Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them.
Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.
Hello! Soulparadox,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belatedwelcome to Wikipedia, Soulparadox. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
I am glad that your Wikipedia experience is going well and that you are happy! Thank you for your feedback and thank you for your contributions! For more help on getting started, please look at Help desk and the help pages.
I thought it was very important to make mention of the influence of the briz cops and the Bjelke regime. I thank you for your kind acknowledgement.
Dr.warhol (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome—this was an era that was significantly defined by Bjelke-Peterson's distaste for alternative culture (including policies of suppression) and the Brisbane police's reaction to the city's punk scene, and to omit them would be, at the very least, irresponsible.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair Ronz, when editing the India articles, I had great difficulty locating sources (some of the articles are obscure), so there were occasions where I was glad just to find anything remotely reasonable. I just had a quick glance at the site and it seems promotional, so I appreciate the heads-up.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I completely understand. I'm fine leaving those references, in the hope that someone will find reliable sources in the future. --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed 15 hyper-links of other articles in Wikipedia that link to the above referenced page in the "talk" section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rob_Halprin ) however, I'm unaware of how to insert them correctly inline. I see you're a respected contributor/editor. Could I trouble you for a little help please? Thanking you in advance for your help, ACAlliedcreative (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. I'm very glad that the page is finally up, as I am a fan of the man they call "Briggs". I will continue to work on the page, so feel free to provide any feedback or guidance.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more references. It's looking good now. I've removed the "it's disorganized" and "copyedit" request from the front page. Still need official citations about the chart performances, copies sold and stuff from ARIA. AngusWOOF (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the open communication—I will see what I can add, but it might require sources that are not web-based. I might consider contacting the band's management. Furthermore, removing those tags is a fair call and I am glad that it has been done.--Soulparadox (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for adding sources. I think I can find the certifications (x platinum) on the ARIA website and maybe some leads on charting from the discography. The sources outside the web are okay to cite. Hopefully you won't need to bug management as that might be considered "original research". Had another question though; should Toby Allen have his own page? The other guys have one, and that can then detail his theatre involvements. AngusWOOF (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late response; and yes I agree, this could be considered original research. I guess I would need to ask the band's management if they can direct me to any articles etc. that are not accessible on the Internet; or references that I have been unable to locate. I have not been able to look at this page for a couple of weeks due to other commitments, but I will look at it today and see what I can add. In response to your question on Toby Allen—I am not familiar enough with the band or Allen to know the answer to this. However, if he is an artist in his own right, in the same way that band members form solo careers in other musical acts, then it is likely to be appropriate. Just keep in mind the noteworthy aspect in relation to Wikipedia policy—I can't remember the policy exactly, but I know that he needs to have a significant body of work, at the very least.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thanks for your ..erm ...thanks :) As some one who's active in WikiProject Graffiti and WikiProject Visual arts I agree, it would be good to have an article about Zoates. The one good news source suggests he has been of some note in the past. I had a look online and couldn't see any other good news/book coverage myself, unfortunately. But obviously if you know of any other coverage yourself, either online or offline, please add it to the article to back up the claims. Best of luck! Sionk (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Soulparadox. This is just to draw your attention to the fact that both you and User:HarshAJ have marked yourselves as working on Michael Peterson (surfer) for the GOCE drive. Please could you negotiate with HarshAJ on what to do? I'm putting a similar request on their talk page.
The best way to avoid this kind of thing happening is to remove the {{copyedit}} tag from the article before you start the copy edit. This will remove it from the category list and make it less likely someone else will pick it up. It's also a good idea to put {{GOCEinuse}} in its place (replacing this with {{Under construction}} if you take a break of several hours or more).
FYI, I've adapted the info you provided on the Robert Hunter Cup in the Briggs article and added it into the article on Hunter which was sadly lacking in that respect. Thanks again! —sroc (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Soulparadox. Racism in Israel, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed, is subject to a one revert restriction (1RR). That means no editor can make more than one revert in any 24-hour period. See the box at the top of Talk:Racism in Israel for more information.
Hi again, I am presuming that you are referring to the manual reinstatement of the Chomsky citation, which I immediately removed. I tried to undo the initial insertion anyway, but the system requires me to do it manually and, given that I have already removed it, I guess that the point in moot. Please let me know if there is anything further required.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Live insect jewlery, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
You are more than welcome to 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. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi, I saw your comment about putting a lot of work into improving Bob's page, and it needing a rewrite. I'm happy to work on that with you. Where/how would you like to start? Bill G. Evans (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill, I think the best way to proceed will be if I do an overall copyedit of the article as part of the November Drive (including repairing the bare URLs), and then I think someone like yourself, who is knowledgeable on the topic, can fine-tune the article (e.g. updates, correcting accuracies, etc.). I will start on the copyediting today.-Soulparadox (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fact-checked the article; everything was correct. Nice! I showed the year on two recent projects, and cleaned up the wording on a line. That's all I can think of, unless you think other content stuff be written about. (If so, let me know.) Looking at the remaining warning tags, I don't see how any of them apply to the article. What do you think? Bill G. Evans (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bear with me Bill, as I have had a lot on this week, so I will get around to looking at this article during the next week. Thanks for your patience.--Soulparadox (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you do a lot of work here; please excuse my tenacity. In the mean time, I removed the remaining warning tags, and started a talk section for discussion thereof. Bill G. Evans (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill, as I replied to your message on the article's Talk page, I have reinstated the "refimprove" tag as there are further citations that are needed (and that have been identified with tags throughout the article). Also, the section on the list of music that he has been involved with will need citations, in line with Wikipedia policy. I also edited the layout for consistency and Wiki standards.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you're busy—I went ahead and changed the name of the discography section and removed the personal section (since it can't be referenced). Is it cool to then remove the reference tag? Bill G. Evans (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, again. Hey, I referenced all the citations you flagged...hopefully all is good. Could you please have a look when you have a chance? Cheers and thanks. Bill G. Evans (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! I'm getting in contact with those members of WikiProject Skateboarding who seem to have been recently active on Wikipedia generally.
The project seems to have been fairly inactive over the last year or so and I was wondering if anyone in particular would have any interest in helping me "re-activate" it?
If you still have an interest in the Project and/or an interest in a bit of a Project-related editing drive, let me know.
Awesome! Thanks for getting back to me. I've posted a note about getting the project restarted on the Project talk page. You might want to suggest some things that need work or point out some things you're working on. Once we have a good list we can add everything to the general {{to do}} list on the Project page. Stalwart11122:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries mate! Both were me - the new page and the redirect. The older DVS Shoe Company goes to the new DVS Shoes article. So the old link still works; just thought it would be worth updating them. But you should feel free to use whichever you think works in each article. In many cases it was the "old" company that was the sponsor so using the new name might not be accurate. That's why I "recreated" that title and redirected. Feel free to revert/edit as you see fit. You'll get no argument from me! All good! Stalwart11108:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is Saturday evening where I am, so I thought it had started from the "this weekend" that had been written. My apologies, I will start again tomorrow, but it appears to also be Saturday in your part of the world, based on the time of your comment?--Soulparadox (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I have just read the finer details, stating that the Blitz begins on Sunday, December 16, 2012. My apologies. Should I remove the article from my section, or can I just finish on Friday?--Soulparadox (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me think about that. Please note that blitzes and drives start and finish at UTC times. This matters because we want to be able to close them promptly, without considering when days of the week may start and end in different locales. I'll get back to you later. --Stfg (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest and I both think you should count today's edits, which are very useful after all, and your idea of finishing on Friday is good. As an alternative, you could also miss tomorrow if you prefer. Good luck. --Stfg (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the support and will finish on Friday, as I had planned to edit for the entire day today. Thanks again and I will ensure that I pay attention to the details for any future Blitzes or Drives.--Soulparadox (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin(contribs)02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Between his entry in the X Games and Maloof Money Cup as well as sponsorship deals and general coverage, I'd say there's more than enough to justify an article. The significant coverage he has received over the last 24 hours puts "significant coverage" beyond doubt and his previous coverage means I don't think we would have WP:BLP1E concerns about his passing. I say go for it - I'm more than happy to help. Stalwart11104:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Had not much else to do so I created a place-holder stub at Lewis Marnell with enough info/refs/cats for it not to get SD'd. I know you were looking into what else could be added. There's at least one "hidden" reference in the code. It's not great but there are others from TWS that would likely give more biography-style info. Cheers, Stalwart11101:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I have linked to the article from some of the articles where you added a section about him. Might be worth adding at least that info so we can "main" tag across from some while keeping a section in Almost Skateboards and others where he was directly relevant. Stalwart11102:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re. your recent note at my talk page: I'm afraid that I know almost nothing about skateboarding, so I don't know how notable Lewis Marnell is, although I see that his name is redlinked. At the Nike Skateboarding article, he appears as one of a list of 22 professional members of the team, only three of whom are bluelinked. This leads me to question his notability. That being the case, it doesn't seem appropriate to devote so much emphasis to him in the Nike article.
