User talk:Starswept

Welcome!

Hello, Starswept, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! PeaceNT (talk)

May 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Spencer Pratt, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Specifically, tabloids are not reliable sources. Terrillja _talk 03:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Hugh Acheson, 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would Appreciate Your Input[edit]

Would appreciate your opinion on Talk:Halle Berry. I see this image better for the infobox and would like to reach a consensus, since another editor contends that this very bad image is better. Helliea (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

gossip[edit]

I see that you at least found a credible source so I won't take it out again, but that isn't my main point. There's no reason for an encyclopedia to attempt to keep track of who any particular celebrity may be dating at any given instant. That's the function of gossip tabloids and entertainment columnns, not biographies.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so say so from the start. You claimed the issue was that the source was a "gossip rag", and said "If you can find a source that 'isn't' a gossip rag that pays attention to this, it may conceivably be worth a section". I fulfilled your request and added sources from non-"rags". I did what you said, the end. If your issue is the larger philosophy of whether Wikipedia should keep tabs on who people are dating, then start a more holistic discussion somewhere on Wikipedia about that. No real reason for it to center particularly on one given actress's BLP when it's pretty standard on many other celebrity articles to state who they are dating or have dated as long as it can be reliably sourced. Starswept (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Starswept[reply]

I descibed it as "trivial gossip" from the start, and think "it may conceivably be worth a section" should have conveyed my disdain for the material. I do routinely remove such things from any article where I happen to notice it.—Kww(talk) 21:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have a different interpretation of the word "gossip". When you labelled it as "gossip", I interpreted that as "unsubstantiated rumour" or "idle chatter that has not been confirmed to be true or untrue", which I found to be inaccurate, since Michele and Monteith have both very publicly discussed their relationship numerous times. People have different opinions. While you might have "disdain" for such material, I tend to believe that it's better to include such information, when it can be properly sourced and neutrally stated, to avoid having fans of the celebrity continuously adding and removing the material without proper sources. Starswept (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Starswept[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Starswept. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Starswept. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Starswept. 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)[reply]