User talk:PrairieKid/Archive 20
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:PrairieKid. 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Pending changes
Hi PrairieKid, whilst I admire your zeal in keeping the backlog down, it might be worth slowing down slightly. From the reviews that you did a few minutes ago you missed Special:Diff/876128546, which is clear vandalism. Best wishes, and happy new year, Wham2001 (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:Wham2001, oh what a clear mistake! I appreciate you watching my back. The pending changes keeps getting back logged, which leads to me often reviewing ~15+ edits at once; unfortunately, that has led to me jumping the gun on approvals. I will be more careful. Cheers! PrairieKid (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!
Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
2020 presidential election gallery
Hey, are you going to make a gallery for the Democratic candidates that expressed interest in running for president? Prcc27 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: Well, I was hoping for a bit more discussion/consensus. But seeing as how no one has replied I will put it together. PrairieKid (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tony Evers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Governor & Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin
Howdy. FWIW, the new governor & lieutenant governor doesn't take office until Noon (Wisconsin time), today. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: Hello. I understand that I jumped the gun by a few hours; typically, that has not been an issue in the past. Getting the timing done exactly right requires and editor who is available at that moment who remembers to make the change. I have edited swearing ins in 2013, 2015 and now 2019. That has always been the standard. But I appreciate you being on top of the time. I just do not know if it was worth the fuss.
- Further, I was honestly very frustrated to sign in and find that you had reverted all of my edits from last night. Rather than the 2 or 3 somewhat minor changes to reflect their not being sworn in, you deleted over 1,000 additional bytes of content. Anticipating a lot of traffic to the article with Evers' swearing in, I put in a good deal of effort editing his page (or, at least, the introduction). Now, like all of us, I do this because I enjoy it but also because I think this important--I think you can imagine the frustration at having it undone. Please, please be more careful with reversions of others work going into the future. I know it was done in good faith and just a mistake on your part. I think I was infamous a few years ago for the number of quickly made edits I made that needed to be changed or reverted, so I really do understand. But the exercise of some hesitancy and caution would be appreciated. Cheers! PrairieKid (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Accuracy is best. It's all moot now, as Evers & Barnes are now in office. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: Eh, I do not know if it is moot. This was an issue of practice, not an issue of content if that makes sense. And I was at least hoping for an acknowledgement of the discussion on practice over a dismissal. I hope I do not come across as angry or overly upset (text, especially when you're as long-winded as I am, can do that). But I do think we need to be careful as editors not to step on one another's toes. PrairieKid (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Best way, is to remember in when next inaugurations come up, we wait until Noon time in the aforementioned states time zone. New York is the lone exception, as their term begins at mid-night (EST). GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- PS: On a lighter side. We'll only need to contend with 3 states, in December 2019/January 2020 :) GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: I understand the rule on swearing in time. I was referring to the removal of content. That was the source of like 90% of my original frustration and I just wanted some acknowledgement of that. PrairieKid (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Best way to avoid that, is not to jump the gun. Using 'hiding info' symbols, helps. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh boy. I am not talking about the information regarding his being Governor or not. I am talking about the 2 1/2 other paragraphs I also added to his introduction, filling it out. Maybe you did not notice you did that. It really was not a big deal to me. But it was frustrating and I wanted some acknowledgement. This far in our conversation, it seems I am just not going to get that. I think I will move on and learn to love again. PrairieKid (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry about that. I'm going to go with your suggestion & just let the changes be made to the governors & lieutenant governors articles, irregardless of if they're a few hours too early. It really is too much hassle to keep them accurate to the minute. Also, the 1RR rule for post-1932 American political articles, limits what I can do in that department. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia Editathon: The Visibility Project - Saturday, January 19
Make+Think+Code and the Pacific Northwest College of Art are hosting a Wikipedia editathon at the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, January 19 from 10am to 2:30pm. The purpose of the event is to make Wikipedia a more vibrant, representative, inclusive and diverse resource. Please visit Wikipedia:Meetup/MakeThinkCode/TheVisibilityProject for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Wish
Hello. Help improve and copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Tauthanhhuyen34 (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
A couple of things
1- Paid obituaries fail WP:RS. Don't use them for people's accomplishments in life. 2- Make sure a reference confirms the sentence. I just removed IC in three articles because they did not corroborate the sentence they came after. Partial/incomplete don't say a person was elected to office. Final election results do....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Howdy--so, I have a few notes as well. For one, just a reminder of WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. I have relatively thick skin but I think you're going to really upset people if you refer to their contributions as "bullshit," leading to a poor working relationship and (worse) them being discouraged from making further contributions to Wikipedia. I was honestly surprised you used such language referring to my edits.
