User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 10

BS

 * Thanks, Mandruss, I feel the same way I was telling a good friend of mine last night how we may come from different political viewpoints, yet work really well together with the goal of a good, objective article. I like to laugh, so thanks for the jokes! (Ok, how many grammatical errors did you find there? You're really good!)-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We come from different political viewpoints??!! Cancel the barnstar!! But seriously, if your politics are much different from mine, you make that completely invisible. Further bolstering my Model Editor claim. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe I'm wrong, Mandruss. There was something that you said once about objectivity that made me think that we might be voting for different people. That's the only time I got a smidge of an idea -- meaning you're a Model Editor, Mediator, and Grammatician. (ok, really I do mean it! you keep your cool, work well creating consensus, and do really good work)-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You give me too much credit. I'm far less nice toward editors who are disruptive, and there are a lot of them. That's one important difference between us and it;s only one of the things that disqualify me as Model Editor. I'll accept the wordsmith compliment, however. BTW, I'm a couple of degrees left of center politically, and don't ask me how I feel about Trump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, Ok, I misunderstood and, yet again, am wrong! That would be an apt description for where I place myself on the continuum - well, depending upon the topic.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for your contributions to the Donald Trump article! aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 03:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, aqwfyj. Thank you!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Continuing mentoring
Hi Carole, if you're still available, I'd appreciate your help unpacking the discussion that we started here. Please forgive my delay in replying, but I thought it'd be best if I took some time away from Wikipedia to collect my thoughts. I'm striving to be a thoughtful and helpful contributor, and despite being what I thought was rather transparent and considerate, I may have, as you said, unintentionally lost some people right off the bat. Your kind words meant a lot to me, and I'd be grateful for any aid I can get in understanding my place in the community and how to be a better editor. Thanks again. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I would be happy to help out. I wonder if it would be a good idea to start fresh - and take things a step at a time. What do you have in mind to accomplish next? Maybe we can develop a plan together before initiating any steps.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Carole, I'm currently working on a few other pages like Peter Hancock, AIG, and Assurant. The edits I'm proposing are, at least in my mind, considerably more minor than the ones on David M. Cote (they're matters of updating infoboxes and an article stub) so perhaps these would be a better place to start? Things I'd like to learn about are how to best present proposed changes as to invite collaboration and focus on content, as well as what my potential options are for when talk pages remain inactive and the article stagnates. Your earlier advice to demarcate proposed edits in collapsible text boxes suggested to me that I should be striving harder to be even more specific about potential changes--in creating a draft in my sandbox, my intent was to stage the changes in the context of what the article looked like when I began, so that they could be read in context, but I'm starting to gather that this might not be the optimal way to go about things. Would it be more prudent to include only the changes in a sandbox? Or should I consider abandoning that practice altogether? Thanks so much again for taking the time to teach me! --FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Carole, hope all is well. I just wanted to let you know I'm pursuing formal mentorship from other users. I hope you're not offended, or think me impatient; the advice you've given me has given me a fresh perspective, and if you wouldn't mind, I would love it if I could still reach out to you in the future. Your level-headed nature is greatly appreciated :) --FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * I am returning to Wikipedia and thought I'd check in to see if there's a way I can be off assistance. Is there anything you'd like help with now?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Carole! So glad to hear from you again! I hope you're doing well. I've been making progress over the last year, and while I don't think I have any questions specifically regarding mentorship at this point in time, I am trying to find someone to review my proposed edits over on Honeywell. It seems my biggest problem is still finding willing editors to review my work!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I apologize, I missed this, . Not as an excuse, I have been on a wild and crazy article writing binge... but am slowing that down now. Do you still want help?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Request help on the History page of Times Group
Hi Carole, Just need some help on adding some more information on Times Group. There are some companies that need to be added and some companies in the Group that do not exist any more. Can I post the information in one chunk and wait for someone to edit it? I have already posted some info on the history section of Times Group but it has not been edited as yet. Is there any other way I can edit this information? thanksTGITInteract (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * I am returning to Wikipedia and thought I'd check in to see if there's a way I can be off assistance. Were you able to post your changes on the talk page and request assistance in editing? Is there anything you'd like help with now?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Mother of May Robson
I am researching the family of Adelaide Fanny Julia Robison the oldest sister of Mary Jeannette Robison (May Robson). Their father was Captain Henry Robison (b. 27 Dec 1810) in Penrith, Cumberland who married Julia Schlesinger at Liverpool in 1847.

Henry Robison was a Captain in the British Merchant navy (not the Royal Navy) and also a Silversmith in Liverpool. He moved from Liverpool to Melbourne with his wife and three children in 1853 and opened a Jewellery shop in Bourke Street, Melbourne. In 1857 he opened a Hotel in Moama, New South Wales. Mary Jennette Robison was born in Moama in 1858. Captain Henry Robison died in Moama in 1860 when Mary was 1y 9m old. Julia married Walter Miller in 1862 and lived in Albury, NSW until about 1866 when the new family moved to Melbourne, VIC and probably lived in the seaside suburb of St Kilda. Sometime between 1870 and 1878 the Miller family, including Mary Robison moved to London.

Mary Robison attended La Sainte Union Catholic School, Highgate Road, London. In the marriage allegation signed by Charles L. Gore in 1875 she gave her Aunt Adelaide's address at Medbourne, Leicestershire claiming that she was 20 years old (she was 17 and he was 19).

Mary Robison's brother, James, lived in San Fransisco from 1895 to his death in 1920. Her mother, Julia, lived there from 1912 to her death in 1914.

Best wishes Colinrosewell (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi ,
 * That's interesting information, do you have sources for the information (books, articles, etc.). Thanks much!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The early life of May Robson
I am researching the life of Adelaide Robison, the sister of Mary Jeanette Robison (May Robson). I have established a few facts about her early life which differ from that in most biographical articles and wonder if you are interested in receiving a copy? I could edit your Wiki article but prefer to discuss with you first.

Here is an Excerpt:

In an autobiographical sketch appearing in “The Theatre” magazine of 1907, Mary Robison starts by saying “I was born in the Australian bush.” Mary Robison was born at Moama, New South Wales, Australia on 19 April 1858. Her parents were Henry Robison (1810-1860) from Penrith, Cumberland, England and Julia Schlesinger (1824-1914) from Liverpool, Lancashire, England who were married in Liverpool on 21 October 1847.

Henry Robison was a merchant navy seaman with the Honourable East India Company for 24 years from the age of 19 and received his Master’s Certificate of Service on 21 February 1853. In 1848 he was listed as a Watch & Clock Maker living at Church Street, Liverpool; a Jeweller in 1850; and a Silversmith in 1852. At the census of 1851 Henry, a Jeweller, was visiting his brother, James Robison, Wine Merchant of Newton, Penrith.

Julia was the eldest daughter of Casper Wolfe Schlesinger (c. 1801-) and Adelaide Leman (c. 1804). Casper was listed as a Watch & Clock Maker at Pleasant Street, Liverpool in 1834; a Land & House Agent at Anne Street, 1848; and by 1850 he and his family were resident at Brooklyn City, New York, USA. In 1848 Adelaide and Julia were listed as Artists at Anne Street, Liverpool. At the 1851 census Julia was a Silversmith living at Church Street with their two sons.

Best wishes Colinrosewell (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi ,
 * Do you have sources for the information (books, articles, etc.) written/edited by a third party? Thanks much!

