User talk:Phoebe13

Hello, Phoebe13, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding D. T. Suzuki

Hi Phoebe13, I added more info on my comments regarding Kapleau's view about Suzuki on Suzuki's discussion page. Sorry I took so long to read your questions about that. The edition of the pillars I used was the 35th Anniversary Edition. Cheers --Zen Mind (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- I am not sure what would the best way be to add Kapleau's alternate comment without creating confusion with the comment already there. Do you have any suggestions? --Zen Mind (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wendell Berry

Hello. I have reverted your recent edits to the Wendell Berry article because the information you provided was unreferenced. I assume you have a source for the information, so please add the source to the article. If you need any help, please do not hesitate to ask me. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. My suggestion is to put the reference in, as best you know how, and then I will go in and correct any errors. As to your question, everything should be referenced. I know that this is often not easy, but we must strive to make it so. Please ask if you have any questions. I am glad to help. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs are always helpful, and, where possible, should be listed for all titles. On Wikipedia, though, all you have to do is add the number and it will be "live" as soon as you save it. If you click on one of the ISBNs already present, you will see it connects to a very helpful link to WorldCat. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the reference (all it needed was for the title to be italicized), and I linked the academy. In order to link to another article, all you have to do is put brackets [[ and ]] on either side of the word or phrase you want to link. If there is anything else I can do to help, just let me know. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Black advance

A tag has been placed on Black advance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ziggy Saw dust 19:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Oppo dump

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Oppo dump, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions in the Philip Perry article

Hi Phoebe13. I was going to wait for a week before making the deletions that you made, but it is perfectly fine that you did it right away instead. In fact, immediate deletions are the correct way to go, as per Wikipedia policy, and I had been questioning myself in retrospect as to whether I really should be waiting a week. So, in the end I'm glad you went ahead right away :-)

If you would like to make any more changes (deletions or otherwise) please go ahead and do so. For my part, I'll wait for a few more days, then read the newly revised article and make any edits I feel might be necessary (hopefully my last batch of edits to the article!).

Regarding the style of references and the wikitext to implement it, I did feel the citation templates to be kinda overwhelming at first, but once I used the templates for two or three references I got the hang of using them right away. I definitely recommend their use for the sake of style and uniformity, and if I can be of any help please do let me know.
- idunno271828 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Barry_hannah.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barry_hannah.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gary Maloney for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gary Maloney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Maloney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Quinn ^➳WINDY 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perception management

I removed the "Health" section from perception management because it seems to fail every content policy we've got. It's unsourced or poorly sourced (failing WP:V); it's mostly an essay expounding on editors' personal points of view (failing WP:NOR); and it doesn't adequately convey a balanced picture of the topic (failing WP:NPOV). You've restored the section (albeit shortening it), but haven't addressed any of those concerns as best I can tell. Do you think the section meets this site's content policies?

As a secondary issue, I'm pretty sure that naturalnews.com is not what this site has in mind as a reliable source. At least, it certainly shouldn't be used to present opinionated beliefs as if they're fact. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from User talk:MastCell) Thanks for your comments and insights on the "perception management" page. The additions of the past few days are a university class assignment; students only get credit if their posts go unchallenged and undeleted. So we will be addressing your concerns in class. Students are on holiday for a week; we will be back a week from now to start cleaning up this Wiki. Thanks again, and feel free to talk to us, or me about the various issues. There will be a few more new posts that you may wish to take a look at. --Phoebe13 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think we cross-posted at the same time... I hadn't seen your note until I posted the above. Anyhow, there's no deadline so I'm happy to wait for your class to work on it further. But if that's the case, why did you restore the material? If you recognize that it's problematic and you're saying that it won't be improved until a week from now, why put it back in the encyclopedia?

(And as a secondary question: that seems like a strange way to apportion credit. Some of my best edits to this site haven't survived, for various reasons. I'm not a professional educator, but perhaps students should receive credit for finding good sources or doing other constructive work? It seems a bit arbitrary to base their grade on whether other anonymous editors take issue with their additions. But that's just my 2 cents.)

MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC) I didn't restore it; I thought you did! It's a lesson in using vetted and acceptable source and NPOV. Thanks to you, students can see that sourcing is not my personal neurosis, but a kind of tribal thing. Addendum: At any rate, I removed it just now, parked it on the discussion page. Thanks again.--Phoebe13 (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC) --Phoebe13 (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition research

I see that you aren't really active at this time, but I'm curious what you were planning to do with the article opposition research, which has an unusual format and unconventional approach to our standard article layout. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Phoebe13. 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]