work out what to name the article. Would "List of Michelin starred female chefs" or "List of Michelin starred women chefs" be right, rather than "List of Women who held Michelin stars"? What do you think? Miyagawa (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've started putting something together in my sandbox here: User:Miyagawa/sandbox. Right now I'm mostly putting in those chefs with stars from the Women chefs category. I've also got a vague idea for some sort of symbol key to show if certain chefs were the first of their nationality, the first in their edition of the guide, and also if they inherited the stars from the previous chef or earned them on their own. I may also switch back to showing 1, 2 and 3 stars for each with a year for each achieved rather than just showing the highest number of stars per chef. Miyagawa (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- (Sorry, was busy) The chosen title seems okay to me. I would suggest the addition of a few Dutch chefs: Maartje Boudeling (2 stars before retirement) and Margo Reuten (2 stars). Female chefs without own article: Ida Kleijnen (Lindenhorst), Anita Boerenkamp (Spandershoeve), Tineke Nieuwenhuizen (De Vergulde Wagen). Other chefs I like to suggest are Kei Pilz and Danni Barry. 12:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Energy East
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, this is Skyelyrics. I appreciate the work you've done for Wikipedia, but would like to ask whether you have truly read all my contributions to Victoria Junior College. Undoing them completely does not solve the problem. I have added many useful citations which were missing originally, and updated the list of notable alumni, for example. This helps users who want to know more updated information about the college. I am not intending to promote the college, and have no reason to. You on the other hand, with no knowledge whatsoever of the school, are not even taking the time to filter which contributions may be promotional and which are not, and are simply hindering efforts to update information. Skyelyrics (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- You make it loud and clear that you have a Conflict of Interest. And I am indeed hindering your effort to turn the article in an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on independent sources, not an advertising medium. 16:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Reply to: December 2017
I assumed good faith at first, until you completely reverted an entire edit twice in a short period of time. That to me is considered edit warring. The administrator seems to think so, since he approved the page protection. Right now, you don't think it's edit-warring, only because you think you are right in doing so. I quote Wikipedia: "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." I don't shy away from the fact that I was participating in the edit warring too. It takes two hands to clap.
- I'm an extremely busy person who is not gaining anything from editing this page, so I had no time to examine each edit I'd made to see what could be improved.
- Besides, you did not tell me which specific edits were considered promotional etc until yesterday, so I had no way of knowing which parts could be done better.
- Now that you've actually bothered to tell me, I'll consider each change carefully when I actually have time to edit the page again, and I'll list the changes on the talk page.
- I have removed your advertising twice, one month apart. That is by no means an edit war.
- And if you consider each edit carefully, please also consider the rules and regulations, like WP:COI and WP:RS. The school website is by no means an independent source. And yes, I considered WP:AGF but when you replaced all the advertising without any independent source, it was clear that you wehere here yto promote the school. 16:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Reply to: Managing a conflict of interest
- I'm sorry, but if COI is defined as "external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about", then just to clarify, I have no external relationship with the organisation. It is not my organisation and I have no relationship with it. I have graduated some time back and you could say there used to be a relationship, but now there is no more relationship. You may call it a grey area, but it is not immediately justifiable as a conflict of interest.
- Again, I have no motivation to edit the page, and will receive no monetary compensation from this, and I will declare this on the talk page. I only edited because I saw that the page was extremely outdated, and noticed that there was a banner saying that the article lacked sources.
- Information was also skewed, for e.g. under "Performing Arts", only the choir and chorale were mentioned. So, I added information about two other co-curricular activities.
- Yes, I know the sources I cited were substandard. However, that's an improvement from NO sources at all. I have no choice in some cases, because there is a limited amount of information on the net. The edits you reverted to had no citations for the statements made. Do you prefer that to having at least some social media sources stated? At least, until better sources can be found. Furthermore, I never ever cited the school website, which is http://www.vjc.moe.edu.sg/ for your information. [Edit: my bad, it's http://victoriajc.moe.edu.sg/] Skyelyrics (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Many previous edits were made by students or ex-students, if you've read the talk page. So, are you going to undo all those edits too? I know it doesn't sit well with you, but not all Wiki pages are the same and you can't use the same lenses to view every problem. It's a small school in a small country, so the number of people who understand it enough to edit the page are few and far between. Please address INDIVIDUAL CHANGES rather than the PERSON editing the page.
- Example: I added notable alumni like Jasmine Sim, who has her own Wikipedia page. (I admit there's a problem with lack of citation, but I have one from a news website which I can insert.) Is it promotional to add this piece of information? Nope, it just lets people find out this information more easily, and they may come to the inference that many school alumni went into the arts scene. On its own, it is an objective and verifiable fact. So, why did you revert the edit?
Can you see why I am doubtful that you actually bothered to read the edits?
If you were to revert individual edits, I would be happy for you to let me know why you did so on the article's talk page, so I can improve the wording or the citations. But indiscriminately reverting is not the way to go.
Lastly, I sure hope Wikipedia pays you, because I really can't imagine spending so much time on a thankless job editing pages I know nothing about and have no interest in. Skyelyrics (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- You sound like a marketeer who got a hammering of the boss. 16:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)