- Second, I would remind you of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. I think it was a bit of quick oversight when using an obit. Honest mistake and I wish you had treated it as such.
- Third, I don't know why you felt the need to follow me around. You edited half a dozen articles after I did. It's hard to believe that's a coincidence. I feel like you personally sought me and my edits out, which also feels borderline WP:NPA.
- Finally, the election articles were certainly both shakey but I do not think they were worth removing entirely. I have found better sources for both. I wish you had kept the old sources and tried yourself to contribute new ones or, at least, tagged the article rather than removing a source.
- All in all, I just ask that you work on your civility. We are all in this together trying to grow the Wikipedia. I think starting from a place of mutual respect, common purpose and civil discourse is the most productive and enjoyable path to follow. Cheers! PrairieKid (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- A one sentence article with an just one IC that doesn't corroborate the sentence is ridiculous editing and you should know better. I've seen too much of this bs around here. Just a few examples= Here[1], here[2], here[3], and this doozy[4]. How would you feel reading about that if you were the pilot's family. It was here at WP for 3 years.
- And you reinsert a false reference back into an article. If that isn't bullshit and stupidity, I don't know what is. Do it again, I will report you at WP:ANI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- To reiterate, my bigger issue with what you were doing was not content but civility. Referring to another editor as "stupid" and their edits as "bullshit" goes against almost everything this website stands for. Frankly, that dialogue has no place here. Please, calm down and resume civil discussion from a place of respect.
- Further, while I appreciate you being on top of IC in various places around Wiki, those other edits are not my own and therefore I ask that we stick with discussing mine. I provided in the edit summary my reason for the source's inclusion. In any case, I have never in years of doing this had an editor complain about me having an "extra" source. If everything in the article is cited, extra sources can provide further reference points for readers, strengthen the claims the article is making and validate auxillary information that may be of use. Adding them into an article is certainly no reason to call for ANI.
- My suggestion would be for you to reexamine your attitude and behavior and then come back to have a respectful discussion on content and citation. Again, I have thick skin. But I do not think I have the patience to try to work around someone who is name-calling. Please reflect on that. PrairieKid (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Here's another one at Ann Rivers. You put into[5] her article that she was born in Michigan. The inline citation you provide says grew up and went to Eastern Michigan. That isn't the same thing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- OK, hold on a second. Please take a step back and consider your behavior. You have name called and put me down in several points, later refusing to acknowledge or apologize for that. That's concerning. But what is really worrying me is that you are going through my edit history--all the way back to 2013, several thousand edits ago for me--to critique edits. Really, I am genuinely a bit concerned for you and where you are at; please, consider that and ask yourself if that is possibly problematic.
- Second, to the edit on Rivers' page, you are correct. My 2013 self who was newish to editing made a slight assumption that where she grew up and attended college was where she was born. I understand why that ought not be included. But it was certainly a good faith edit made by a new editor, then only 14 years old. Give me some grace, please. Again, the content is not my concern. It is your behavior. You have been rude, discouraging and, perhaps, a bit obsessive. Please, please, please take an honest look at your actions and determine whether or not this is the course of action you want to be on and the reputation you want to have here on Wikipedia. PrairieKid (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Oregon State University Black History Month Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Friday, February 8
To commemorate Black History Month, Oregon State University, Wikimedia Nigeria, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and AfroCROWD are hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Oregon State University Valley Library on Friday, February 8 from 2–5pm. The purpose of the event is to reduce Wikipedia's diversity gap by creating and improving articles about African American culture and history, as well as notable people of African descent and the African diaspora in general. Please visit here for more information. Remote participation is welcome! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Adoption?
Hello, I have just gotten into writing articles on Wikipedia (most of my time was spent fighting vandalism) would you be willing to help me learn how to research and how to best right an article it would be much appreciated A 10 fireplane Imform me 18:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Edit-warring on Jaime Herrera Beutler and Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 you 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hello. Please see the comments left at CMR's talk page. While the discussion there is extremely important, it is your confrontational and argumentative nature that is far more concerning to me. Putting a template like this on my talk page when you are clearly condescending, unwilling to engage honestly and failing to provide evidence for your claims is unnecessary at best and, frankly, immature/rude/mean at worst. As I said on CMR's TP, you seem to actually take pride in this based on your user page which is extremely concerning, both personally and professionally. I want to have a good discussion with productive dialogue. That is the far better way to make Wikipedia. I hope you will reconsider your attitude and agree. Remember, there's a person on this end of the computer as well. PrairieKid (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)