The tone of the subsection on Marnell also seems entirely wrong, like a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Phrasing like "passed away" and "global skateboard community was shocked by the news", the rather extraneous detail about his recent marriage, and the blockquote from Nike's tribute site all make the subsection read more like a eulogy for Marnell than an encyclopedia entry.
If Marnell played a particularly significant role on the team (as opposed to being 1/22nd of it), it'd be appropriate to include a bit about his part on the team. If his death had a serious impact beyond the emotional on Nike—for instance, if it forced the cancellation of a major promotional tour, or occurred just when a Lewis Marnell shoe was about to hit the market—then it'd be appropriate to include a well-sourced passage on that.
I'll let you consider this and edit the page accordingly, since I assume that you're far more familiar with the skateboarding world than I. I'll watch the page, and will only stick my oar in again if it looks like it still fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL, or if there's something obvious that needs fixing. Ammodramus (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds fair to me and I have learned something through this process. Thank you and I will get onto the editing process for not only this page, but others that I have inserted this content into. Regards, --Soulparadox (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at the new Lewis Marnell article. I'm afraid that the "Death of Lewis Marnell" section strikes me as problematic. At any time that an athlete or other public figure dies young, there's going to be an outpouring of sentiments such as those quoted—it's a tragedy; he/she had so much to give; we're all devastated; etc., etc. Quoting them doesn't add anything meaningful to the reader's knowledge about Marnell, just because such sentiments, however deeply and genuinely they're felt, are so common.
I'd suggest paring the section down to some very limited details about the date, place, and cause of his death. If some kind of permanent public memorials are created—a park, a statue, or a mural on a public building—it'd be appropriate to mention them. However, an extensive collection of tweets and Facebook posts threatens to turn the article into a memorial website rather than a legitimate encyclopedia article. Ammodramus (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I entered that content, is to document the public response to Marnell's death. The various publications are the key media sources in the area, SbA is the govt-funded organization for skateboarding in Australia, his Almost teammates are particularly significant due to the position that the board company holds in skateboarding, and O'neill and Rodriguez are not only senior Nike team members, but they are among the top-rated skateboarders globally today. I will remove the Fast Times Skateboarding section, but given that I will be expanding the remainder of the article and the Memorial policy applies specifically to user pages, shouldn't it be okay to keep this? Also, I will review the article again for emotive language, as I have been careful to not avoid the "he/she had so much to give; we're all devastated; etc., etc." sentiment you have mentioned. After consideration, I came to the conclusion that such content would not only facilitate the reader's understanding of the impact that Marnell had in the international skateboarding community, but also provide some insight into the organisations/individuals who published the tributes. I think it would also be useful to include the discussion of the Wikipedia Skateboarding group, so I will paste this into the Talk section of the page. Thanks again for the contribution and I look forward to your reply.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This isn't a big deal, but in my opinion, I don't think comments on discussions like this are necessary or helpful. The discussion is more than two years old, and it if happened to be on a talk page of a more heavily discussed article, it would have been archived long ago, meaning that continuing the discussion would have been prohibited. Currently it is still on the talk page but it's not helpful to contribute to very old discussions, since the original participants have long left it and are likely no longer tracking it. Trinitresque (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for choosing to remove it. However, outdated and obsolete discussions can still remain on talk pages. The only way to remove them from the talk page is by archiving them, which means moving them to an archived page. And this should be done only when the talk page is too long (larger than 75,000 bytes; the talk page is about 15,000 bytes now). So for now there is no reason for the outdated discussions can remain on the talk page. Trinitresque (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.
Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here
Hi mate! Given your excellent work at Lewis Marnell, I was wondering if you had any interest in having a look at Tas Pappas and Ben Pappas, two other Australian skateboarders. I've added what I can from "mainstream" sources, but you seem to have a penchant for finding some of the less accessible stuff. Cheers, Stalwart11108:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have modified the process for adding Nominations, which now uses a template/table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected.
There is now a Holding Area, where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date.
The TAFI schedule now involves adding 10 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics.
We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia.
The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page.
If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area.
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year!
To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge.
Given where I linked to it from, I imagine you'll see this in your watchlist. Am struggling to build a narrative - as always your contributions would be welcome! Stalwart11108:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this edit. The statistic is an important one and deserves to be in the article, but you changed it so that it is objective and not misleading. Good job. --GHcool (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good question, sorry I don't have a firm answer. Different areas of wikipedia seem to hew to the citations standard in different ways - the fiction sections are rife with stuff that is often uncited but since it's all written by fanboys it is perhaps assumed to be correct. I think your best bet is to hang out with some of the music editors and get their sense of how much they require in terms of citations; I suppose if their name is listed in the album cover, that itself can serve as a citation, so the album itself is citation enough? Honestly I don't know - sorry I can't help more. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to re-evaluate what you're doing on wikipedia here. In the case of Mark Gonzales or Lance Mountain, a single sentence does not need its own header. Similar biography articles have maybe 4-5 sections, not the 20 you have designed. In the case of Transworld Skateboarding, your additions are just not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The extensive section on only 1 year of the TW awards does not make sense when there is no mention of any other year the awards were given. The 30 most influential skaters too is not appropriate and could even be violating copyrights. Just try to use some better logic. Cosprings (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up Cosprings. I have been editing the articles in this way with a view to developing them over time and I thought the sub-sections would help with clarity, but it looks as though I am going into too much detail. It would be great to get further insight into the copyright issue, as I am unsure of where you are coming from with this. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Magazines object to when "top lists" are published publicly. Such is the case with lists from Rolling Stone, etc. Much better. Keep up the good work.Cosprings (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ENGVAR as to why a plural is needed for collectives, e.g. bands, in British English. Hence "Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds ARE a rock band", "Queen ARE a rock band", etc. Articles in American English treat collectives in the singular (e.g., "Nirvana IS a rock band", etc.) Also, please be more specific about references that you are looking for in the article. CN tags are more helpful than a Refneeded tag at the head, especially for an article with 19 sources. I don't see the lack that you see. CCS81 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have read the section (thank you for the link) and in British English the application of the rule is based upon the meaning; that is, if the numerous components of a collective noun are being referred to, then "are" is appropriate. You will see that this applies in a latter part of the Lead section, where "have" is appropriate, as the members are being discussed. However, the first sentence is an explanation of what the title "Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds" is, and that is clearly the single entity of "a band"—otherwise, this would be more appropriate as a sub-section of the Nick Cave page, as the use of "are" implies that the "Bad Seeds" are a separate entity. Also, I am in the process of enhancing the tone of the article (so that it reads less like a fan page) and inserting citations (where I can find them), or tags when I cannot find a reputable citation.--Soulparadox (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this before I saw your reply: Re: the first sentence of the Bad Seeds article, see also WP:PLURALS and Collective noun. Also, compare the opening sentences in the Queen and Smile articles, British bands with singular noun band names, to the opening sentences of Bad Brains and The Dead Milkmen, American bands with plural noun band names. Trust me, this issue comes up a lot. But I assure you, you have misinterpreted the sentence in the MOS and you are thinking in terms of American English only (which is also what I speak and think in.) Bands are perceived as collectives in British English, it is not singular. Again, please look at some other articles in British English and you will see what I mean. Also recommended: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc. All of these have plural verbs in their opening sentences. As for the Bad Seeds article, fix away. CCS81 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I am asking is that you interpret the MOS excerpt that you sent me and apply it to the band-related issue—is it really that difficult? Apologies, as I considered the request straightforward. Thanks anyway (I will ask another copyeditor for assistance).