User talk:EPadmirateur/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:EPadmirateur. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Copy and paste from WP:AfC makes things difficult
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Thomas E. Mathews Community School a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. I have asked an administrator to merge the history of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas E. Matthews Community School into Thomas E. Mathews Community School. No further action is needed on your part with regard to this particular copy-and-paste.
In any case, since the article was rejected at AfC, it is your responsibility to quickly add enough material to the article that it will survive any attempt to nominate it for deletion. In particular, you will need to update the article so it uses reliable sources to clearly show it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, particularly those for organizations and companies.
One of the secondary reasons that AfC exists is to allow an article to mature to the point where it won't even face a nomination for deletion before it "graduates" to the "main" encyclopedia (the primary reason is of course to have a place where non-registered and newly-registered users can "create" articles). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. You said here regarding the information that I provided in the AfC, that
this is exactly the kind of thing the article needs to have to prevent a deletion nomination. It's getting late and I don't have time to incorporate your references into the article in an encyclopedic way, but I hope you or another editor can do so then accept the revised draft and move it into the main encyclopedia.
- So I incorporated the references and did what you suggested and moved it into the main encyclopedia. Your comment suggested that these additional references would prevent deletion nomination. Apparently you don't think so now.
- In addition, the original AfC article was named incorrectly because the school is called T. E. Mathews Community School -- Mathews with one 't' as I also pointed out here.
- I'm not invested in this article so you can nominate it for deletion if you'd like. Sorry for not following the process exactly. I was just trying to follow your suggestions and help. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Thank you both for your efforts regarding the proposed TE Mathews School page. I apologize for the misspelled title. When I noticed it, it was too late to go back and fix it and this has clearly caused problems. It is fine with me if the school gets listed in the Yuba County page but I am not sure how to include any useful or unique information about the school without it seeming off-topic or too detailed when other schools in the district don't get such treatment. I thought the page would be noteworthy for two reasons: 1) there are attempts to link to it elsewhere, but no page existed. 2) it has had peer-reviewed papers published on its outcomes, has been featured in a book and also in at least one popular media piece. Any advice or suggestions on how to improve the page are welcomed or I could just leave this one in the dustbin and move on. Thanks. Jellypear (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- EPadmirateur and Jellypear: Thank you for the improvements. The copy-and-paste vs. a move creates technical problems which have since been fixed by administrator User:Anthony Appleyard. The "right" way would be to make the changes that were made after the article was copied but make them to the declined submission, then re-submit it. It's not uncommon for articles that are submitted to be declined and improved 2, 3, or more times before they are "ready" for the main encyclopedia. Either way, thanks to your work and especially User:Jellypear's work, we now have an article that can likely withstand a nomination for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for removing the reflist I accidentally left in the middle of the Waldorf article. Not my finest moment as an editor. Glad you caught it. M.boli (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The article Dennis Klocek has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Dennis Klocek – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Template Anthroposophy series
Please see the current discussion on this page: Template talk:Anthroposophy series#List_of_anthroposophists HGilbert (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
Hello, I'm Shibbolethink. Your recent edit to the page Waldorf educaiton appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. please stop neutering that article, the sources linked are very clear, yet you keep removing them. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit War
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
- I guess that was you, Shibbolethink? --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 05:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Waldorf education is covered by discretionary sanctions
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Waldorf education, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.The recent dispute came to my attention due to a 3RR complaint. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Caroline Evers-Swindell
A tag has been placed on Caroline Evers-Swindell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JustBerry (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, EPadmirateur. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:
Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
- 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
- 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)