Dean
Hi Carole, I'm struggling health wise, but doing the best I can to push forward with this article. Just wanted to touch base with you and see if you are still willing to provide feedback on a couple of things:

1) I removed some publications from the article (and thinking of still removing more) - publications in which Dean wrote articles for. I could not locate any clear citations or links, and since they do not seem to exist anywhere I deemed it best not to include them. 2) After a few minor edits, I submitted the article and am waiting for a response. 3) I received another photo of Dean from her husband, Larry, to use for the article - a non-professional/never published photo. 4) I uploaded the photo, added the file name to the article as I was told it was ok to do so and still work on the article even though it was submitted. I added the link to the article and it appears to have worked, though I'm not sure if the placement is the best choice. 5)I sent Larry a draft of the Declaration of Consent letter for him to complete, with instructions to include the URL of the photo (and jpg attachment as well) and send all via email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Let me know if there are any changes I should make, of what I've done. Also, anything else you think I should do to improve upon the article while I wait for approval of both the article and photo.

Thank you in advance for your assistance, and I hope all is well with you. Nice to have the warm weather back. Best, Penslips Penslips — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penslips (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry that I've been offline for so long, I have health problems that knock me for a loop, too. It looks like you've done some nice work on Dean Faulkner Wells. Is there any way that I can help out with this?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested deletion
If you're the only main author (not counting bots, gnomes, and vandals), don't forget db-g7 as 'one author who requests...'. Just implies 'I want rid' rather than 'I slipped up'... Thanks for trying the article anyway. IMO it could have been an A7, but I used g7 instead. Peridon (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , Are you talking about the Herndon L. Davis article? Ok, I'll try and remember that. I don't ask for speedy deletions very often for established articles. (Mostly it's clean-up from moves, merges, etc.)-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It works for the redirects left over from moves too. I know nothing about merges. Some day I might have to learn how to do one... Peridon (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A goldfish for you


Soham321 has given you a goldfish! Goldfish promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a goldfish, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Give someone a goldfish by adding {{subst:Goldfish}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy editing. Soham321 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

formatted url
do you think you could help me give the formatted url for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Donald_Trump.27s_response_.28NPOV_related_issues.29

I tried doing this, but it doesn't work: | diff Soham321 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, !


 * You could use the url formatting ( [ + url + space + words you'd like to use, like "DT response - NPOV" + ] ) to make:
 * DT response - NPOV


 * or treat it a wikilink, with the specific section, to make


 * DT response - NPOV


 * Thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you use "diff" this way, but I think a lot of people think "diff" means a comparison of two versions in article or talk history.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

you are right; that was an error on my part. Its a link; not a diff. doing some testing now. thank you. Soham321 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , The subsection part of the link (#Donald_Trump.27s_response_.28NPOV_related_issues.29) goes to the "Donald Trump's response (NPOV related issues)" section. Did you mean to use a different url?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

no, the url is fine. Soham321 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ok, cool. I thought that there used to be something in here saying it went to the wrong place. It sounds like you're good.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI
** Let me start out by saying that I've posted this here because it seemed like the fairest approach **

I have an update on the reliable sources questions posted to BLPN. One of which is "delete the list", which has been done. They also provided some input on the inclusion of content, like the rape case - and what policies apply to this exceptional BLP scenario. I still have some follow-up questions at the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.

It would be great to get your input about what's a good go-to guideline / starting point. Identifying reliable sources seems good, but I could argue for others as well. I've also asked the BLPN for input on guidelines.

Regarding the ANI, it's' open right now, but I would really like to be able to close this down if we can have two-way conversation about the issues in the About the neutrality banner section, because it seems that has the most information, as well as my responses. And, it's also where I'm putting the BLPN feedback.

I don't know if one of you posted this, but I love it! Thanks for that!

I know it's been really tough - but I hope you think that we can get to a much better place around reliable sources - your intention to make it the best article and call out issues makes me think that might be possible. (Not trying to boil the ocean.)

Am I missing anything?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Bastun, I collapsed the conversation in the Underage sex and drugs party section because, just as Mandruss said it was another attempt to repost the same information. Even though I summarized the guidelines that you have referred in the Jane Doe section, you also went and started to get into detail that has been discussed on the talk page.
 * Bastun, I collapsed the conversation in the Underage sex and drugs party section because, just as Mandruss said it was another attempt to repost the same information. Even though I summarized the guidelines that you have referred in the Jane Doe section, you also went and started to get into detail that has been discussed on the talk page.


 * I got caught up and responded. I shouldn't have. We've been around this SO MANY times. I wondering if the key issue that you're having is with the RfC and how the content will be resolved based upon that conclusion. Perhaps we can wait until a closer evaluates the section and then deal with it. All this discussion before then seems immaterial.


 * Because this issue has been brought up about posting redundant content, I am going to place a warning on your user page, acknowledging that I did make a comment.


 * Because I have not seen any follow-up comments in the "About the neutrality banner" section, may I conclude that there are no further issues (except Jane Doe, which can be discussed in that section) from this section? And, these won't be opened back up in a new section? As you likely saw, I also asked that we don't have redundant conversations on the Biography page. It almost looks as if you're cutting-and-pasting previous comments that you've made.


 * Thanks so much!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If I don't hear back about the neutrality banner, I will assume that all the discussions there have been resolved satisfactorily and make a posting about under what circumstances the banner may be removed if all conversation has stopped and no responses are made to questions about neutrality and NPOV (I asked a question about how to move this forward and have not seen a response there, either.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing Jane Doe content while the RfC is open, except within the discussion section of the RfC. We already tried open discussion about that, for many days, to no avail. That's why the RfC exists. Put discussion and arguments in the RfC and wait for the close. My opinion as to sex parties content is unchanged from what I said here: Otherwise no comment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The ANI complaint, and everything in it, appears to be a dead issue. It remains technically open, but someone will be along to close it before long (or it may just archive without being closed). I don't think another admin is likely to see enough there to disagree with MelanieN's assessment. These things usually err on the side of no action. Water under bridge, but I hope we can work together with a higher trust level and respect Wikipedia process (I think Bastun should strike their opening comments in the "Valid RfC?" subsection.)

So, to be clear, - you ping me here and post essentially the same questions here and on the sexual misconduct talk page, and when I answer you, your response is to place a warning on my talk page?! WTAF! What are you warning me about - answering you? Ok, then, I won't make that mistake again. Jesus. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No, these aren't the same points that are on the article talk page - I have not said these points there because I haven't thought it appropriate to bring up the ANI there.


 * I added the warning after I realized that you posted the same comments that you had posted on the article talk page. So, even after the ANI discussion - you still keep posting the same content. Why, I ask you why? Why do you need to keep adding all the same content over and over and over again? I asked you that on your talk page. Help me understand. Why oh why is this necessary?


 * Well, trust me, there's no issue there. You drop claims - drop the same comments over and over again. But when I respond to you, zip. Then, you wait, and post it again somewhere else. That's why I dissected the issues in the About the neutrality banner section of the talk page. So, we could get to the root of the issues - get this finally cleared up and closed. But do you respond to that? NOOOOO. No way.


 * Trust me, I have had enough of this, too. I have tried to be pleasant, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. It would be sooo helpful if rather than causing disruption you worked towards bridging and resolving issues.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Special Thanks
In my limited experience it's rare to encounter editors in political articles whose sole interest seems to be article improvement - generally I find partisans applying unequal standards to one side or the other, and the best one can hope is that the partisans balance each other. I don't think we've worked together previously but I hope our article interests intersect again. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , Thank you, that was a lovely thing to say. I have enjoyed working with you, too, knowing that you have been vigilant in ensuring that we don't have tabloid and other unreliable sources. Hopefully we do work together again.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you from Robd
Hi Carole, Thanks for the welcome! I'm still a little confused as to where the four tildes go? I ended my first message with Robd831 (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC) followed by my name. Thank you.

