→I have sent you a note about a page you started: new section Tag: PageTriage |
Peter Gulutzan (talk | contribs) DRN Notice |
||
Line 331: | Line 331: | ||
[[User:SunDawn|<span style="background-color:black; color:orange;">✠ SunDawn ✠</span>]] [[User talk:SunDawn|<span style="color:blue;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(contact)</span></span>]] 04:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC) |
[[User:SunDawn|<span style="background-color:black; color:orange;">✠ SunDawn ✠</span>]] [[User talk:SunDawn|<span style="color:blue;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(contact)</span></span>]] 04:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
== DRN notice re Breitbart News / Quotes and cites == |
|||
I have filed at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Breitbart_News Dispute resolution noticeboard#Breitbart News]. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 15:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:24, 28 January 2023
Isi96, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Isi96! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC) |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi Isi96! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 11:20, Tuesday, September 5, 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi Isi96! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 11:28, Tuesday, September 5, 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Isi96. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Famousbirthdays.com as a source
Hi Isi96. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for information in a biography article, Jason Paige. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Editorializing
Hi. Please don't editorialize about whether a film was a "box office bomb", as you did at Unforgettable (2017 film) in this edit. Wikipedia doesn't label stuff like this. If a reliable source does, we can report their conclusions, but we can't come to our own conclusions per our policy on original research. Whether a Hollywood film made a profit is a complex and contentious matter, and there are people who are paid lots of money to analyze this stuff – or to obfuscate it, as in the case of Hollywood accounting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Isi96. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Office 2000 on Windows 10.png
Thanks for uploading File:Office 2000 on Windows 10.png. 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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Office XP on Windows NT 4.0.png
Thanks for uploading File:Office XP on Windows NT 4.0.png. 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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
My mistake
My mistake. My apologies; past time for me to take a break, I guess. X1\ (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Currently
Please note the WP:RELTIME guidelines and try to avoid words like "currently" and "recently".
If necessary, instead use Template:As of and specify the date. -- 109.76.216.10 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Your GA nomination of The Imitation Game
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Imitation Game you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Imitation Game
The article The Imitation Game you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Imitation Game for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Raw Story
Good job on the Raw Story article! See if you can try to incorporate this Harvard study or this CNN article. :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll take a look at those sources. Isi96 (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- I took a look at the Harvard study, and it doesn't seem like there's much useful info there about Raw Story besides its popularity on social media. Isi96 (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad! Those were only the first few pages. Here's the full study. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- I went through the full study, and there isn't any information on the actual content published by Raw Story that I could find. It does have information on its popularity on social media, though, as well as its relationship with other left-leaning sources of info. Isi96 (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yea, I think it may be worth incorporating some of that in the article. If you're looking for specifics of some of their article content, you should probably check out Snopes (like in this article) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- I went through the full study, and there isn't any information on the actual content published by Raw Story that I could find. It does have information on its popularity on social media, though, as well as its relationship with other left-leaning sources of info. Isi96 (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad! Those were only the first few pages. Here's the full study. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alerts
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Jamie Dornan
Thanks for your efforts copy-editing the Jamie Dornan article. I tackled the smaller sections a few days earlier but didn't have the time at that point to tackle the section about his career as an actor. I think between us we've covered the whole article, so the 'needs copy-editing' tag can now be removed. Do you agree? Neiltonks (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I skimmed through it, and there don't seem to be any major issues. Isi96 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Leigh Janiak has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Disambiguation link notification for August 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dinesh D'Souza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Sarah Natochenny.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sarah Natochenny.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.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
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, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 12
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Ann Coulter
- added a link pointing to Vanity Fair
- Laura Ingraham
- added a link pointing to Vanity Fair
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Small comment
When citing sources, search for and replace WP:CURLY apostrophes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Epoch Times reference at 2016: Obama's America
Hi. Please do not use the Epoch Times as you did at 2016: Obama's America. It is not a reliable source. See WP:EPOCHTIMES. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Robby.is.on Hi, I'm aware that The Epoch Times isn't a reliable source (I've contributed to its article as well). The reference used in the article you mentioned was being used as a primary source for D'Souza's claim of how he was inspired to make the film per WP:DEPRECATED.