--Soulparadox (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did that. Let me try again: "Some collective nouns may refer either to a single entity or to the members that compose it." This is referring to the possible verb conjugations in American or British English, respectively. A collective noun could be a band name. "In British English, such words are sometimes treated as singular, but more often treated as plural, according to context." This tells us that they should be plural. Your problem is that you are hung up on this issue of context: you think the context here is treating the band as a singular thing. But this does not happen in British English. This is not what is meant by "context". The context is what follows: "Exceptionally, names of towns and countries usually take singular verbs (unless they are being used to refer to a team or company by that name, or when discussing actions of that entity's government). For example, in England are playing Germany tonight, England refers to a football team; but in England is the most populous country of the United Kingdom, it refers to the country. In North American English, these words (and the United States, for historical reasons) are almost invariably treated as singular; the major exception is when sports teams are referred to by nicknames that are plural nouns, when plural verbs are commonly used to match. See also National varieties of English above." So the problem is your hangup on the phrase "according to context." Does this help? CCS81 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is clearer, but the use of the words "could" and "usually" means that exceptions exist and, as the band matter is not specifically covered, how can you be sure?--Soulparadox (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The exceptions are what follows (beginning with the word "Exceptionally..."). Band names are not listed in the prose that covers the exceptions. The other way to be sure is to step away from the MOS and look at the language in action by reading the other articles. If you're going to be in the Copy Editor's Guild, you're going to need to look more closely at the precedent in articles and also take seriously talk page consensuses, not merely stumble over the opaque wording in the MOS. CCS81 (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Soulparadox. You have new messages at Rybec's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
If you put the two references together, 7:30 report is stating that MCC did not issue a pocket:
"What's unclear is who was responsible for ensuring the wall was safe and whether the attached hoarding had a permit. Early this week, Melbourne City Council said it didn't issue one and sheeted responsibility for the site home to the State Planning Minister."
And The Australian states that Planning Minister Matthew Guy said he had approved a permit for the construction of Grocon's "Portrait" apartment development on the site but not the hoarding.
Does this not establish that neither the Planning Department nor Melbourne City Council had issued a permit for the hoarding? The CFMEU blog you added is a good reference, but their reluctance to be specific about the permit issue is them being over cautious about stating their case, which is not surprising seeing as they are engaged in such a big legal battle with Grocon.
I think based on the first two references it is reasonable to state that there was no permit. Djapa Owen (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm curious as to why you reverted the two column format used for the references in the Chrissy Amphlett article, back to one? Not criticising, just interested. I can see you are a very experienced editor, I have only been actively editing for about 3 months & continually learning about layout/formatting etc. Cheers Melbourne3163 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you have asked this question, as I have intuitively created two columns when the number of references is over twenty. This is based on what I have observed in more notable pages, but I need to find out if a policy exists for this topic. If you find anything, please let me know.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added the Urthboy#Smokey's Haunt (2012) section to the Urthboy article last October. In November, Jax 0677 created the Smokey's Haunt article as a redirect to the Urthboy#Albums section (curiously, not to the section for the album, but I'll fix that for now). I was wondering whether either of you might be intending to turn Smokey's Haunt into a full-blown article? Someone should, but I thought you might be better placed given the work you've put in to date. —sroc (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sroc. I have not given thought to this idea, so I will need to undertake some research and take it from there. I am open to doing it, but will need to find out more on the topic, as I have not even heard the album.--Soulparadox (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The beauty of Wikipedia — No original research means you don't have to! Adapting the section from the Urthy article should be a good start, add an infobox and the tracklist and we should be there! I'll have a crack if you don't get to it first. —sroc (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What of it? Addressing the criteria at Notability:
"Significant coverage": your section in the Urthy article already has six citations specifically about the album or the accompanying tour;
"Reliable": sources include Triple J and ARIA;
"Sources": only one source is Elefant Tracks, and only two citations are from the same source (Triple J), so good diversity;
"Independent of the subject": see above;
"Presumed": the range of information and sources is comparable with similar articles (e.g., other Urthy albums) and more information/sources may become available over time as the album continues to garner exposure.
Thanks, but I was really just working from the building blocks that were already there and the content you had already provided. Please do keep improving it wherever you can. —sroc (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the Hawking article. I hope you understand that this is a featured article, and the information about the man's political opinions on this particular issue is a bit of a minor issue and not really due a whole section in the general scheme of things! He has hit the headlines a few times about such things, but based on what we know so far, it certainly doesn't need much of a mention- and a brief mention as been included already. I do appreciate that you have improved the article even after your edits has been reverted a couple of times. Thank you very much !! --Slp1 (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem—your reasoning is sound. However, I spaced out some of the paragraphs as there were several particularly long sections.--Soulparadox (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article for the Golden Era Mixtape 2013 — someone had to — but I could use some help padding it out and inserting some references. Reckon you could have a looksee when you get a chance? —sroc (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, thanks! FYI, I noticed you've replicated an error I was making for ages and only recently picked up on. When using the {{cite}} template (or using the template tool in the editor), put the whole date of the cited page in the date field, not separated over the date, month and year fields.
This:
{{cite web|title=Golden Era Records Cypher - Featuring Briggs, Vents, Funkoars, Hilltop Hoods & K21|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrlSeKv9AOs|work=YouTube|publisher=Google, Inc|accessdate=20 May 2013|author=GoldenEraRecords|format=Video upload|date=24|month=January|year=2013}}
produces this reference:
GoldenEraRecords (24). "Golden Era Records Cypher - Featuring Briggs, Vents, Funkoars, Hilltop Hoods & K21" (Video upload). YouTube. Google, Inc. Retrieved 20 May 2013.
whereas this:
{{cite web|title=Golden Era Records Cypher - Featuring Briggs, Vents, Funkoars, Hilltop Hoods & K21|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrlSeKv9AOs|work=YouTube|publisher=Google, Inc|accessdate=20 May 2013|author=GoldenEraRecords|format=Video upload|date=24 January 2013}}
produces this reference:
GoldenEraRecords (24 January 2013). "Golden Era Records Cypher - Featuring Briggs, Vents, Funkoars, Hilltop Hoods & K21" (Video upload). YouTube. Google, Inc. Retrieved 20 May 2013.
I've bolded the differences so you can see them clearly. I was doing the same thing for as long as I can remember before I realised anything was amiss. The fields in the template tool are rather confusing about this and I've already raised it as an issue elsewhere.[1][2] —sroc (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to invite you to assist me with a large comprehensive edit I have been working on for the skateboarding article since Oct 2012 located in my sandbox here: User:Tinkermen/SandboxGH
This edit has turned out to be very large based on the amount of history in skateboarding & I could use some help in completing the edit by having other editors to collaborate with me during this time, as I have have not had any time to work on the edit since around Dec 2012. I hope you will join me in this effort, I will also leave a couple of other editors this same message.Tinkermen (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for a reason for the edit. The reason is WP:BRD, see the talk page for a discussion. The page is under 1RR, would you mind reverting back to my version with the BRD edit summery? TippyGoomba (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is underway at [4] about whether more detail needs to be added to the boat arrivals image to improve its POV. Please have a look and contribute. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
Perhaps you should review the meaning of "bare URL" for this purpose. None of the citations you listed fits that definition. I am eliminating the template on that basis. AfricaTanz (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, you should have inserted the more accurate template, rather than try and over-protect the status of an article in an unusual manner. Did you write the article, or do you have some other kind of connection to it? Over-zealous may be understating it.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to check the edit history of an article? Do you know what WP:AGF requires? I suggest you study up before you get blocked for incivility. Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! from Adrian. You have reverted my addition to the Nike, Inc. article, where I added a simple pronunciation guide of "nigh-kee". You said that the "IPA hyperlink is sufficient". I disagree, I think my simple guide should be there as well. Why not give the reader the phonetic pronunciation AND the IPA? The more interested reader can check the IPA while the general reader can pass on and not be distracted by going away from the article on a link. I imagined that the reader would be helped by my addition so why was it not acceptable? Best wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was some of the neatest copy-editing I have seen in 8 years of doing this. The shortness of your User Contribs page is nearly confounding. But excellent work, really nicely done. Eaglizard (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just taking note of some talk going on in the background...
