User talk:Bcm1

Welcome!

Hello, Bcm1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Reference Errors on 1 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Joram Mariga page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bcm1, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Bcm1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing of sources

Hi there!

I've just reviewed the page John Groeber, which you created. Thanks for contributing it to Wikipedia! I'd never heard of him before, and I feel like I've learned something today. :)

One thing I noticed while I was reviewing the article is that many sentences and pieces of the article were very close paraphrases of the sources -- either using sentence fragments exactly with some of your own words around them, or replacing one or two words from the sentence, or splicing two sentences together and rephrasing a few words. (At least, I found a few instances of that sort of thing from the sources I could consult directly, and my "gut instinct" for a few others says there's probably a few I couldn't catch -- there are a few sentences that 'sound' different than the others, as though they're someone else's words and not your own.) Copying and close paraphrasing of sources is against Wikipedia policy. Even if you rewrite a sentence so it's not using the exact same words as the source, it's still usually too close to the source for Wikipedia to use it.

I noticed that most of those close paraphrases were scholars' critical reaction and analysis of Groeber's work. If you think that a particular passage is important enough to include it -- and I agree that critical reaction and analysis of Groeber's architectural work is probably important enough to include some of it -- you can quote small bits of it exactly, being careful to put the quote in quotation marks and cite the quote to the source you're quoting from. The best thing to do, though, is to find reliable sources that talk about the impact Groeber's work has had, or analyze it, and then summarize those analyses and cite them to the source.

--rahaeli (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks Rahaeli, I was just trying to get a viable page started because there is a lot of interest in Groeber in certain parts of the world. Over time the wiki will evolve I am sure.[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Samuel Mutendi (July 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Samuel Mutendi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Samuel Mutendi has been accepted

Samuel Mutendi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bcm1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]