- Thank you. Isi96 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. As I see it, this is a WP:UNDUE problem: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". The Epoch Times is not a reliable source. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Robby.is.on Yeah, I understand, but that particular claim doesn't seem particularly controversial to me, so I thought it would be fine to include it with attribution (The Epoch Times can still be used, just not for statements of fact). Isi96 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think claims need to be controversial for WP:DUE to apply? My point is: if the claims aren't covered by reliable sources, they are probably not worth mentioning. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Robby.is.on Yeah, I understand, but that particular claim doesn't seem particularly controversial to me, so I thought it would be fine to include it with attribution (The Epoch Times can still be used, just not for statements of fact). Isi96 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. As I see it, this is a WP:UNDUE problem: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". The Epoch Times is not a reliable source. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Derek Black, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Black.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Dom Phillips
On 23 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dom Phillips, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Adding content to the BTS article
The BTS article is going under a WP:FA review and more things need to be added as of now. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 02:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Btspurplegalaxy Sorry about that, I had no idea that it was under review. Feel free to remove what I added if needed. Isi96 (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 02:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- If it's needed, I will add the impact content back. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 02:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Mary Mara
On 2 July 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mary Mara, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 18:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Watchdog (research collective)
Hello! Your submission of Watchdog (research collective) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Watchdog (research collective)
On 26 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Watchdog (research collective), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Watchdog created a fact-checking app within 36 hours of its founding? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Watchdog (research collective). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Watchdog (research collective)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 5,580 views (465.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
DYK nomination of The Exposé
Hello! Your submission of The Exposé at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SpodleTalk 01:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC) SpodleTalk 01:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 15:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
DYK for The Exposé
On 30 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Exposé, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Exposé's false claims that COVID-19 was created by Moderna were republished by Chinese state media outlets? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Exposé. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Exposé), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Disclose.tv
On 6 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Disclose.tv, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the fake news website Disclose.tv plagiarized many of its articles when it relaunched in September 2021? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Disclose.tv. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Disclose.tv), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
FYI EWN posting
New posting on EWN: wp:EWN#User:Smefs reported by User:Adakiko (Result: ) Cheers Adakiko (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
"A report found..."
Hi, I put some nonsense on the talk page of your bot sentinel article, not really making sense, but trying to get un-confused about what the sources are saying. Though...I guess that is not our job, and the article seems pretty good to me. A few days later I sort-of started realizing what was bothering me, it is where someplace in the article you say a report "shows" or "found" something. This always bothers me in journalism, an example is if an article says excess sleep correlates with early death, and this is reported as "research *shows* that sleeping late can hasten your death," I think Wikipedia can't do a literature review and then have the statement, "research *shows* that excess sleep causes an early death."
Even if a reliable source says a report "found" or "shows" such-and-such, I think unless it is a matter of objective fact ("bot sentinel found that 12 percent of twitter accounts are bots") using the words like "found" or "shows" constitutes original research on the part of the Wikipedia editor.
There is the issue that Wikipedia readers are usually intelligent and can read between the lines. But I think we have to draw the line at the point where a Wikipedia article uses a word like "research shows" or "research found," because that word is what is used in a literature review to do original research, and conclude "on balance, research shows that Trump was the better president."
Even if a source says that, Wikipedia can only say that the source says that. Wikipedia cannot say "research found" or "research shows.." except if it really is a matter of objective fact like a mathematical theorem or a chemical formula.
Do you agree with this, that the article would step over the line into orig research if it says a report "found" ...unless in this context it found bots? Let me know.Createangelos (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think you're right, thanks for pointing it out. I'll update that particular sentence. Isi96 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Cheers. I'm pleased you were able to follow my argument even though I am not writing very clearly (need coffee!).Createangelos (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Isi96. Thank you for your work on OpenVAERS. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Isi96. Thank you for your work on Hannah Emily Anderson. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
DRN notice re Breitbart News / Quotes and cites
I have filed at Dispute resolution noticeboard#Breitbart News. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)