Yeah, agree there are some major notability issues there. I just can't see how the subject might be considered notable for having won one minor award. There certainly doesn't seem to be enough coverage to substantiate a pass against WP:GNG. Probably best to take it to AFD. Stalwart11104:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this Stalwart. However, I am uncertain on how to proceed (also, there are a few other articles that are at a similar stage).--Soulparadox (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You reverted an edit at KFC. The removal of material actually isn't unexplained - if you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/KFC/archive4 you will see why it was done, though i don't think the editor's edit summary may have flagged it clearly. Can you take a look, and consider whether you want to self-revert, or alternatively you might want to put a different view at the FAC? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thank you. I tried searching for what "c/e" means, but I had no success. I think your points are valid, but I think it is worth revising the content, as the concept store seems to signify a turning point for the corporation. If the consensus after the revision is the same, then I have no problem with a deletion. I appreciate the clarity.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they may hope it will be a turning point, but at the moment it's a marketing label, a patio, and a dunny ;-). Anyway, thanks for the input. Oh and c/e = copy edit. Really removing a para is more than a copy edit, so even if you knew what it meant, you would have been confused! Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your reverts and your tendentious attitude about trying to be right needs to be checked. Please read the guidelines before reverting. Your reverts imply that you are unfamiliar with them. JOJHutton00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please use a respectful and polite tone. Otherwise, I would appreciate that you refrain from posting on my Talk page. Especially if your intent is to make unfounded, emotional accusations. Warm regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only have you put forward another unfounded accusation, but you misspelt "competency". Please refrain from this disrespectful form of communication as of now, as Wikipedia is not the forum for you to vent due to underlying problems you may be experiencing in meatspace. Or, if that is not the case, then please show me the respect that all humans are entitled to. Manners and politeness are important attributes; even in the 21st century. Thank you kindly again.--Soulparadox (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to have respect on Wikipedia then learn you need to earn it with competent editing. And why does it matter how I spelled a word? Editing on a iPhone is a pain in the ass enough, without people pointing out minor spelling errors. Sorry if a minor spelling error on a iPhone wasn't good enough for you. Undoing edits is disrespectful to begin with. Especially when the reasons are wrong. So if you want respect then earn respect. JOJHutton00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your inquiry on my talk page, in the lead of the guideline it says it applies to all articles using the name. Through various conversations, "United States" is ok in the infobox, but its redundant and unnecessary in the body. JOJHutton00:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir, I have earned more than enough respect on Wikipedia. Given that we have never interacted before, don't you think it is best to START with respect and then proceed? I can see you have health issues, so I wish you all the best with them and I hope that you can find more suitable forums to achieve release from pain, or whatever it is you are experiencing. Kind regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice that not many articles put "United States" in the body of the article. It's ok as it is in the infobox, but not in the body of the article. None if her other family members are formatted as such. This article wasn't either until you added it. JOJHutton03:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess consistency means that it is best to write the article in line with the other family member articles; however, I am a firm believer in the "world view" aspect of Wikipedia and I would like to think that readers in remote areas of China or somewhere in northern India, places where there are so many of the world's people, can come across a city and find out that it is in the US or Australia, or wherever it is, without needing to do a search. Of course, 90% of people in our nations of birth would immediately know what "New York" is referring to, but I don't wish to make that assumption for the billions of others on the planet who may not possess such familiarity with Western bodies of knowledge.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion, but I am happy for the other copyeditor to prevail in this instance. I never joined the Wikipedia community to lose my ability to healthily detach from all things. While Wikipedia is related to my self-esteem, it does not underpin it and there are millions of other articles for me to assist with. In fact, I am proceeding with the improvement of an article right now.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. No-one ever asks, so I commend you for doing so. I have plenty of other pages on my Watchlist, so bear with me in terms of pace. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just read your update and thought I would let you know that the AFL CEO totally refutes the article you have referenced. I live in Melbourne and I heard him on radio 3AW this morning and he was damning in his condemnation of the article's author. Just thought I would let you know. Regards Melbourne3163 (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello :) I was editing Lorde#Early life, whilst you were editing Lorde overall. Upon saving, I checked your diff's, in the section, and it seemed we were editing from a similar PoV and that your changes were, broadly, a sub-set of mine. Thus, I've overwritten the section with my edit, en mass. Please check the section, to ensure that none of your contributions have been mistakenly obliterated. — Best, DjScrawl (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put you down as a contact, hope you don't mind. I'm happy to have a crack at it but if you had ideas for an "initial" draft set of criteria, feel free to post them up.
I noticed you are part of the Copyeditors Guild. Wonder if you might be willing to take a look at SpaceX reusable rocket launching system? That is an article that I wrote over the past few months, and following a launch tomorrow morning that does the first high-altitude, high-velocity test of their controlled descent and deceleration technology, I expect that article to begin getting quite a bit more eyes on it.
Hi again, Soulp. I'm still quite interested in getting that article reviewed by a good copyeditor, and would love to have you do it if you can make the time.
I am planning on inviting a review of the article by the Spaceflight WikiProject against the B-class criteria in early December, and then plan to endeavor to move it to a Good article by the time of the first attempted land return of a booster stage—which will be a first-time event in the History of technology—which is currently scheduled for as early as February 2014.
Hey N2e, unfortunately this has become lost in the myriad projects that I have on my agenda at present. Please do not be disheartened this and, I am glad to see the persistence that you continue to apply to the flourishing of the page! At this stage, I can commit to protecting the page against vandalism and will review the new additions for grammar, spelling, etc.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about the limitations on your time and availability. I believe I will make a request over at the Guild of Copyeditors then, so that we can get 'er done prior to an intent to push it to a Good article by a couple of months from now. But remember, you are always welcome to drop by and give a section or two a serious read and copyedit. This is an interesting set of technologies, and is poised to be transformative to spaceflight. Best to you, N2e (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't hit you with the standard template warning for this, but please take the advice you just left me on my talk page, stop reverting, and take it to the talk page until you can get consensus for your additions. If you keep reverting, you may be in violation of WP:3RR and in danger of being blocked for it. In this particular case, Wikipedia:Recentism would probably also be worth reviewing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Regarding the cycling, Alexei has always been a keen cyclist. I certainly remember him talking about it in the 80s. The citation provided by Cordless Larry is dated June 2010, but the article referenced talks about "30 years of cycling round London". I appreciate your efforts in keeping the page accurate - along with myself you are the main contributor. I think it would be clearer just to state "He is a keen cyclist", rather than "as of July 2010". I'll change the wording - hope you don't mind!
Hi there. I have just gotten your message. I was reading your talk page and I realized you like skateboarding and languages and I do too. I have a bachelors degree in English education. I used to be a skateboarder , but I quit because of collage. I finished collage and I go skateboarding from time to time since I am married and I have two kids. Spanish is my first language. I learned English when I was a kid. I love speaking English , but I do not speak the language that often due to the fact that I have nobody to speak with .