Robd831


 * - It looks like you did it right, you add --~ at the end of your conversation. And, WP will do its magic after you save your edits to create a signature and date/time stamp like this: -- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI
** Let me start out by saying that I've posted this here because it seemed like the fairest approach **

I have an update on the reliable sources questions posted to BLPN. One of which is "delete the list", which has been done. They also provided some input on the inclusion of content, like the rape case - and what policies apply to this exceptional BLP scenario. I still have some follow-up questions at the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.

It would be great to get your input about what's a good go-to guideline / starting point. Identifying reliable sources seems good, but I could argue for others as well. I've also asked the BLPN for input on guidelines.

Regarding the ANI, it's' open right now, but I would really like to be able to close this down if we can have two-way conversation about the issues in the About the neutrality banner section, because it seems that has the most information, as well as my responses. And, it's also where I'm putting the BLPN feedback.

I don't know if one of you posted this, but I love it! Thanks for that!

I know it's been really tough - but I hope you think that we can get to a much better place around reliable sources - your intention to make it the best article and call out issues makes me think that might be possible. (Not trying to boil the ocean.)

Am I missing anything?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Bastun, I collapsed the conversation in the Underage sex and drugs party section because, just as Mandruss said it was another attempt to repost the same information. Even though I summarized the guidelines that you have referred in the Jane Doe section, you also went and started to get into detail that has been discussed on the talk page.
 * Bastun, I collapsed the conversation in the Underage sex and drugs party section because, just as Mandruss said it was another attempt to repost the same information. Even though I summarized the guidelines that you have referred in the Jane Doe section, you also went and started to get into detail that has been discussed on the talk page.


 * I got caught up and responded. I shouldn't have. We've been around this SO MANY times. I wondering if the key issue that you're having is with the RfC and how the content will be resolved based upon that conclusion. Perhaps we can wait until a closer evaluates the section and then deal with it. All this discussion before then seems immaterial.


 * Because this issue has been brought up about posting redundant content, I am going to place a warning on your user page, acknowledging that I did make a comment.


 * Because I have not seen any follow-up comments in the "About the neutrality banner" section, may I conclude that there are no further issues (except Jane Doe, which can be discussed in that section) from this section? And, these won't be opened back up in a new section? As you likely saw, I also asked that we don't have redundant conversations on the Biography page. It almost looks as if you're cutting-and-pasting previous comments that you've made.


 * Thanks so much!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If I don't hear back about the neutrality banner, I will assume that all the discussions there have been resolved satisfactorily and make a posting about under what circumstances the banner may be removed if all conversation has stopped and no responses are made to questions about neutrality and NPOV (I asked a question about how to move this forward and have not seen a response there, either.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing Jane Doe content while the RfC is open, except within the discussion section of the RfC. We already tried open discussion about that, for many days, to no avail. That's why the RfC exists. Put discussion and arguments in the RfC and wait for the close. My opinion as to sex parties content is unchanged from what I said here: Otherwise no comment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The ANI complaint, and everything in it, appears to be a dead issue. It remains technically open, but someone will be along to close it before long (or it may just archive without being closed). I don't think another admin is likely to see enough there to disagree with MelanieN's assessment. These things usually err on the side of no action. Water under bridge, but I hope we can work together with a higher trust level and respect Wikipedia process (I think Bastun should strike their opening comments in the "Valid RfC?" subsection.)

So, to be clear, - you ping me here and post essentially the same questions here and on the sexual misconduct talk page, and when I answer you, your response is to place a warning on my talk page?! WTAF! What are you warning me about - answering you? Ok, then, I won't make that mistake again. Jesus. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No, these aren't the same points that are on the article talk page - I have not said these points there because I haven't thought it appropriate to bring up the ANI there.


 * I added the warning after I realized that you posted the same comments that you had posted on the article talk page. So, even after the ANI discussion - you still keep posting the same content. Why, I ask you why? Why do you need to keep adding all the same content over and over and over again? I asked you that on your talk page. Help me understand. Why oh why is this necessary?


 * Well, trust me, there's no issue there. You drop claims - drop the same comments over and over again. But when I respond to you, zip. Then, you wait, and post it again somewhere else. That's why I dissected the issues in the About the neutrality banner section of the talk page. So, we could get to the root of the issues - get this finally cleared up and closed. But do you respond to that? NOOOOO. No way.


 * Trust me, I have had enough of this, too. I have tried to be pleasant, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. It would be sooo helpful if rather than causing disruption you worked towards bridging and resolving issues.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 19, September–October 2016 by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti  Read the full newsletter 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
 * New Library Card Platform and Conference news
 * Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

4th GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 44, 2016)
Thank you Carole for the compliment! Robd831 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Robd831

Question with the edit
Hello Carole, I want to thank you for the edit, however the words "for an undisclosed amount" should be removed because it implies that the suit was withdrawn for an undisclosed amount. The article referenced states "She dropped it weeks later after Trump settled an outstanding business lawsuit from her partner Houraney" It does not say that she withdrew the suit for an undisclosed amount. The line, should read The suit was withdrawn after Houraney settled with Trump in a lawsuit that claimed that Trump backed out of a business deal and not  The suit was withdrawn for an undisclosed amount after Houraney settled with Trump in a lawsuit that claimed that Trump backed out of a business deal. This is according to the article referenced. Robd831 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Robd831


 * Ok, great, would you like to make the edit and the reason for the edit in the edit summary? Yes, you do have that hang of the signature - and pretty fast - it look me and a lot of newbies a bit to get the hang of that.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, great, would you like to make the edit and the reason for the edit in the edit summary? Yes, you do have that hang of the signature - and pretty fast - it look me and a lot of newbies a bit to get the hang of that.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , you may not feel comfortable with that - and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you wanting to get this right!! I will either make those changes or find the original source that mentions the withdrawal. I think it was one of the List of accusers articles from NPR or NBC.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Carole, Wow thanks! I guess I'm a stickler "to getting it right." And please feel free to make the changes, according to the Wiki edit page, I cannot complete the edit until after 10 days of registration and 4 completed edits. Robd831 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Robd831
 * Ohhhh, gotcha!!! I moved the "undisclosed amount" part, found the original source and added a quote from the Guardian article to its citation: "Houraney sued for $5m but settled with Trump for a smaller, undisclosed amount". How does that work for you?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Carole Thank you for the cookies. Colinrosewell (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, I will see you on your page.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , Hi, just showing you how the "pinging" works. I should have used it above!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea
Your efforts to be fair and keep the peace are seeds that are planted in the rich soil of editor collaboration. Don't let it get to you. Buster Seven   Talk  11:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, that is really nice of you. I am doing fine... it's better for my health if I move on... and the more I reflected, the more I thought that my key usefulness was when the article was just in its early stages. There are plenty of good people left to manage the article from here. Your input is much appreciated though, Namaste.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding list of acceptable sources for Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations
I see that my personal comments were used, I am sure in good faith to evaluate what should or should not be considered reliable sources. I summarized my comments at the Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page here about 1) not using the list - I was wrong to have used the list and 2) please take questions back to Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. In fairness to all the people who continue to work on issues on the talk page. I will never comment about anything to do with "sources" again.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping this list on my page, Carole. Might we also include The Wall Street Journal, PBS, and The Washington Times as acceptable sources? User:Wecarlisle

