User talk:Shonebrooks
|
The College football Barnstar | |
| For all you do to support college football and for never getting anything more than light applause, I award to the entire Wikipedia:WikiProject Marching band the College football barnstar. College football would not be the same without you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC) All members of the marching band project are entitled to display this barnstar on their talk page. |
Michigan Marching Band
[edit]Hello! I see you have been doing some edits on the MMB page. It really needs a lot more content, especially the history and photos, and I plan to do something about this. I just wanted to let you know, and see if you had anything else planned for this page yourself. JNmich (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a Talk page for the MMB page and that may be the best place to share and discuss ideas for improvement. ShoneBrooks (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: University of Utah Marching Band has been accepted
[edit]
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Nicholas Falcone has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Noah 💬 14:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: George R. Cavender has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Missvain (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Hey, if you encounter a situation like that again (with a misnamed category), you can use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Graham87 (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. While I hope not to stumble into that again anytime soon, I may leave your comment here to help guide me to the best course of action assuming similar criteria apply. ShoneBrooks (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
3 reversions done on your spelling correction
[edit]That particular reference title is correct as the article title had a typo. Wayback machine is your friend in such potential circumstances: you were not to know but IMO has a blog like approach to its updates on ongoing eruptions- see https://web.archive.org/web/20230710212746/https://en.vedur.is/about-imo/news/earthquake-activity-in-fagradalsfjall-area ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, let me start by thanking you for drawing my attention to your concern. Before making my edits, I did see the old, archived versions with the typo. However, that typo has apparently since been corrected at the actual (non-archived) URL: https://en.vedur.is/about-imo/news/earthquake-activity-in-fagradalsfjall-area = "The activity in the Reykjanes Peninsula has entered a new phase." As such, I'm inclined to give preference to the current and corrected title now in use, applying MOS:PLC's guidance that "insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected..." where the archived version is concerned. It would seem counterintuitive to me to perpetuate a typo that the cited reference has since corrected; but admittedly, WP policies are not always "intuitive." Would my explanation perhaps be sufficient to persuade you to consider undoing your reverts? ShoneBrooks (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that the IMO updates much more when ever it updates the page, keeping the same url as the eruption changes with time. The title of the page is changed to reflect current circumstances. The only true reference to the page as it stood at the time of web access is the archive version. The failure to use archive functionality indicates that the users who provided the reference originally did not understand this behaviour. I would have no problem if you discovered an archive version with no changes other than the typo but unhappily this does not exist as they perpetuated the title issue for quite a while. The original title from 10th July read "Minor volcanic eruption on the Reykjanes Peninula", from 20th July update read "Latest news on the volcanic eruption on the Reykjanes Peninula" and as of today's date the page title reads "The activity in the Reykjanes Peninsula has entered a new phase", which it has been since 10th August 2023. The title and the page had changed substantially by the time the typo was corrected. There is an argument that all such IMO pages should only be accessed via an archive version as this would minimise confusion but I am not aware of such a community policy for what is still a live url from a trusted (primary) source, that does correct errors when they are detected in their webpages. However, this error was detected rather late when circumstances in the eruption timeline had considerably changed so creating an inline reference challenge for later reviewers as major and significant change in the title and page occurred by the time of typo correction. There is a reason most sources uses Shakespeare's first portfolio as a reference. I hope this rather full explanation of my actions is useful as your reply confirms that you did not understand the issue for which there does not appear to be any guideline or policy other than the common sense one that inline references must be verifiable as easily as possible. ChaseKiwi (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not looking to stake myself to that hill. It might be worth adding an [sic] tag (per MOS:SIC) to perhaps discourage similar, good-faith edits in the future regarding this particular edge case scenario. I'll leave this here a few days before removing it as resolved. Have a pleasant evening/morning. ShoneBrooks (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers, and hope you have a good day too. Not sure anything can prevent challenges in future by bot, human or AI in areas that policy and guidelines do not cover. ChaseKiwi (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not looking to stake myself to that hill. It might be worth adding an [sic] tag (per MOS:SIC) to perhaps discourage similar, good-faith edits in the future regarding this particular edge case scenario. I'll leave this here a few days before removing it as resolved. Have a pleasant evening/morning. ShoneBrooks (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that the IMO updates much more when ever it updates the page, keeping the same url as the eruption changes with time. The title of the page is changed to reflect current circumstances. The only true reference to the page as it stood at the time of web access is the archive version. The failure to use archive functionality indicates that the users who provided the reference originally did not understand this behaviour. I would have no problem if you discovered an archive version with no changes other than the typo but unhappily this does not exist as they perpetuated the title issue for quite a while. The original title from 10th July read "Minor volcanic eruption on the Reykjanes Peninula", from 20th July update read "Latest news on the volcanic eruption on the Reykjanes Peninula" and as of today's date the page title reads "The activity in the Reykjanes Peninsula has entered a new phase", which it has been since 10th August 2023. The title and the page had changed substantially by the time the typo was corrected. There is an argument that all such IMO pages should only be accessed via an archive version as this would minimise confusion but I am not aware of such a community policy for what is still a live url from a trusted (primary) source, that does correct errors when they are detected in their webpages. However, this error was detected rather late when circumstances in the eruption timeline had considerably changed so creating an inline reference challenge for later reviewers as major and significant change in the title and page occurred by the time of typo correction. There is a reason most sources uses Shakespeare's first portfolio as a reference. I hope this rather full explanation of my actions is useful as your reply confirms that you did not understand the issue for which there does not appear to be any guideline or policy other than the common sense one that inline references must be verifiable as easily as possible. ChaseKiwi (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)