Dear Soulparadox,
I hadn't been aware anyone noticed me being around. I am as you may have noticed a complete beginner in the savvy world of Wikipedia. Until only recently it was a secret to me how to contact other users directly. You have my admiration and respect for being such a prolific contributor and reviewer. It is only now that I begin to understand how much work needs to be done beforehand when writing an article on a specific subject. And it is only now that I understand that being negligent about the FIVE PILLARS generates a manifold of work for numerous people working behind the scenes to create the Wikipedia I have accustomed myself to take as granted. I cannot see how I could possibly ever write a whole article. Actually, this has never been my goal when I created my Wikipedia account. My intention has been to correct in passing by the little and often undramatic mistakes everybody makes. When I'm already on that page why shouldn't I , hopefully for the benefit of all other users, make the changes instead of leaving the issue to someone stumbling over it by accident, again. As you can see I'm not a real virtuoso in the use of commata. I would really be glad, if anyone had any hints on where to find a concise compilation of the rules of punctuation in the english language(s). Don't bother, I'm already looking for it myself. Thank you very much, anyway. Yours, --Pichanmoesix (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Soulparadox,
I just wanted to let you know that I deleted the section you added about Holden on the Elizabeth, South Australia Wikipedia page not because the information was wrong but because the Holden factory is in the suburb of Elizabeth South, South Australia and the article is for the suburb of Elizabeth, South Australia. Maybe you could add the information to the Elizabeth South Wikipedia page. Mirrabooka (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|I have been editing from my home internet connection for over six months, after I moved in. I don't understand what the problem is, as I am not technically knowledgeable. However, I do use a password to connect to my wifi.--Soulparadox (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]
Hi. I gave a whole explanation of my edit on Dexter on the talk page. Why did you revert it without a single word as to your motivation? PizzaMan (talk07:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I am unsure of what you mean, so give me some time to check it out. My edits are always with good faith, so I apologize if I have been unfair.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reminder. After first reading about this policy, I did not use IMDB, but then encountered its use far too may times to discount it in further edits. I will be more careful from now on.--Soulparadox (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it's easy to get confused, especially when you see it done so extensively in other articles. The same thing can happen to your grammar when you read too many Internet forum posts. Sorry that I was a bit curt. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for your message explaining your revert - it doesn't sound pompous at all. It is a major bugbear of mine that lazy writers use plurals when singulars are accurate; it just grates on my sensibilities like a fingernail on a blackboard. Most style guides agree with me. However, The Guardian's style guide - one of the most respected certainly for UK English says:
singular or plural?
Corporate entities take the singular: eg The BBC has decided (not "have"). In
subsequent references make sure the pronoun is singular: "It [not "they"] will press for
an increase in the licence fee."
Sports teams and rock bands are the exception – "England have an uphill task" is OK,
as is "Nirvana were overrated"
I don't agree with that (apart from Nirvana being overrated) - it is, after all, a guide, but to be honest I don't really mind. There are lots of more annoying examples of music journalese that should be stamped out in what is, after all, an encyclopaedia and not a music magazine. Examples are the sloppiness of using "bass" when what is meant is "bass guitar" (if "bass" is ever used it should be following with a disambig tag!); "featured/featuring" instead of "with" or "has" - featured means that something stands out from the rest. (One of the worst examples was an article on an album which said the album featured 12 tracks!) Similarly "debut" (a noun) for "first" (an ordinal number) - I saw one article on a band which had four debut albums (a new one each time it changed label!) and a similar number fo debut singles. Another one is that bands do not form: a band is a collection of individuals and it is they who from the band, hence "the band was formed". There is no need for The Mouth to appear in quotes - I Am Kloot doesn't.
That may be your personal opinion. However, personal opinions don't count. What counts is what is in the guidelines. Where is the relevant guideline which conforms to your opinion? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The year of publication is an essential part of practically all journal citations. Use of access dates is not mentioned in the guidelines, but common sense says that access dates should not be necessary if a journal has a permanent identifier such as a doi. On the other hand, references with non-permanent urls to online copies of the article may suffer link rot like any other url, so again, use your common sense on this point.
Also, the copyright status of online copies of journal articles is often uncertain. One difference between journal articles and web pages is that a web page and downloadable documents associated with the page can disappear without a trace (internet archives don't manage to preserve everything), but the great majority of journal articles, especially recent ones, are permanently archived in one form or another; you can access the great majority of worthwhile journals from any university library. The only purpose of an access date would be to document the existence of an online copy of possibly uncertain legal status. Therefore, my preference is to omit access dates as non-essential, but YMMV. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the access date is necessary to avoid link rot (and possibly other issues too), but I will consider this an education. I will continue to do both. Thank you to you both!--Soulparadox (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is incorrect. Adding an access date does not "avoid link rot". Apart from pointlessly adding access dates, your edit removed the publication years from the citations. Since you have not reverted the mess yourself, I have reverted it for you. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see adding access dates when citing an online journal without a persistent identifier such a doi. There do exist some, and I treat these exceptions as I would any other web page. Otherwise, I see no point to an access date. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your network problem is not anyone else's problem. The link is archived in wayback countless time check here. I can pull up other users also to whom the link is viewable. But just because it does not appear to you does not mean you can remove and revert a valid addition. This is going borderline disruptive. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ]05:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are totally lying you know that. The archive link for 2007 clearly states the article. Want to know what it writes?
"Ludacris in new Guy Ritchie Film
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Rapper turned actor Ludacris scored a role in the latest Guy Ritchie film RocknRolla. The Atlanta native will be starting next to 300 star Gerard Butler, Tom Wilkinson and actress Thandie Newton. Guy Ritchie already started filming last week in London."
I am unsure why you are being so emotional about this, as I don't see the enjoyment in this kind of interaction on Wikipedia. I will leave it and ask people on the Talk page. Please, just calm down, as I don't think even Mr. Ritchie would be this emotional. Take it easy.--Soulparadox (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly care about what Mr. Ritchie feels or wants, you are being completely disruptive and you know it. I have raised this to both the talk page and the WP:RS noticeboard and this will be answered sooner or later. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ]05:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can convince you, but the URL I was finding was the faulty one that you identify in your Talk contribution. It appears to be correct now, so are you okay?--Soulparadox (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were blatanly making false claims as I just pointed out in the talk page since I had initially added the correct link only. Own up your mistakes and revert the article to the correct state, else I will revert it anyways since this idiotic thing wasted enough time for me. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ]05:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I cannot convince you otherwise, so I will leave it there. I just made the revert - I didn't do it earlier, as I thought 3 is the limit. Anyway, take it easy and all the best with you Wikipedia copyediting.--Soulparadox (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your ability to consistently keep your cool in any situation, no matter how heated the discussion becomes. I forget how I ended up on your talk page again, but I was very impressed with your civility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for this. Unfortunately, these kind of interactions remind me of an article I read recently about new Wikipedia editors being treated poorly, thereby leading to a reduction in copyeditors. I think one critic referred to Wikipedia as a "video game" environment for young males. Anyway, thanks again.--Soulparadox (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One could probably write a sociology PhD thesis on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't be overly surprised to find out that someone already has. Communities with a strong sense of identity often react highly negatively to what they perceive as attempts to change or broaden their identity. Communities may even police themselves and denounce members who stray too far from the group identity. There's all sorts of other stuff, too, like using excessive amounts of technical jargon to confuse non-members and discourage their input. It's all quite intriguing, really, and I'm sure most people don't even realize they're doing it. I didn't really put it all together until I did a bunch of research on fan communities for a Wikipedia article that I wrote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cult film. I was going to write more in-depth about the sociological aspects in Cult following, but I felt too burnt out to write another long article on the topic. One of these days, I'll get around to it. I've certainly got enough sources collected from my research on cult films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Just a thank you for catching my wildly inappropriate edit [5]. I have an extension on chrome that changes every instance of the word "cloud" to "butt". Super sorry.
