User talk:EllenMcGill

EllenMcGill, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi EllenMcGill! 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 experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Larry! EllenMcGill (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connections

Are you connected in any way with other accounts that have been use to edit this article recently?Lesbianadvocate (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for reaching out. No, I'm not. To be honest, looking at the state the article's in, I don't feel like the accounts that wrote it so far have been doing a very complete job, and I'm hoping to fix some problems that they created. There may be exceptions to Wikipedia's rules that I'm not aware of, but everything I've looked at so far says that information that goes into an article is supposed to be sourced and neutral. For example, why is the history section taken entirely from a famous Democratic activist when so many nonpartisan sources exist? (The Democratic opinion belongs there in some form, but why is it the only one?) Why are you (or others) restoring information that doesn't have a source, and deleting obviously valid citations like the Washington Post?

If I'm just misunderstanding these rules, please let me know, but it seems pretty straightforward. (I was looking at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, but let me know if this is the wrong place). Maybe we could talk on the talk page in the future instead of just changing each other back and forth every day without explanation? EllenMcGill (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Council for Capital Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Steiger. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks EllenMcGill for all of your help with reporting LA. I really do appreciate it. Around the time that I had my dispute with LA on Kyle McCarter, as you obviously know by now, she made some edits on John Shimkus that removed potentially harmful material. At the time, I didn't revert any of her edits on the article because they didn't seem to violate any of Wikipedia's editing guidelines. However, after all that has happened in the last few days, I am not so sure. Would it be alright if you, or any other editor, just quickly review LA's edits on Shimkus's article? I don't mean to be a pain or anything, but I'm not confident enough to make a decision for that article. Thanks for all your help! --1990'sguy (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1990'sguy, I can take a quick look. I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia policies as you, probably, but my suggestion would be that anything LA or another FP1 sockpuppet wrote should come out as prima facie POV-pushing. Do you know how a case like this usually works? Should we put notices at the different talk pages noting that a PR firm tampered with them? -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for responding so late. This is the first time I have experienced anything like this myself, so I cannot say if there are any rules on what to do in cases like these. But I do appreciate your reverting of LA's edits, as well as your subsequent work uncovering potential sockpuppets. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for your efforts to expose WP:COI editors, and for thoughtfully engaging with me on the matter. You inspired me to go down the rabbit hole of looking for COI editors. If I find anything else interesting I'll post to the SPI page. Look forward to working with you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CS, and thank you again for being so patient with my haphazard attempts to investigate.

It's a weird thing to say, but it sounds like if at all possible we shouldn't post at the SPI any more, even if additional evidence is found. I don't know if you've been following today, but it appears that the case is being rejected for the very reason that there's too many editors interested in discussing it. Wikipedia is a tricky place! -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, EllenMcGill. 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)[reply]