Use:
 * Atlantic - RS
 * Business Insider - RS
 * CNN, CNN Money - RS
 * Deseret News - RS
 * Fox News - RS, preferred from previous discussion
 * Guardian - RS
 * Houston Public Media
 * Los Angeles Times - RS, preferred from previous discussion
 * NPR - RS, preferred from previous discussion
 * Network news: ABC, CBS, NBC - RS
 * New York Daily News - RS
 * New York Magazine - RS
 * New York Times - RS
 * Newsweek - RS
 * NPR - RS
 * Palm Beach Post - RS
 * People - RS
 * Rolling Stone - RS
 * Slate - RS
 * Time - RS
 * Variety - RS
 * VOX - RS
 * Washington Post - RS

Don't use or find a better source, based on RSN
 * Daily Beast - RS, but speculative opinion pieces
 * DailyMail - not RS
 * Donald J. Trump campaign site - better to get a secondary source.In cases where Trump's responses to specific allegations are present on his campaign site but not (within a reasonable time frame) covered in RS, we include his response noting that it came from the campaign site (added)
 * Huffington Post - RS, better to find another source
 * Independent - not RS
 * International Business Times - not clearly RS, better to find another source (added)
 * LawNews - not RS per RSN in this post (added)
 * Politico - RS, but better to find another source
 * Anything else not on the "use" list unless it's a known reliable source (search noticeboard) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wecarlisle (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, ,


 * A couple of things. For context, the list was originally prepared from the sources on the article at the time of a claim of POV and reliable source issues on the talk page. There were several cases in which the sources were changed to "better sources", either due to potential bias or that they were not considered top tier journalistic sources. It wasn't at all meant to be an exhaustive list.


 * I have since found out from the RSN talk page and the BLPN, that I shouldn't use such a list - because the reliability of a source may vary depending up the topic. (I think they also had an issue with " Anything else not on the "use" list unless it's a known reliable source (search noticeboard)", because the noticeboard addresses specific topics and content. But, that has been a good way for me to get a "take" on specific sources.) I've learned that it should not have been used as a guide for others.


 * It's not my place to declare what are reliable sources, but like you, I personally would consider The Wall Street Journal and PBS to be good journalistic sources with editorial control/review. I am not at all familiar with The Washington Times.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I also think it's potentially beneficial to include sources with known political leanings that have reported on the lawsuit (i.e. Breitbart, or Huffington Post), since it helps to illustrate that the press at large has established that this particular lawsuit does in fact exist.  Radar Online (while not the pinnacle of journalism by any means) does have Donald Trump, and members of his legal team on record giving de facto admissions that the lawsuit is in fact real (by publicly denying the allegations contained therein).     -




 * I think both Breitbart and Huffington Post have come up in conversation about added content both may be considered biased. If you have specific content that you would like to add from those sources, I would bring them up on the article talk page with respect to specific content. (I personally would never use Radar Online - and due to POV concerns, if I was going to add content to this sensitive article, I would not use Huffington Post or Breitbart. You can get takes from the left and right using New York Times and Fox News, respectively. Again, that this is just my personal opinion. I always have an opinion, whether it's right or not is open for debate. )


 * There are a lot of really good folks working on the article that can weigh-in on this on the Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note, "both may be considered biased" is never a reason to not use a source. We are required by NPOV to use biased sources. There may be other reasons to not use a source, but bias is never a legitimate reason. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have nothing more to add to:
 * If you have specific content that you would like to add from those sources [Breitbart, Huffington Post, etc], I would bring them up on the article talk page with respect to specific content.
 * You can get takes from the left and right using New York Times and Fox News, respectively. Again, that this is just my personal opinion.
 * There are a lot of really good folks working on the article that can weigh-in on this on the Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I was just mentioning this as a matter of principle, not about those sources specifically. Breitbart is a strongly partisan fringe source, often known for its lack of fact checking (to the point of manufacturing deceptive talking points and deceptively edited sting videos), so its usefulness would be very limited anyway, and The Huffington Post varies from strongly fringe opinions to extremely reliable mainstream reporting, all depending on the article. It would be how they are to be used which would determine if we used any of them at all, and of course that principle applies to every source we use here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for your contributions to the McCarthy bio
I just wanted to thank-you for helping out with the McCarthy bio. It is so refreshing to encounter an editor who is actually interested in improving an article, rather than just deleting large slabs of text and earmarking the entire thing for deletion.

The bio was in danger of being deleted, and I thought that it would be such a shame for this to happen. There would hardly be a marketing student today who was unaware of McCarthy's contribution to the discipline. Most standard textbooks mention his work. I really wanted to save him from oblivion. I did my best - added 15 references, added the early career, added an academic box (which someone had said was needed), added the list of selected writings. But instead of improving it, the number of problematic quality tags actually increased!

A couple of things.

1. Date of death: I did not contribute this basic information. But I did find the obit. in the  Lansing Journal which contained more detail. However, I have already used this source for some of his early career. I am unable to use any given source more than once because it forces "cite errors". Try as I might, I have never been able to get this right (have read instructions, have studied how it is done in other articles etc). A lot of the same/ similar material appears in many of the sources - but I can only use each source once and once only. Like you, I suspect the obit was written by family, but I am unaware of any other obit - did search a few periodicals -  New York Times,  Marketing Magazine and the American Marketing Association website etc, but turned up zero. In any case, the basic facts are repeated in many of the other sources.
 * I added the cite tag that you use for multiple uses of the same source. I had already named the source, so it was fast and easy. See this edit-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

2. Qualifications: I managed to find a list of graduates from Uni of Minnesota which lists McCarthy's PhD in 1958 and his MA in 1954. It was a scanned image from the 1940s and 50s; a very long document and did not respond to text recognition. It took me almost an entire day to go through it manually and locate McCarthy's name. The document had no page numbers, and only rarely included dates, so it would be impossible to reference page nos in the citation. I did not use this source because I felt that it may not be considered "reliable" due to the fact that other users would not be able to replicate the information easily. However, that source was useful in cross validating other existing sources with comparable information. Perhaps I made a mistake by omitting it.


 * I don't know, that's probably wise. It's a primary source, that while verifiable, is not easy to verify. People can guesstimate the timeframe between his BA and PhD. I think that's perfectly fine.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

3. Blog: I made a conscious choice to include a blog because McCarthy is one of a rare breed of professors who influenced both practitioners and academics. I could not find any published source that made this point, although among marketers, it seems to be understood. Blogs are the preferred medium for practitioners' writing, so by including a blog, I considered that this would illustrate how far McCarthy's influence had spread. However, the blog is of little consequence- it's really just 'stacks on the mill' -and could be deleted with no real loss of value.


 * I don't know about this one. I've done some searching around in WP and their website. I think I would steer away from this one for a number of reasons, one of which is that I don't see an editorial department. If you want to bring it up to the WP:RSN, you could provide the content and the citation information and have them weigh-in.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

4. Explain why his work was influential: I believe that this would be a dangerous move. If I attempted to explain anything at all, it could be construed as 'original research' and would be rejected. I have relied on what various authors have said - and if they only say that his work was a landmark or a milestone, then I would be very reluctant to embellish on that.


 * The source should speak for itself on this. Anything else, your right is original research. If you cannnot say anything more than "His work has been considered influential and a milestone in the marketing field [3]" without giving the reasons provided by that source, I think it should be left out.