Hello Soulparadox, Acalamari has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Scarlet Road, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
A pleasure, and thanks for a very interesting article on a film I now must see – throws up several important issues and, from the trailers, looks very moving.Libby norman (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Soulparadox, thanks for your message. As a registered user you are fine to create articles without going through the Afc process (which can be slow). Obviously, new pages will still be patrolled (checked), but they will be live. Usual rules apply on refs, etc, which you already know about. You can either create in your sandbox and then move into mainspace or create offline, but sandbox is usually easier as you have all the tools and widgets you need to create citations, etc. That said, I tend to like to fiddle about on Word and then upload. It's also possible to create a page from a redlinked reference (ie, linked name or thing in an article that doesn't yet have an article written about it). You can create a redlink for yourself - for instance, if you wanted to create a separate page on Rachel Wotton you could just put two square brackets round either side of her name and save so it showed as a red link. Then if you clicked on the link it would open into a new page to be created. If you do that it is usually best to have your page ready to go live. A useful tool if you do it that way is to add an increation banner to give yourself a bit of breathing space and ensure everything looks as it should before you get patrolled. To do that, write increation with {x2 either side of the word. A rather marvellous please leave me alone for a bit banner comes up on the page. Hope that makes sense, do come back to me if not. Good luck! Libby norman (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Soulparadox, I'm an Australian freelance journalist. I just noticed your recent changes to the Urthboy page, which included some details that came from an interview of mine. I'm currently researching a story on Wikipedia editors and wondered if you'd be interested in speaking with me about this topic. If so, please email me at andrew dot mcmillen at gmail dot com to discuss further. Thanks for your great work here and I look forward to hearing from you. (Feel free to delete this message once you've seen it, if you'd like.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew McMillen (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Soulparadox. I noticed you were active on this article, but not on the article's Talk page and wanted to make sure you knew what was going on. Companies that feel they have unfair or incomplete articles often recruit me to engage with Wikipedians, offer draft content and facilitate other efforts to improve their article in a transparent and Wikipedia-compliant manner. Most companies that contribute to their own articles do so very poorly in a spammy/promotional way, but I'm actually one of our most prolific contributors of Good Article-ranked company pages and tend to do a little better than most. The new History section was something I put together on McKinsey's behalf and offered for consideration on the article Talk page. While much of the article is unfair to McKinsey, that particular section was actually edging a bit too far in their favor mostly. At the bottom of the Talk page at Talk:McKinsey_&_Company#Organization I've offered some draft content for the next section under the title Organization. CorporateM (Talk) 07:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is good to know—thank you for making contact! I will take a further look at the article in due course, as it is just one of many that I am interested in. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Your copyedits were quite good and appreciated. Though I think the item about Henrique De Castro might be better placed at List of McKinsey & Company people and offices. I noticed you've been reading The Firm (I have a copy at my desk right now). It seems to be one of the more neutral accounts of a topic that is very polarizing. CorporateM (Talk) 20:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Soulparadox, Thanks for copy editing Bob Dylan. I have made some further edits to diminish what you term the "fan club" tone of the article. "Fan club" implies critical issues are ignored. In this article, we have tried to address criticism of Dylan including the allegations of plagiarism in his paintings (Far East Series), in his lyrics (Love and Theft), allegations of self-censorship in his conduct in China, even the allegation of inciting racial hatred that was raised in a French court room in 2013, as well as the numerous criticisms in the 1970s and 80s about the quality of his recorded output, and the quality of his live performances in his Never Ending Tour. I'd be interested in discussing further changes or providing additional cites that may lead to the dropping of the "Tone" banner. Consensus on Bob Dylan Talk page seems to favor retaining Legacy as section title. Best wishes, Mick gold (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up that I address a long comment towards your editing earlier this month of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia. I'm critical of what I would consider to be your "tag-bombing", as I explain on the talk page, but please do not take this as any sort of personal attack or hostility towards you as an individual. Cheers. JDanek007Talk20:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: I truly hope you respond at your earliest convenience on the article talk page b/c I would regret removing all the article-level tags w/o any feedback from you, especially w/r/t the copyediting tag, since that seems to be an area of expertise/interest for you. Cheers. JDanek007Talk00:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed a claim you made in [6]. If you were thinking of Germany when you mentioned German-speaking cantons then it was very unclear. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)+[reply]
I have no idea why that was entered, as there is no reference to it in the article I cited! I am not even a football fan! Thank you for correcting this, as I am completely bewildered how that got in there, as I have no memory of writing the phrase (or is it a clause?). I have a feeling it was already there, but, normally, I would insert a "Citation needed" tag, so it was probably me! This is the first time this has happened. Anyhow, thank you!--Soulparadox (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question re City references in Palo Alto, California article
Hi Soulparadox, Thanks for cleaning up my edits on City of Palo Alto article. As you can tell, I am a new editor and have a lot to learn. However, I do not understand why you would change "Google (now in Mountain View)" to "Google (now in Mountain View, U.S.)". I could kind of understand "Google (now in Mountain View, California)" or "Google (now in Mountain View, CA)". Adding US does not pin things down much more than just saying the city name. Is there a style guide or some other reference that I should look at for this? Titles for US city articles go by [City], [State]. Please enlighten me on this. Regards,--Howardlhoffman (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Howardlhoffman and welcome to Wikipedia! I did not look at your editing history, so I was unaware of your new status. Thanks for making contact, as it usually helps when discussion occurs. I am having difficulty finding the relevant policy or guideline, which I read many months ago, that guides my location content writing style. Essentially, the two points from the guiding information that have stayed with me are: 1. Wikipedia is a global resource and its creators acknowledge the U.S.-centric history of the Internet, as well as the fact that the vast majority of users do not reside in the U.S., so it is important to not assume that all readers know the country that a city is located in, regardless of where the city is (yes, this has led to challenges, as I check to see if the country is clearly implied, thereby negating the need to include the country in some instances; or, as you have pointed out, should I also include the state name, or will the country suffice?). 2. I typically do not add a Wiki link to "United States" as a way to counter U.S.-centrism. In terms of the U.S. state matter, I veer toward at least adding the country, so that a greater degree of clarity is conveyed; however, it is probably technically ideal to add the state as well. When I don't include it, it is because I don't want to disrupt the syntax or flow of the text, whereby it reads awkwardly or is clunky, if that makes sense. It is an encyclopedia, though, so in this context, I guess such concerns are not as significant. Thanks for asking, as I will ponder this further during future edits and will aim to send you an update. Also, please let me know if you can enlighten me further, as I am always open to being incorrect or insufficiently updated! Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, here is an example of references to other nearby cities in the article on Mountain View:
"Mountain View is a city in Santa Clara County, in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. . . The city shares its borders with the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale, as well as Moffett Federal Airfield and the San Francisco Bay. . ." Note that the article refers to nearby cities with no state or country designated. Checking Wikipedia article for a random non-U.S. city, Berlin, Germany, references to other German cites do not include mention of the country. I certainly understand your two numbered points. However, in context, without knowing the geography, I would assume that simple mention of other cities in an article would mean that cities must be in same state (or province) and country or at least the same country. I feel that adding "U.S." to the cities in the Palo Alto article just adds clutter and suggest that you consider deleting. One more question: I thought that a welcoming committee usually posts to the User Page of a new editor. When does that usually happen?--Howardlhoffman (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think your point is fair and it has helped clarify my own editing style. The welcoming committee should have welcomed you by now. I think I can do it, but it has been so long I have forgotten the procedure. Maybe give it a little more time and I will see if I can work it out from end. Thank you for the worthwhile discussion :-) --Soulparadox (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Soul. Tourism in Melbourne might be more appropriate, since Melbourne came out on top. I think there's room for surveys on the Melbourne page, like livability rankings, but once you allow the addition of other, lesser-known surveys and rankings, then it can get a bit messy. Keep up the prolific editing :) - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I did end up going to the Melbourne-specific page and then discovered it needs a lot of work as well—so now I can add it to the list :-) --Soulparadox (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to take so long to respond. Hmm. I'm not even sure that it's notable. But I don't know the sector well enough to say that any of those sources besides the Citizen count to establish notability. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it refer to the use of links in quotes on the MOS page? I think the use of links for those authors would be helpful for those curious as to who they are. Most of them are relatively well known, but not everyone who reads the article is going to know them/recognise them by their last name. Ashton 29 (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ashton 29. Thanks for continuing the discussion, as I think it is the best way to work this stuff out, as I am certainly not the all-knowing Wikipedia expert. Here is the section from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking page: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the 'See also' section of the article." My interpretation is that it maintains the integrity of the quote as much as possible, as, while Wiki links in the body of a page's text allows readers to further explore Wikipedia in the interests of both website promotion and knowledge-attainment, the possibility of misleading the reader arises when they are used in quotes—that is, the person responsible for the quote was not specifically referring to Wikipedia when they made the quote.