Archives |
---|
Contents
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hamid Dabashi
February 2016 – Discretionary Sanctions/Alert (topic=ab) – abortion
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
Proposed deletion for KEYZBABY
Hi Roscelese,
I'm doing my best to stay within the guidelines of Wikipedia, but every article I post gets marked almost immediately for deletion. I don't want to just remove the proposed deletion tag; I want to understand how to avoid receiving this tag each time I post. I've included what I believe to be viable sources to show relevance and notability, so I don't understand how more specific I need to be. Can you please elaborate?
Thanks!Mrenytfall (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Check out Wikipedia's notability policies to make sure that you are showing notability with reliable, significant, and independent sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Roscelese,
Can you check this page again to see if the sources cited have improved the article's notability? Thank you in advance! Mrenytfall (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like it. Check out the reliable sourcing guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Transnational organization
I don't know what SPI is, and I dont understand why this article has been reduced to a useless stub.Rathfelder (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet investigation. It was created by a user who added a ton of conspiracy-theory junk and created a whole bunch of accounts in order to do so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
So if I resurrect the useful parts I should be OK?Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which parts would you consider useful? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The stuff distinguishing between different kinds of organisations - international/transnational etc. I might find examples which are less controversial and more relevant.Rathfelder (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- The stuff that was in the lede can probably be retained, yeah. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
"Women are everywhere"
Hi Roscelese. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)