User talk:TravelinSista

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, TravelinSista, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Bassg☢☢nist T C 18:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern California Golf Association[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Northern California Golf Association, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ncga.org/about_ncga. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008[edit]

Thank you for your continued efforts to contribute to the Wikicalendar articles, but your edit to March 2 has been reverted. Listing events that occur every year is counterproductive. Please have a look at WP:DOY. The Wikicalander is not an indiscriminate list of everything that ever occurred on a given date. Thanks. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider talking about things before you just go and do whatever you want, as you have continued to do at March 4. Your future edits of this sort will be considered vandalism. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to February 26. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008[edit]

Hi, I see you're adding Academy Award listings into various "year" articles, such as 1961. When the list is available in the linked article, it doesn't need to be in the "summary" article, so please stop and back out your edits where you can. Otherwise I'll go through and clean it up. I do have to thank you though, because of looking at your edits, I've found some "year" articles that were messed up even before you touched them, so I can now clean them up too.

Anyway, please stop adding unnecessary details and thanks! Franamax (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is some question there, and I've asked for a more experienced opinion. What I would say right now is that the Nobel prizes don't get awarded every year no matter what, but the Academy Awards do, not matter how crappy the films were that year. Put another way, the Nobel's are reserved only for people who have been proved notable for their contributions to the world, as opposed to being the best available to give a prize to this year. I'm not sure that makes sense, and if you were to ask for the Nobel Prize section to be taken out, I would talk about that and maybe agree with you, depending on how the discussion goes. Anyway, think about it, if the Academy's go in, then we pretty much have to add in every single award ever given, then the year articles will no longer just show the most significant and outstanding events of that year, right?

I've asked for another opinion to clarify, I'm pretty sure the Academy Award winners will have to come out, since they can be found with one more mouse click (just to let you know). I'll take your point about the Nobels', but remember we can't use reasons to make the wiki worse, just to make it better. Regards! Franamax (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're talking HAH about Nobels, off the top of my head I'd say Lise Meitner got mucked-about because of the three-awardee limit combined with being a woman, Rosalind Franklin lost out what with needing to be alive when they make the award, and IIRC Charles Best got screwed over by politics and Frederick Banting in his speech said he would share the prize with him no matter what. Those are the possible wrongs of history, but really, does any Academy Award winner hold a candle to what any of those people did, did all that with no photographer flashing, with no breathless reporter writing, did it just because they had such a need to know things?

I'll admit my bias here, the Nobel winners IMO are the people who should be in the year-articles, if anyone should be there. Not the best screenwriter that year, not the members of the team that won the Stanley Cup (hmm tho', hockey players, eh?:), not the Golden Globes. If you want though, I would mostly support you in a discussion to remove the Nobel winners also, I wouldn't feel good about it, but I would try to support you on principle.

In any case, what do you think about taking back out the AA winners (which I realize you did a lot of work to put in)? If they go in, then everything in the world can go in as well, then the articles will get wrecked. Can we take out that stuff, and I'll try to help out on something else you care about, to make up for all your lost work? Franamax (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there[edit]

Thanks for your message. There are so many people really trying to help out here, and you are one of them. I really HATE to say when someone has done a lot of work that it was all wrong, it feels wrong to even say that. But thanks for agreeing, that's not easy.

If you're looking for projects, read this, then take a look at Torres Strait Islands - they are definitely an archipelago, so they should be in the Category:Archipelagoes. I haven't had time yet to figure out how to add it properly - which article should have the category? Also, I'm still trying to figure out if this edit was right or not.

There's also List of classical pianists and any of the lists in Pianist - they shouldn't have so many redlinks, they should either have articles or not be there. Also, going through and alphabetizing and cleaning up lists of people like I did here and here. It's usually best to say on the talk page first that you want to clean it up, then wait a few days to see if anyone objects.

If you want to try something really hard, look through the topics that interest you, or hit random article, and when you see "citation needed" - try to find a good reference to put in there. Beware! that's really hard, it takes me at least 1/2 hour per <ref> tag I can add.

None of those suggestions are really fun, they're all slow and hard things we have to do to make a great encyclopedia for everyone in the world to come and read. Now let me ask you this - what things are you interested in? Maybe I can find you some other weird thing to work on - there's lots to do! Cheers! Franamax (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]