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I explained in the Edit Summary. It is not beneficial to add new information to a well developed article that is not cited. Do you think that is reasonable?--Soulparadox (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a note to let you know that I have removed the tags you plastered all over the above article here and here. Please be aware that this article is featured and could well do without having someone come along and add ugly, unhelpful tags all over it. Could you not have found out the information yourself? Cassiantotalk18:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, even if an article has been touched by the hand of "god"—whichever one you wish to believe in—if unverified content is included, then it needs to be highlighted. While appearance is relevant, Wikipedia is not merely a design forum, or an example of aesthetic excellence—it is an encyclopedic website that seeks to contain verifiable information. The importance of tags is so that copyeditors can easily identify the sections that need to be verified—it is also important that readers know when content is not verified. Yes, I could have sourced the information myself, but given that I am only one person, with finite energy and time, I feel that it is beneficial to highlight gaps in the article while I attend to the multiple other priorities in my life—this also provides other copyeditors with an opportunity to improve the article until I return to the article. I have restored the template, as it is still relevant. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's very easy to add a tag, anyone can do it. It takes a real editor to research the information. I won't be having two conversations on the same subject, so please choose where you want to be, either here or on my talk. Cassiantotalk09:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the "unverified, emotive content" from the article. I am gathering reliable, and also more up to date, sources on exactly the content that you have just removed. I hope to rewrite that entire section soon. Just one thing though: you added in content on the exploitation of women from, or trafficked through, Thailand to work in brothels in Japan. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the Japan article? It's technically not about prostitution in Thailand. Maybe a minor rewording to mention "prostitution rings that operate in Thailand" might make it more clear?- Takeaway (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only kept that in the article, as it was verified (even though the article is from 2006 and is not supported by other articles). I support your suggestion.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, there has been two more skaters that became pro. Aaron Kyro and Doug Des Autels became pro for Revive Skateboards and should be added to the list of pros — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candidius (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Candidius (talk • contribs): Thank you for this message. I am aware of Kyro and Revive Skateboards, as I watched a series of his webisodes earlier this year, so I understand the backstory of the brand, including the name change. However, both Kyro and Revive are not yet notable enough to appear on Wikipedia—Revive is not the only company to support "pros". This is merely my perspective, so I will post this thread on the Talk page of the article in question as well.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thank you kindly for this Jessejarvi (talk). I will paste this update into the Talk page, as it needs to be expressed somehow. I am presuming that the split was not officially announced in the media, so the wording will be important. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In April 2013, the group changed its name to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It grew significantly under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was subsequently criticized by al-Zawahri, but by November 2014, ISIL controlled a third of Iraq and Syria. After entering the Syrian Civil War, it established a large presence in the Syrian governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo. ISIL had close links to al-Qaeda until February 2014 when, after an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with the group, citing its failure to consult and "notorious intransigence".
You have removed significant information about the context of ISIL's rise (albeit uncited), have mentioned al-Zawahiri without explaining who he is or his relationship with ISIL, and put information with a November 2014 date before information about establishing a presence in Syria which started some years before 2014. Perhaps you would like to revise your edit, and please remember that the Lead must not exceed the length it now is per WP:LEAD. Editors have worked hard to reduce it to the size it is now. Thanks. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I apologize. The page has been subject to inappropriate editing—including demands from an ex-wife of Kilbey—so I reached a stage where I felt I needed to directly communicate with editors. I am typically accurate with the subjects of my communication, but this is a good lesson to learn. Thanks again for letting me know. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misinterpret my words. I didn't say that the edit you reverted was spam. I said it was a spammer's website. Enkakad was blocked yesterday for spamming on behalf of this family of websites. Bazj (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I removed the date was that above that it has a similar date indicating the same deal signed by Whedon. So it was the repetition that bothered me. Cognissonance (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are all on my Watchlist—the thing is tighter than every proverbial noun you can conjure up. Thanks for the heads-up, though, as I will pay particular attention to them. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
good job on adding content to the Larry Page article, I was waiting for someone to add something about his time at Google since he became CEO, I mean he's arguably the most powerful leader among large american tech companies, so there's alot there... Msundqvist (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've been doing such great work on the Larry Page article recently, I thought you might be interested in this.
I dug up some articles (some quite old and some more recent) on the internet about Larry Pages eco friendly spread of homes in Palo Alto, Calif.
One could potentially correlate some interesting info from these articles into the "personal life" section of his wikipedia article (being careful of course about including his actual address which was leaked a while back).
Like so much else in his life, he seems to have been thinking big and out of the box about the construction of his spread of homes. Many tech billionaires have extravagant homes, but he started out in an unorthodox way by purchasing an old palo alto home with an interesting history, and then evidently has been expanding on that ever since, buying up adjacent plots and constructing on those plots etc.
Using his real address (100 waverley oaks court, Palo Alto) one can find his home, the original home is the one with a square of open space in the middle of it, (looks like he has a Tesla on his driveway, although I'm not sure) and the adjacent plots that he's been purchasing on google earth/maps and it's interestingly placed, almost exactly inbetween his alma mater Stanford and Googles HQ, the commute time as calculated by google maps from his address to the googleplex is literally a couple of minutes and the distance is roughly 4.7 miles(7.5 km).
Hi, I added a few new sections to Taylor Swift's talk page in which I explained my reasons for reverting your edits. If there are any other edits you have an issue with, please add a section there and then anyone can weigh in with their opinions. I'm sorry if I came across as controlling earlier. It's true that I did a lot of work on Swift's page a couple of years ago and so I have an interest in the page's progress. I don't revert things if they improve the article but that I would have done it differently. I felt that, recently, there was a lot of superfluous quotes that padded out the article (and were interesting to me, as a fan) but which weren't very encyclopedic and were making the page look even less inviting to the casual reader. But anyway, respond to the secions and/or add your own sections, and I'm happy to discuss anything. Popeye191 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Popeye191: Thank you for the sentiment, but why are you discussing this on my Talk page and not on the page of the article? And why are you writing on behalf of the world's Internet users? How do you know what makes pages attractive to them? When were you deemed the arbiter of what is superfluous or not? Have you undertaken A/B split testing in secret? Are you aware of the process of consensus on Wikipedia? At the very least, provide reasons for your edits/reversions and use the article's Talk page. Is this reasonable? Thanks. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your most recent edit: the sections (both content and headings) still need further work. I'm still back at Jebediah's early days. I have a slight problem with a section/subsection titled the same as the article: could you modify Bob Evans to avoid any such confusion? Possible replacements: Mitchell's pseudonym, or Reverse alter-ego?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Joseph Prasad: Apologies for the late reply. I am not an expert on this topic, but you will see that pop rock is also the listed genre for the "Style" single, and I think if rockabilly is a genre that forms part of Drake Bell's overall musical style—which seems to be the case here—then adding it to the infobox is warranted. My only concern would be if an artist engaged in a different genre for a one-off collaboration, or a recording that was for an isolated event, and I would not agree with the addition of that genre in the artist's infobox—of course, the infobox of the specific song is another matter. I hope this helps. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
<jiggling your elbow>I'm wanting to create an album article for Familiar Stranger which requires a dab in its title. How's the Requested Move process going? This will influence the appropriate dab for Familiar Stranger.</jiggling your elbow> If you need further help just ask me or Dan (he's used to me volunteering him to do work of this type).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great work @Shaidar cuebiyar: The album definitely needed its own page! I was unable to proceed with anything further regarding the name change due to other commitments, but I see that @Dan arndt: has made progress below, so I will see if I can help out. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the step of initiating a move request from Bob Evans (musician) back to Kevin Mitchell (musician) - details of the discussion can be found at the article's talkpage. Dan arndt (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I've scoured the internet (using google of course) in search of interesting info about Larry... They've crammed so much into just 16 years of existence as a tech company, and of course he's been at the center of it all for all of those years. And in the spirit of collaboration I'm sharing my findings with you.