 * I did post something on the talk page about 3 articles on HighBeam and there's a lovely summary of how his concept remains viable over the decades. I can email that to you, if you have the email option setup in preferences. I don't see the "email this user option" on your talk page. And, I believe there are copyright violations of posting the info on a talk page. Why don't you think about whether it might be ok to email you... and if not, we'll circle back on alternatives.


 * For context: The final sentence is: "In spite of these additions and criticisms, the prevailing approach to the marketing mix remains the one based on the four Ps." The source info is: Overview: Marketing Mix: Product, Price, Place, Promotion: What It Means. Everyday Finance: Economics, Personal Money Management, and Entrepreneurship January 1, 2008. You may be able to see a bit of the article here.


 * I am convinced that whether this article used or not, there must be info out there that describes the importance of the concept. I liked this article because it shows varying viewpoints. If need be, I would work on writing and sourcing this. -- CaroleHenson (talk)

5. The 4 Ps: section was there when I started editing this bio. I agree that it doesn't really help, but I am reluctant to delete any previous contribution. I am working on the assumption that if someone put in there, they felt it was meaningful. Unless there are compelling reasons for its deletion (e.g. factually incorrect), I my policy has been to leave it.


 * What makes you think that it should go? I don't understand. I have tried to work on changing the heading name. Since his concept is commonly called the 4Ps, I thought maybe that should be the heading.


 * It would benefit from some polishing. Like there is someone specific that relates to "The concept of a marketing mix had been known from the late 1940s" - I forget his name at the moment and some copy-editing. Why would you want to get rid of this section? It's his seminal work, isn't it?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

6. List of Publications: I had some reservations about this too. However, it does illustrate the point that his works have been widely translated and continue to be published in new editions until the present day.


 * I think that it's important to have his list of works. You could have a summary statement, though, for the translated version with the original book title, like "published in four languages" or "published in Chinese, Spanish, etc. and get rid of the "Translations/ Foreign Language Editions" section

7. Other sources: I have searched the Michigan State University site for any mention of McCarthy but turned up very little. It has not been easy researching his early career - but there is heaps of material on his influence.
 * Oh, good, that gets to the points I was trying to make in #4.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks again, you have been a big help, and polite and encouraging with it. I have not seen too much of that in the 3 weeks that I have been on Wikipedia. You are a star!!!! I would like to give you a medal, but I don't know how.

BronHiggs (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's very much my pleasure, you just did!


 * I am going to have this moved to the article talk page. I just need to figure out what template I need to use.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This conversation has been moved to the article talk page.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Tutzing
Thank you for reviewing the Akademie. I had to nominate today, although it's not quite ready, - please be patient, - it's close to midnight here, and I have a very busy day tomorrow. The article is a translation from German, where there's not a single inline citation. I found some, but had no time for the building yet, which will be somewhere, perhaps on the official website. - I am not happy with the "German" template for things that are translations from German. Nite ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , Yes, I have run across your work before - perhaps in visual arts? And, I remember it to be quite good. I'm going to place the query on your talk page, as suggested in the process, but I can absolutely wait! It's in a pending status, is all.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Something happened to the nom template, probably some brackets, - too tired to investigate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - ✅-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

After the busy day, there was also vacation, - I am now back, and will look today, it's not forgotten, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting a better hook and approving. I guess it would be clearer if the green tick came at the end of the discussion. - We met over an artist, Frederick August Wenderoth. Tomorrows Featured image will be of neo-Byzantinism, DYK? I'm trying to improve the article Eibingen Abbey, last minute. Doesn't help that one of the sources confuses the abbey church and the parish church where Hildegard of Bingen is buried. I like this sculpture of her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * - I went ahead and copied the checkmark to the bottom - and outdented my comments. So, it should be very visible at this point. I vaguely remember that article, and I know that I have seen your name around more - probably on talk pages for articles about art or on my watchlist.


 * Your article sounds interesting, I may peak around a bit. Yes, great sculpture!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

James Hobart
Thanks for the James Hobart edits and the notice that Crow had tagged it with the DNB00 info. I was planning to do the same myself, but only had time to set up the stub. I have more James Hobart information (and a painting of him and his wife!) to add. --Jeremy Butler 02:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , ok, great. Would you like me to step aside, then, for you to work on it?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, let me see what I can get done this evening and then feel free to hack away on it! Thanks! --Jeremy Butler 02:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , sounds great!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello CaroleHenson. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

thx
Braincoachpage (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Thanks Carol, I will look at the edits when I have a moment. I also contested the deletion on the talk page. Brendan


 * , Ok, I'll take a look there. It may be your user name that is part of the issue. Some may think that there is a conflict of interest / point of view issue. You may want to look at WP:RENAME.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for being kind and helpful!

Estee Hand (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC) 


 * Absolutely,, (interesting name, by the way).
 * It looks like you'll have no problem finding newspaper and other reliable sources for Sherpa Capital. If I can help in any way, please let me know.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Haha! It's my name smushed together =)

That's really good to know regarding notable sources. I really had no idea that the TechCrunches of the world were not considered as reliable. I'll improve this going forward, as well as in the Sherpa post =) (Estee Hand (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)).


 * Here's my take,, Other's may disagree, and you may ask for an opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Notability is best proved by a subject having been included in mainstream newspapers and magazines, as well as third-party published books.


 * There are a lot of people and organizations that may make it into databases, but that does not necessarily make then notable. In addition, you often get more information from an article from a third-party source. There are some that would see that the absence of newspaper, magazine, or book sources means that there aren't notable -- and someone is trying to create an article on a non-notable source for promotional or other reasons.


 * I don't mean to disparage TechCrunchers... or the other cruncher. Their data may fall under some sort of journalistic-like research or editorial-like process that I'm unaware of.


 * In this case, there are a ton of good sources out there. If I can help out, let me know. (Funny about the smushed name-- I was thinking of Estee Lauder, perhaps hand lotion. As an aside, no need to share your name with me or anyone.)-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've made a few updates. If you have time, I'd love for you to check it out. (Estee Hand (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC))


 * Sure, I went ahead and took a look and updated some sources. To make things easier, I put some comments on the article talk page for you.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

WP DAB banner
Hi, there's generally no need to create new talk pages containing only the WikiProject Disambiguation banner. There was a discussion about that recently: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Archive_41. Of course, you're welcome to put the banner on already existing talk pages – for example if they have other content (discussions, prod notices etc.), or if they're redirect remnants of page moves. – Uanfala (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * - ok, thank you for the information!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Obie Scott Wade
Thanks so much, Carole. Wishing you a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie scott wade (talk • contribs) 17:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , I am not sure what you're thanking me for, but you're welcome. I am assuming that you are the subject of the article, based upon your user name - but if that's not correct and you can square that away that would be good.


 * There is a process, though, for having edits made to an article by someone that is a close connection, per Conflict of interest. I see that there is currently a backlog at Category:Requested edits, so I would be happy to help so that you're not at the bottom of a long queue.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Lincoln
I was updating my correction, as you rolled your's in. My 3rd edit went in after your's. I left the age as 6 and added a note for the discrepancy. Is this better?

See also the [|Lincoln - early life section] and the [|Lincoln Early Life - ancestry section] for similar updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryLACa (talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The conversation was moved to talk.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I made any revisions.


