User talk:Rachel librarian

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Rachel librarian! Thank you for your contributions. I am Lagrange613 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Lagrange 613 06:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lagrange613, I found some links that appeared to be biased and not reliable. In fact, an entire section was created based on these questionable sources. I blanked the section and the person who was monitoring the page put them back. Can you take a look at this page and the discussion of it? Is there something I could have done or could do better in terms of Wikipedia guidelines? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Atlanta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Atlanta Rachel librarian (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rachel. I'm glad to see you're sticking around and using the talk pages. And you're arguing from relevant policies and guidelines, which is awesome. While I ultimately think Mmann1988's reversions were valid (for reasons I'll explain), I think you went about your edits in the right way. The website blog.sfgate.com is considered a news blog since it's owned by the San Francisco Chronicle and subject to journalistic editorial standards. There's a YouTube link embedded in the article, but it's the article rather than the video that's cited. The Fox News piece itself may not be NPOV, but since the article only uses the facts reported in the piece rather than the opinion it conveys I think it's okay, if not ideal. I see someone's replaced it with another source, which is probably for the best. In general, when content can be verified in a better source, it's better to replace the source than delete the content.

Like I said, I really do think you did this in the right way. You were bold but not reckless, clearly explained your reasoning in your edit summaries, participated at the talk page after being reverted, and cited relevant policies and guidelines throughout. It takes some editors a long time to reach this point, and it's always great to see a new user getting it right so early, especially on a controversial topic. Let me know if anything else comes up. Lagrange 613 04:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw what you added as background on California universities. Very nice! Devangel77b (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Occupy Oakland, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

—Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Rachel librarian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

69.38.208.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "MadamBuhBushKe". The reason given for MadamBuhBushKe's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

Blocking administrator: Swarm (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Done- please repost if there are still issues. TN X Man 18:17, 4 November 2011 (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) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]