User talk:Anjow

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ed (Edgar181) 14:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Preston's Buzzcocks reference
Hi Anjow, if you look at the discussion at Talk:Samuel Preston (singer) (section on Congratulations this now reads like a fanzine) you'll see that there's been a lot of discussion on whether the anecdote about Preston's appearance on the Buzzcocks merits a mention in Wikipedia. For once, there is widespread agreement that its too trivial an incident for inclusion in an encyclopaedia and would be better off on a fan site. That's why we've agreed to remove it. If you have some good reason why it should stay in that meets Wikipedia guidelines, please tell us on the talk page. Thanks, :) Flozu 09:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... Relating to the original article: Raymond Michael Gaze - I have an expanded version here: User:Anjow/RMG. This was written by his biographer and shortened from the original here: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbm.2022.0026 -- I was asked to add it to his page since the original author did not know how to edit Wikipedia. The text and references were all provided by that author, which I've attempted to replicate here. I've seen the option to submit for review, however I didn't know if that was the right thing to do given it's to add to/replace an existing article - rather than an entirely new one. So my question is - is it correct to submit the draft for review, despite it being related to an existing stub article? Or is there a different way to get it reviewed? Anjow (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Submitting a draft for which an article exists for the same subject will usually result in a decline. Your draft, however, is missing inline citations for a lot of its content, so would be troubled by those deficiencies if you were to substitute the content of your draft for the existing stub article.
 * My suggestion would be to open a section at Talk:Raymond Michael Gaze with a pointer to your draft and ask for input. If nothing happens after a suitable interval (7 days?), then I guess the best course would be to substitute your draft for the stub and see what happens. It could be that you'll see other editors find sources to support the currently unsourced parts - or they may delete them. To the extent that you can improve the draft in the meanwhile, you should do so.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk)  11:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)