 * BTW: how do we get this chatter thread on my talk page instead of yours? How do I reply to you on my talk page?  LarryLACa (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , I posted a message on your talk page, moving your last comment over, and I saw how you can "ping" me, so that I reply there.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance.
Thanks for reviewing the page I created about Cibodas Bryophyte Park. I agree if the pages are merged for greater visibility. Many thanks for your assistance Carole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramadiarya (talk • contribs) 11:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, -- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
I was a little discouraged after the AFD for Never Hillary. I am a moderate so I didn't swing either way. It felt like I was being attacked from all directions. King Tone was pretty interesting to me and I saw there was no article for it. He actually seemed to be a positive individual as opposed to King Blood. BlackAmerican (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , Sorry that you got caught in the cross-fire of the AfD discussion and felt attacked.
 * I understand your point about King Tone. I find the story very interesting.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

username
Thx for all your research. I am happy to use my real name as a user name if this would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braincoachpage (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , I think that they discourage that here, see Username policy Can you come up with another name, perhaps based upon a hobby, interest, pseudonym, phrase you like, other?


 * Can you weigh in on the Talk:Brain coaching page? I think it's really up to you at the point to help answer the items I mentioned or the article will be deleted. Probably sooner rather than later.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from redirecting "Mandela Effect" page to "Confabulation"
The Mandela Effect and confabulation have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Confabulation (A ridiculous and newly created meaningless word) tries to dismiss the "Mandela Effect" as a psychotic condition. This is simply not true. There is no real evidence to support such a theory and to the contrary; there is a mountain of evidence to verify that the people allegedly "afflicted" with this condition, are indeed remembering the details of their memories correctly. I have spent much time in researching the Mandela Effect. I am now attempting to post the truth about the "Mandela Effect" based in the facts which the evidence supports.

I will be editing the Mandela Effect page again later today with the truth. Do NOT redirect this page again. Should you refuse to honor this request we will proceed to the proper authorities to present our cases and supporting evidence.

Thank you for your cooperation regarding this matter.

Daryl Kupchanko — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwistedTruth (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * To keep the conversation in one place, I have posted my response at the topic started earlier on your talk page, User talk:TwistedTruth.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Miani Pushtun Tribe
Thank You so much for your Contribution and providing guidelines to me. As I am new in the system your guidance has helped me a lot. I will endeavor to further add to the draft with the hope that you will further improve it. Shortly, I will add to the draft along with authentic references. --Rkmiani (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, sounds great! It's on my watchlist, so when updates are made, I will see it. I think we're very close.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Miani Pushtun Tribe
in Rata Kolachi Deiry Form (commissioner Baagh) Kokar, Madhrah Saidan Punjab in Riyaz Abad, Jhang, Chok Azam, Sahiwal refers to locations currently falling in Pakistan. As said in the article that Mianis historically were Powindahs ( Nomads) so with the passage of time they settled in different places.--Rkmiani (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , Ok, that makes sense.
 * Do you have sources for those locations?
 * Why is the parenthetical (commissioner Baagh) there - is Baagh a person?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

speedy deletion-previously deleted
Hi, just letting you know that I've fixed the link on Mandela Effect. For future reference, this template takes a page name (namely that of the AfD discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandela Effect), not a URL. It's quite rare that Wikipedia templates take a URL except when the purpose is to link to a page outside Wikipedia. — Smjg (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Alana Lee
The AfD situation on Alana Lee that we discused earlier has changed a little. The administrator who closed was talked into the view that closing beauty pageant related nominations as no consensus en masse made no sense since the details of notability generally related to the level of sourcing on that specific person. Well, at least they were convinced that they didn't understand the issues enough so they said I could reopen the discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Good follow-up. Thanks for the fyi.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of E. Jerome McCarthy
Hello! Your submission of E. Jerome McCarthy 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

why are you mentioning Donnie Hogan on Donna page
these two people live two different lives and should not be compared. I am removing his name from the deletion of her page.

Mickiray2004 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)mickiray2004


 * , If you look at the history, you will find that I never edited the article.


 * I am guessing that someone added Donnie because they are brothers and sisters - and they both had articles. I totally get that there is some kind of fued.


 * From the comments that you've made about Donnie - and now Donna - are you someone with a close connection, like a family member?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, let's resolve the mystery. Donnie Hogan's wife, Billie Hogan created Donnie's page, username Mickiray2004. Donnie and his wife hate Donna. They even sued Donna when she wrote a biography about their family, and estranged half sister Anna Nicole Smith. Donna claimed Donnie was  just a hardcore drug addict who found  "suitable" medical condition in order to obtain heavy-duty drugs. Their dad Donald Hogan Sr. raped two  schoolgirls and was convicted of rape in 1960s, (one of the raped girls was Virgie Hogan's little sister aged 12). The Hogan famly wanted to make a quick buck off Smith's tragedy, sold interviews, books, family  scandals. Their fifteen minutes of fame is up, Smith died ten years ago,  but they simply won't stop exploiting her notoriety even on Wiki. Lavalooma (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Amina Sato
Hi! Can I please ask you to remove this notice from my talk page: ? Cause you see, I think I was notified automatically by Twinke as the author, but I wasn't actually the author. I originally created it as a redirect and then it was expanded by someone else. I'm kind of worried that people who visit my talk page will think I'm creating articles about unnotable stuff. (By the way, the pages "Sato Amina" and "Amina Sato" have now switched places thanks to RGloucester : Which makes it even more confusing.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I deleted it, but it's your talk page. You may delete content there if you wish.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! (I just wasn't sure if it was okay to remove warnings and such. Now I've looked at WP:OWNTALK and apparently it is. Thank you for the explanation.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Joseph Michael Linsner
That was a very nice analysis. Thanks. Meters (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with BNY Mellon?
Hi Carole! It's been a while since we've communicated. Hope all has been well. I'm reaching out because in the past you've helped review basic updates I've proposed to the The Bank of New York Mellon article. Would you have any time to do that again? I posted some requests a few months ago that haven't had much of a response yet. No worries if you're busy, just thought I'd ask. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi ,
 * I see that noone has picked up the request. I'll work on it the next couple of days.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much!! Heatherer (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi! I just wanted to see if you might still have time to work on this. I just read through some of the other notes on your Talk page—welcome back to Wikipedia! We're lucky to have you here. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi ,
 * I've been enjoying some work on Colorado as I build my steam back up again. I'm in the middle of some articles that I've wanted to write for a bit - and really enjoying it - but I haven't forgotten you.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm actually due to prepare a new set of updates in the next week or two, so what I might do is just start a new request and ping you when those are ready for review. In the meantime, enjoy writing your articles—and let me know if you need another set of eyes! Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi ,
 * That sounds perfect! Another set of eyes is always great!!! If you have the time, whenever it's convenient for you, to take a look at Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories, that would be great!. I've started a review of the article, but I'm so close to it that I don't always catch needed edits.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh wow! This looks incredibly interesting. I can't wait to dive in. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Heatherer!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elyesa Bazna
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elyesa Bazna 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability?
Hello, so my stub of Micky Jones from Man got redirected again, because it failed to meet the Notability criteria. Which one specifically doesn't he meet? It's hard for me to tell because the Notability guidelines are kind of vague. I have seen many articles of musicians of his stature (a Welsh example would be Mickey Gee of Love Sculpture), and even within the band Man there are articles of the band members (Deke Leonard, co-lead guitarist). -vsbobclear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsbobclear (talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No question, . It can be confusing. For WP:GNG, you kind of need to add the pieces together - there needs to be significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources. That means a number of articles in national mainstream media about him as an individual.


 * For WP:Music, the criteria is pretty specific. Has he had a good body of work by himself, such as: two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels - or, a record certified gold or higher in at least one country, etc. That seems kind of a straightforward list.


 * When I read this obituary and this similar one, it seems like his success is primarily due to his role in the band.