Brace yourself for this large trove of articles, websites and youtube videos (some from way back and some more recent).
Some of these sources are going to contain similar info (maybe even a tad repetitive info), but these websites and media outlets all tend to have their own unique spin on the info. The youtube videos are really interesting, check them out, I find some of them give some concrete insights into the mind and thinking of L.P, notice how many times he mentions artificial intelligence (think about how googles search engine is able to even answer conversational questions at this point, I do it all the time on my smartphone).
A talented wikipedia editor such as yourself could potentially correlate a lot from these sources and expand his wikipedia article with that info, I might even give it a shot myself, but I've really been on the lookout for new and interesting stuff to add to his article, and I certainly think that can probably be found in some of these sources.
Thank you once again @Msundqvist: Firstly, I need to apologize for not undertaking more work on the page, as I had a very busy week of admin-related commitments. I will look into this further over the coming week, including the resources you sent to me previously. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptional effort in editing, assisting and inspiring music articles & lists related to Jebediah, Kevin Mitchell and Basement Birds. Above all, for being such a great person to work with in collaborative projects: much appreciated. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is some discussion on Hacker News [7] about the Andrew McMillen page, to which you seem to have made the majority of contributions. I admire your thoroughness in putting the page together but, while the wiki system is good at producing encyclopedia-style articles, it's actually not all that suitable for creating a news archive, which your article appears to be. I wrote an article about this confusion, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts: [8]. -- Sparkzillatalk!19:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late reply, but I will leave it to the capable minds of Wikipedia to reach consensus. Thank you for the communication. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite surprised to see the article remain, considering the large number of 'Delete' votes, but the remnants do appear to be more "encyclopedic". If you are interested in repurposing the mcMillen data you already have, or in creating news archives that won't get deleted, then feel free to give Newslines a try any time. [9] -- Sparkzillatalk!14:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew McMillen 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is occurring at the TAFI talk page regarding the removal of entries from the project's List of articles page. Your input is welcome at the discussion.
…generally should not be made informal/familiar. For example, in your edits to Polyvore, one result was to change the appearances of the name of a company officer, Jess Lee, from "Lee" (surname) to "Jess" (given, familiar name). Such a change is contrary to encyclopedia practice. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I want to write an article about the language learning website LingQ. MBisanz told me to run sources by you because the article has been deleted before due to not being a notable company. Here are some links I have found:
Hi, Sleekandunique (talk), I apologize for the time this has taken, but again, the articles are merely review-/listicle-style articles that do not provide the degree of notability that I think is warranted for Wikipedia. Other editors might disagree, but LingQ really needs to looked at by a media publication in an in-depth manner to distinguish what makes it notable for inclusion here. Otherwise, it is just promotional. Regards, --Soulparadox (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
I think I understand. In order for people, companies, etc. to be worthy of a page someone must have dedicated an article or blog post to that person, company etc.? The reason I want to write a page on LingQ is because I'm surprised there isn't one already. I checked a similar service Lang-8 and they have referenced blogs that have posts about them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lang-8) I didn't realize I could add posts from language blogs. Shall I source some or is this a dead end? Thanks for your patience :)
There are even issues with the Lang 8 page, and I will flag this page now that you have brought it to my attention. The notability issue is further detailed here. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a prod on Quintavious Johnson or any article cannot be replaced because you disagree with the reason given, no reason needs to be given at all. I believe he passes WP:GNG which overrides all other notability guidelines, if you disagree please take it to AFD.See WP:PROD fwhich explains that a prod cannot be replaced, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed your previous discussion on the talk page of New Beat. I've added four more sources to a talk page section in the event that you or any other editor would like to further develop it. I took a quick stab and may return at some future point. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Jack Picone (photographer) portrait photograph (2014).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Jack Picone (photographer) portrait photograph (2014).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Jack Picone self-portrait in Sydney, Australia.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jack Picone self-portrait in Sydney, Australia.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
Hi Soulparadox. I don't think it's a good idea for you to try and re-license this file as a non-free image as you did here. Non-free images are almost never allowed to identify living individuals per WP:NFCC#1 because it is assumed that a freely licensed equivalent image which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose can either be found or created as explained in WP:FREER. If Picone has agreed to license the photo as public domain and he is for sure the photographer who took the photo, then easiest thing to for you to do would be to follow the instructions in c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. You should be able to use c:COM:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries to provide OTRS with evidence that Picone has agreed to such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Rohr OFM (born 1943, pictured at podium) is an American Franciscan friar ordained in 1970. He is a known inspirational speaker and has published numerous recorded talks and books.
U.S. Air Force 1st Lt. Matthew Feeman, builds a fire to help combat frostbite and hypothermia during a survival, evasion, resistance and escape exercise in Alaska. Note that there is a draft for the Survival page located at Draft:Survival.
Jahangir (31 August 1569 – 28 October 1627) was the fourth Mughal Emperor, who ruled the Mughal Empire from 1605 until his death in 1627. Pictured is a 17th century painting of Jahangir hunting with a falcon.
The People's Republic of Angola covers the period of Angolan history as a self-declared socialist state established in 1975 to the time it was dismantled in 1992.
Musicians at a pub session, an event that involves playing music and/or singing in the relaxed social setting of a local pub, in which the music-making is intermingled with the consumption of ale, stout, and beer and conversation.
Hello, Soulparadox. 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.
Animation illustrating the discovery history of satellite galaxies of the Milky Way over the last 100 years. The classical satellite galaxies are in blue (labeled with their names), SDSS-discoveries are in red, and more recent discoveries (mostly with DES) are in green.
The U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Josephus Daniels (CG-27) maneuvers around an island as it passes through the Strait of Magellan en route to Punte Arenas, Chile, on 1 July 1990, during exercise "Unitas XXXI", a combined exercise involving the naval forces of the United States and nine South American nations.
The National Museum is a Czech museum institution intended to systematically establish, prepare, and publicly exhibit natural scientific and historical collections. It was founded in 1818 and is located in Prague.
The pilot in command of an aircraft is the person aboard who is ultimately responsible for its operation and safety during flight. This would be the captain in a typical two- or three-pilot aircrew, or "pilot" if there is only one certificated and qualified pilot at the controls of an aircraft.
The Serengeti ecosystem is a geographical region located in northern Tanzania, Africa. It spans approximately 30,000 km2 (12,000 sq mi), and hosts the second largest terrestrial mammal migration in the world. Pictured is a leopard in a tree in the Serengeti.
A company is a legal entity made up of an association of people, be they natural, legal, or a mixture of both, for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Sun Productions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick McCrank (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.
Done - please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braydon Szafranski. Cheers, Stalwart111 06:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
re:"... What c/e means..." see Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend which has this and other similar crptic contractions. Regards 220 of Borg 16:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_passes_through_the_Strait_of_Magellan,_1_July_1990_(6475056).jpg)
.jpg)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:BoatArrivals.gif#More_detail_needed_for_NPOV){kind=link}
_portrait_photograph_(2014).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_portrait_photograph_(2014).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
