User talk:John Cummings/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:John Cummings. 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Women in Red March 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This Month in GLAM: February 2023
| ||||||
Women in Red May 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This Month in GLAM: April 2023
| ||||||
Women in Red - June 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This Month in GLAM: May 2023
| ||||||
Women in Red July 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The article FarmBot has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article appears to be promotional in nature. Would require a full rewrite to become encyclopedic.
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.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on Zeiss ZX1
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Zeiss ZX1, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: June 2023
| ||||||
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
|
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Ecocide and Rome Statute
Hi, (sorry, I hope that I can just add a topic like that and did not mess up anything) I saw that you added a section on Ecocide in the Rome Statute. I saw that there was also a discussion about Ecocide on the Rome Statute Talk side. I have looked through the reports and other documents of the ILC and never found "Ecocide" Mentioned. I understand that it refers to draft article 26 "Wilful and Severe Damage to the Environment" in the Draft Code of Crimes from 1991.
You said that it was "publicly supported by 19 countries in the Legal Committee." Does this refer to the International Law Commission or to the UN 6th Committee? I have not found those 19 supportive statements in my research. I found statements from 15 countries from 1993 in a document prepared by Christian Tomuschat for the ILC in 1996 (Document on crimes against the environment, prepared by Mr. Christian Tomuschat, member of the Commission, Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:-1996,vol. II(1), ILC(XLVIII)/DC/CRD.3 [1]. Most of those had constructive edits, but I was wondering where you found those 19 countries (I did not see that in the sources), since it could also help my research.
Thanks! @MaTDBa User talk:MaTDBa MaTDBa (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This Month in GLAM: July 2023
| ||||||
September 2023 at Women in Red
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This Month in GLAM: August 2023
| ||||||
Women in Red October 2023
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Widely described as an ecocide
hi, there: you re-added this as "text removed without explanation" in a recent edit. I am fairly certain the edit summary said "it really isn't". Ok, that's not a talk page post, but it didn't seem important enough for that. In the section the sentence presumably was intended to summarize, there were indeed multiple references for ecological damage, only one of which used the word 'ecocude' as I recall. So it isn't *widely* described as an ecocide and Wikipedia should not be making stuff up. I don't question the scale of the ecological damage, mind you, merely the use of the word. So several things can happen here. If you feel strongly that this word should be in the lede, you could find some sources that use it and add them to the section. If you feel that the ecological damage itself isn't well covered, ditto. I am going to let your change sit for a few days, then change it back if you do not respond. To be clear, I am in favor of expanding the section and summarizing it in the lede; I just don't see the word as 'widely' used. Elinruby (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Elinruby thanks very mch for your message, I've added some more refs to back up the claim, there are now 10 refs which directly describe the damage as ecocide in the title of the ref. I'm a little worried that the refs might get removed for being too many now, one thing I've seen in the article is someone has combined the refs into one number (see the ref directly after 'The Ukrainian government, international observers and journalists have described the damage as ecocide.' as an example). I'll ask on the talk page if someone can combine them for me so they're a bit more manageable. I'll also keep an eye out for more info on the environmental damage and add to that section. Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- probably too many but that's ok, we can pick out the best ones. So you understand that my objection was about the use of the word, right? The sources about the damage that don't use the word are good for expanding the section, if we want to do that. The other problem is that you introduce the word in the lede, where it is usual not to cite. But anyway, I left you instructions in the other section but free to ask any questions. Elinruby (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- hey, I looked for the batch of references, are they all in a comment somewhere? Just checking back to see if you understood the steps for those combined references. Also, I wanted to make sure you understand that the references should go in the environmental impact section, then get summarized in the lede based on importance. Anyway, let me know if you run into problems. Elinruby (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- probably too many but that's ok, we can pick out the best ones. So you understand that my objection was about the use of the word, right? The sources about the damage that don't use the word are good for expanding the section, if we want to do that. The other problem is that you introduce the word in the lede, where it is usual not to cite. But anyway, I left you instructions in the other section but free to ask any questions. Elinruby (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2023
| ||||||
Women in Red - November 2023
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This Month in GLAM: October 2023
| ||||||
Women in Red December 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)