 * The Deke Leonard article seems to show that he had some solo work, although it might not be enough to meet WP:Music. Did Jones produce solo albums or do some of the other things in WP:Music on his own?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Two afterthoughts, : 1) the band article could be expanded to more correctly reflect his influence on what it became, 2) you could take it to WP:WikiProject Music and ask for their input.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture of Santiago
Can you find a picture of the suspect of Fort Lauderdale shooting that meets fair use? The article will immensely benefit from it. Besides by now, the suspicion is very strong, bordering on almost certainty that he is the shooter. So I think there'll be no BLP violation in using his picture. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I saw it mentioned on the talk page earlier... so I'll post this request there.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk)  22:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody answered, so I thought I should take it to the talk page of an old user. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Who are you calling old? LOL! Just joking.


 * I posted a comment there and if noone has an issue, I'll get one.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I've made another request at the article's talk page regarding rewriting the lede. However, I think it will be better to ask to a veteran editor with experience. Please rewrite it properly of you can. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What I was going to post there, before I got an edit conflict, was:
 * The lede is not long for the length of the article, but if you would like to edit it, please do so. No one owns the article or the edits that they make to it.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Why deleted my article?
Sad to hear that you have deleted my article without read and considering its importance. That is absolute madness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello.Zahid (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , I know how that feels. My very first article here was deleted in a blink of an eye - and rightfully so. I mentioned on your talk page why I nominated it for deletion. I did do some searches and I wasn't finding anywhere near the number of sources that are needed to assert general notability.


 * See.


 * My go-to links are WP reference (0 hits - hardly ever happens), NYT (0 hits), HighBeam (0 hits), - by this point it looks really bleak in terms of finding "significant" coverage. Books, scholar, newspapers, and news - all zero. A basic web query turns up mostly social media and blogs. I am sorry, this wasn't even a close call.


 * If you are very interested in the topic, perhaps you could set up a web page, blog, or other kind of personal site. — CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , One more thought, based upon your comment to another user's page: If it's a start-up, this may just be a case of too soon. Starting another article in your Sandbox may be a good way to build an article - and come to better understand notability guidelines for an encyclopedia article. I am happy to help if I can. There are also tons of resources at The Teahouse and WP:Help, along with requesting adoption by an experienced editor.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk)  08:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Mapmechanics
Hi Carole

I appreciate that this company is not large in numbers, but I will add references showing how mapmechanics is widely quoted in the press for its research and GIS systems expertise. Can you get me a week or two before deleting stuff so that I can get this stuff together please?

thanks

Chris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdgillie (talk • contribs) 08:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For continuity, I replied at User talk:Cdgillie.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dark In the Spotlight
I removed the A9 tag because Steve Conte has an article and Google appears to confirm that it is not a hoax. PROD or AfD would probably be best here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, The CSD tag was for a non-notable musical recording, per this edit summary. I saw that Conte had an article, but where is the evidence that this recording is notable for its own page?— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk)  06:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * CSD A9 requires that the article not assert significance and that no artist contributing to the recording have a page. Both conditions need to be met, not just one of them. PROD or AfD would be the way to go here since the artist has a page. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotcha! Ok, thanks.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Miss United States Titleholders
Hi, Carole. I noticed you patrolled the above page. Thank you so much for your efforts with NPP. It is a vital function here. I am pretty certain your CSD will be declined, as A1 is for situations where it isn't possible to discern what they are talking about. A7 wouldn't work either. I added a BLPPROD to it in case your CSD does get declined. But if that gets covered, it will need to go to AfD. I don't think there is a speedy criteria that covers this. John from Idegon (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2017 (iUTC)


 * I was going to change it to one about a duplicative article. There is already a Titleholders section in the Miss United States article. If you don't think that would work, either, I'll go ahead and remove it.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I didn't realize the pageant was notable, so I didn't even look for it. Can't believe we still have beauty pageants in 2017. John from Idegon (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, one of them should "take".— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I probably would have just boldly redirected it to the pageant's article, but I hate red tape. John from Idegon (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, too, but so often in these cases someone just comes back and recreates a page from the redirect.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

List of aiports under construction
Why did you nominate my article to deletion, as a hoax? explain me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palacesblowlittle (talk • contribs) 22:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Great advice on Kiku Nishizaki
Hi, thank you to drop by and correct the format I'm weak at. And, I have to confess I put Under Construction notice meaning In use, and sorry I confused you (jumping up and down as it's 31 Dec already here!). Anyhow, a few minor copyedit I am working on (this time In use). Many thanks, :) --Omotecho (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , Yes, I saw that. I'll stop by later once I have seen that the in use tag is removed. Great job, and an interesting article!— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

David M. Cote COI conduct review
Hi Carole, I hope you're doing well. Last month I asked Jytdog to review a conflict I've been having in trying to update the article, but he's been busy as of late. If you've got the time, could you take a look at the talk page? I'm just trying to find the right way to move forward.--22:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FacultiesIntact (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, yes. I will look at it now.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look! I really appreciate the help. I went through your edits to my sandbox and found the appropriate sources for the relevant information, and updated my sandbox accordingly. The information actually came from Machan's article from Barron's, and not the Fortune article, so thanks for catching that. Would you mind taking a look at the General Electric section again, as well as my proposed changes to the Honeywell section?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to make comments back at the article talk page so that there is a continuity of discussion with your request.
 * You can post comments there + get me to respond there by adding to the comments and then adding your signature (as an FYI, and as I learned through trial and error, it doesn't work if it's added to a comment that is already signed). Or, you could add your comments there, and then post a message here that you've made a comment on the article talk page.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

just getting started
Hi,

These posts are just getting started. Please don't delete them because they are not yet populated. This should easily have its own page. Do you know about Everglades restoration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmouth Sleeper (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw the posting by another person on the Talk:Everglades Agricultural Area page. The reasoning and approach make sense to me. I'm not the one who will decide it - and I didn't post the deletion notice, though. The best thing is to make a case on the talk page and explain how the article will be an improvement - and not duplicative - of what is in WP right now. I think the concern was that it looked like the content was just being copied from existing pages vs. new content that addresses other issues.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Question for you
Hi Carole,

How are you? I have a quick question for you. I just edited a Trump article, and I used a source already cited. My endnote was assigned the number 20, when the same source previously used has the number 16. How do I change the number on the endnote? And I did not end my edit with the four symbols ~ and my name. Was this incorrect on my part? Thanks in advance! Robd831 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)robd831




 * Is this: They dated for several months in 1998, when he was separated from Maples, she says. In the end, he was a disappointing boyfriend, always watching television and rarely offering emotional support, she says. what you are referring to, from the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article?


 * If so, I'm not sure that this is germane the article and could be seen as a point of view issue. Or, is it something else?


 * If it's not this one, you can go to history and do a compare of your particular edit, copy the url that appears, which is call a "diff", and paste it here. Or, give me the article name and when you made the edit, that would help.


