User talk:PamD
| This is PamD's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
|
Please click "New section" or "Add" above to leave any new message, and please sign your message (just type ~~~~).
If you leave a message here, I will reply here, to make discussions easier to read. If you really want me to reply elsewhere, tell me a very good reason why I should do so.
If you reply to a message here, please indent (start the line with ":") and sign your message.
If you are discussing any particular page, please provide a link to it - it makes life easier for me and anyone else seeing this page.
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Welcome to the drive!
[edit]Welcome, welcome, welcome PamD! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.
I am just expanding and improving the article Murugan in order to make it a good article on Wikipedia by removing the redirect and typos in it and adding good and accurate content there but you are reverting my good faith edits always. I am telling you to not revert them for this reason and let me improve and expand that article. 2409:40F4:2B:E3F7:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- @2409:40F4:2B:E3F7:8000:0:0:0 You seem to be creating a second article about Kartikeya. Where a deity has multiple names, Wikipedia redirects all but one name to a single article. If you are writing about a different topic called "Murugan", you need to make this clear in the lead sentence. PamD 05:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- However, there is no draft in Wikipedia named Draft:Murugan for me to edit and improve into a good article through. You can make the article Murugan to be a draft now and i will edit and improve that to an acceptable state and then you make it an article. 120.56.171.3 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- So, i will edit and improve that Murugan article now itself by myself and improve it into a good article and release it into the mainspace. 120.56.171.3 (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @120.56.171.3 You can register as an editor and create Draft:Murugan yourself. Remember that every statement needs a reliable independent published source. PamD 17:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The article List of marginal seats before the 2024 United Kingdom general election has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
See the notability concerns below and the discussion of the recent move request, particularly the fact that the term 'marginal' is not well defined in this context in the UK, and the contention that, if the word 'target' is used instead, that every seat would required a reference.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Time userbox
[edit]Your time userbox is showing the wrong TZ. I haven't investigated this as I never edit other people's user pages on principle, but you may want to look at it when you have a moment. Ef80 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's now showing the correct time. No idea what's going on. --Ef80 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there's something odd about it - if you come across a better time userbox anywhere, do let me know! Thanks. PamD 17:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2024
[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
a barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
Women in Red Translation Contest |
| Thank you for your additions July 2024 --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 14 August 2024
[edit]- In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse
- In focus: Twitter marks the spot
- News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded
- Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?
- Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing
- Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird
- Humour: I'm proud to be a template
Note for Talk Page Watchers: this is about edits to Lizzi Collinge and Louise Pryor.
Hi PamD. LinkedIn is not ok. It is non-rs and you keep using as though it is a valid secondary source. Its not. It a social media site and anything written by the person himself is WP:PRIMARY. scope_creepTalk 08:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It should never be used in any WP:BLP in any instance. It a really poor choice to construct an article. scope_creepTalk 08:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Scope creep The chain of links from WP:PRIMARY led me to WP:SELFPUB, which I read as allowing use of the subject's own LinkedIn page for simple hard facts like studies and previous employment, though it would not be used to establish notability. PamD 11:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- To be more precise: WP:ABOUTSELF. PamD 11:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your rationalising it. I don't understand why those folk, wikipedia editor states such nonsense as though its valid. It shows a level of earnestness, ignorance and to a certain extent innocence that is not reflected in reality. Folk lie through their teeth all the time, particularly on social media sites. Their whole psychology is bent out of shape and that alters their perception leading them down paths in any other situation wouldn't happen. That is a known fact. Not a single line text is valid source. Even about a month and a half, two months ago there was a report in the times about folk on LinkedIn using AI to jack up their profiles. It so predominant and so widespread the site doesn't know what to do about it. I would sincerely like you not to use it. All its doing is adding work that needs to fixed later by somebody else, damaging the article in the short term and lowering the quality of the article in the present. If this was a new editor I would have moved that article to draft. It is a really poor choice. scope_creepTalk
- @Scope creep: I don't know what you mean by "rationalising". I am following the policy set out at WP:ABOUTSELF. I do not believe that it damages the quality of an article about an MP or a highly-regarded actuary, to WP:AGF and use their own LinkedIn page for checkable statements about their academic degrees and past employment. People in positions like that have too much to lose to consider "jacking up their profiles". We're not talking about some wannabe startup entrepreneur who might be tempted to inflate their profile. PamD 14:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your comment above, is what rationalising means. I'm not talking about some entrepreneur. The evidence is clear is day on this, even with people in power and if you looked, you'd find it. It happens all the time, and you can't mame an objective decision based on it, because you don't who is lying and who is not, until they are discovered (that is the real source, because its secondary). The whole thing is entirely subjective. Its the human condition, yet your rationalising it, that its somehow ok because the policy says so, even when its written by people who don't have a clue about it and honestly don't care. Using social media in this manner is one the biggest burden on Wikipedia editors time, to clean these article up. scope_creepTalk 15:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not continue to "clean up" my policy-based edits. You have your opinions, but WP:ABOUTSELF is policy. Removing content without policy-based reason is disruptive editing. PamD 15:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your comment above, is what rationalising means. I'm not talking about some entrepreneur. The evidence is clear is day on this, even with people in power and if you looked, you'd find it. It happens all the time, and you can't mame an objective decision based on it, because you don't who is lying and who is not, until they are discovered (that is the real source, because its secondary). The whole thing is entirely subjective. Its the human condition, yet your rationalising it, that its somehow ok because the policy says so, even when its written by people who don't have a clue about it and honestly don't care. Using social media in this manner is one the biggest burden on Wikipedia editors time, to clean these article up. scope_creepTalk 15:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: I don't know what you mean by "rationalising". I am following the policy set out at WP:ABOUTSELF. I do not believe that it damages the quality of an article about an MP or a highly-regarded actuary, to WP:AGF and use their own LinkedIn page for checkable statements about their academic degrees and past employment. People in positions like that have too much to lose to consider "jacking up their profiles". We're not talking about some wannabe startup entrepreneur who might be tempted to inflate their profile. PamD 14:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your rationalising it. I don't understand why those folk, wikipedia editor states such nonsense as though its valid. It shows a level of earnestness, ignorance and to a certain extent innocence that is not reflected in reality. Folk lie through their teeth all the time, particularly on social media sites. Their whole psychology is bent out of shape and that alters their perception leading them down paths in any other situation wouldn't happen. That is a known fact. Not a single line text is valid source. Even about a month and a half, two months ago there was a report in the times about folk on LinkedIn using AI to jack up their profiles. It so predominant and so widespread the site doesn't know what to do about it. I would sincerely like you not to use it. All its doing is adding work that needs to fixed later by somebody else, damaging the article in the short term and lowering the quality of the article in the present. If this was a new editor I would have moved that article to draft. It is a really poor choice. scope_creepTalk
- To be more precise: WP:ABOUTSELF. PamD 11:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Scope creep The chain of links from WP:PRIMARY led me to WP:SELFPUB, which I read as allowing use of the subject's own LinkedIn page for simple hard facts like studies and previous employment, though it would not be used to establish notability. PamD 11:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It should never be used in any WP:BLP in any instance. It a really poor choice to construct an article. scope_creepTalk 08:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| I was reading an article from quora which says Senior Wikipedia editors are unwelcoming and hateful which you proved wrong. Thanks you very much for going extra mile to edit and adjust the pages I created and for your constructive comments on how to continue on Wikipedia. Much love!!!Amistkilo (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you @Amistkilo: I try to be helpful. (But please don't forget to fix that second sentence of Scott Zeron which doesn't yet make sense!) PamD 13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I will fix it. Thanks you! Amistkilo (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)