 * It's great that you're continuing to edit!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes that is what I'm referring to. My endnote is 20. The same source is used and cited, in the same paragraph is endnote 16. How do I change the number 20 to 16? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robd831 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , the steps are:
 * go down to the reference section and click on #20, which will bring you up to it's position in the page
 * click on "edit"
 * copy the citation and then paste it where you would like it to go.
 * In this case, it was not named already - so I named
 * All you need to do now is paste in wherever it needs to go.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

YOU ROCK! I so appreciate your time and thoughtfulness!! I've learned more from you in a few conversations than anyone else her! I wish everyone was as helpful (and nice!). Appreciate it. Happy Thanksgiving =) (Estee Hand (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC))


 * It's my pleasure! You made my day! I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving, too!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! You've made editing a lot more enjoyable, and I will continue to contribute to wikipedia. Have a great weekend!Robd831 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Robd831

Thank You!!!
Thank you so much for helping with the new section I made about home Moravian! Very helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Love (talk • contribs) 22:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , my pleasure. I added some articles to further reading that you may want to look at to see if there's anything you can glean / find noteworthy. And, please let me know if I can help. By the way, one cool little trick for leaving messages, if you type. --~ at the end of your message, when you save it, your signature and date and time will appear. It's the four ~s that are magical.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious three years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi,, I have been here six years. Have you been here three years?


 * In any event, it's good to hear from you and you're always so nice to send pleasant messages.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Six years? Welcome to the Old Fart's ClubTM. I think Gerda is probably referencing the first time she sent you one of her "Precious" notes. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is so much better having both of you around. Carptrash (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, that makes sense, . Good to hear from you and ! Hope you're having a good day.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I even added a photo from Phoenix on that wonderful chart you concocted for us all. Thanks. Carptrash (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice meeting you all ;) - My infobox on my user page says how long I have been here. Same club then ;) - Yes, Sitush is right, just follow the link below the sapphire, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Creation Museum/Archive 6
Hi, I assume you didn't actually mean to create a new article Creation Museum/Archive 6 in the main space? I assume this was supposed to go into Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 6 instead. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yikes, thanks so much for catching that! I have made the changes.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I think a mistake has happened clearing it up as Anthony Appleyard not only deleted Creation Museum/Archive 6 but Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 6 that I assume had valid archive info and I assume the additions to Creation Museum/Archive 6 should have been (or may have) been moved to Talk:Creation Museum/Archive 6? I may be mistaken as I can't see the contents, hopefully you know and sort out? Cheers again KylieTastic (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , I posted this message at his talk page.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have undeleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks!— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:The My Hero Project has been nominated for discussion
Category:The My Hero Project, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Carole Henson
Hello Carole, Is there any political motivation behind your decision to delete Anneke Lucas' article? Please give me your phone number. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GretaIndie (talk • contribs) 11:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I am confused about why you are posting this on my page. I wasn't the person who nominated the article for deletion, nor the one that closed the discussion at Articles for deletion/Anneke Lucas. In fact, I tried to see if I could save the article, but found that there were not reliable, independent secondary sources to establish general notability. So, that's why I voted to "delete". There are others that voted to delete as well.


 * It wasn't merged into Positive criminology in a vacuum. Prison Yoga Project and the one about the person who started that organization were also merged into that article.


 * Lastly, no, my vote was not at all politically motivated. I have no idea what that means in this case, this article wasn't a political article.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

thank you. i beg you. please kindly email me at ultraempathy at aol.com
thank you. i beg you. please kindly email me at UltraEmpathy at aol.com 2601:586:C802:60B0:11A4:7E42:4515:321E (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I don't see that you contribute to articles here - and this is not a social media site.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thierry Legault
Woah, you have written 483 articles! I have written 0 articles. I will donate an extra 25 euro to a local homeless person found in front of my local supermarket if you write an article (a stub is fine, I am not picky) about Thierry Legault. Finding sources shouldn't be difficult, there are many available. He already has an article on the French Wikipedia and he is definitely notable. He is known as the man who spies on spy sattelites. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, I see this translated version about his photography. The spying on spy satellites could be very interesting - but perhaps over my head. I'm just in the midst of gathering info for a new article, but I'll think about it.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk)  14:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please ping me or post on my talkpage to get my attention if you've made a decision. I have done this once before, with Drmies. When I made my account there was no Shetland Black article and that annoyed me because I am one. I had the red link on my userpage, that made Rich Farmbrough curious enough to start the article, and then I offered to donate 25 euro to a charity if Drmies improved it. Now we have a pretty good article about the Shetland Black. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk)  14:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, I will let you know.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - started the article with the translated version of https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Legault?veaction=edit— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2
Hello , We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to. Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten. This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody,  and
 * A HUGE backlog
 * Second set of eyes
 * Abuse
 * 1) this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting  in  a community ban.
 * 2) this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in  a community ban.
 * 3) This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up about Cote
Hey Carole, hope you're well. Just wanted to check in with you to see if you're still free to help me with the updates to the article on Cote; it's been two weeks since I proposed the changes and there haven't been any objections.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, sure.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's done. Sorry that I missed your earlier post about this on the article talk page. There were four citations for the World's Best CEO award - 2 profiles and 2 announcements, so I removed one of each. Otherwise, the intro, awards, and external links sections were as you had in your work/sandbox page.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi there! I'm a new entrant in Wikipedia and would like a teacher. I'm very much enthusiastic about this and would really appreciate if you will give me insight on how to go about. Thank you very much in advance. I'm looking forward on working with you. SethMakaiWamboi (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , Hi, sure, I would be happy to help. It's nice to see that you've already contributed to some articles, albeit a slightly bumpy ride. How can I help? Do you have a specific article or topic you'd like to work on?


 * (By the way, I moved this to the bottom, which is the standard way that new discussions are started.)— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

, how about creating an article right from scratch? I surely will be indebted to yo. SethMakaiWamboi (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , Sure, do you have a topic in mind? And, sources?


 * I have a shell at User:CaroleHenson/sandbox for biographies.


 * It would be good to start it at your sandbox: User:SethMakaiWamboi/sandbox.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I do have a topic. If I create an article about a club in my country will it be admissible? On second thoughts let me get a feel around by checking on ur said shell in your sandbox. SethMakaiWamboi (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Might we do a biography about you for example. SethMakaiWamboi (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , We should start with a topic you're interested in. It's possible a club in your country would be good - it all depends upon the number of sources, notability, etc. What is the name of the club?— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it's a recording label, WCB (Wasafi Classic Baby). It has a high acclaim but unfortunately no wikipage. SethMakaiWamboi (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like you started it once and it was nominated for deletion and then redirected. I find a few sources, but not a lot of sources in the news. Do you have a list of sources that you were going to use? That would be the first place to start, particularly since it was already tagged for speedy deletion. Based on what you've got - or can find - we can take a look at whether the information will meet WP:GNG guidelines - or those for WP:MUSIC / WP:Organizations.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the sources are blog-based but workable all the same. Can that do? SethMakaiWamboi (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Usually blogs don't work as reliable sources - because there's not an editorial process. There are some cases where it's ok - like news blogs by journalists or blogs by experts - but that's a pretty minimal subset of blogs.


 * Is there something else you'd like to write about?— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm out of ideas but open to any of yours SethMakaiWamboi (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just did a biography sample would you assess it?User:SethMakaiWamboi/sandbox SethMakaiWamboi (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that I understand. I see that the sandbox had a completed info box, which appears to be about you. Are you intending to write an article about yourself?— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Carole, wanted to swing by and say thanks for adopting the above user, User:SethMakaiWamboi. I had an interaction with him on my talk page and thought he would be a good candidate for adoption. Good luck to both of you. Home Lander (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * - if you two have previously talked, why not stay with that arrangement?We haven't got as far as a workable topic yet.—— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

- re-signature tag with corrected name


 * Hi Carole. I so far have mainly only participated in anti-vandalism and related activities - no huge content contributions - so I don't feel that I would be the best candidate for the job. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 9, 2017)
Corrections shall be implemented. The deletion is canceled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eses2692 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Carole!
Thank you for your correction to my reference in Women's March on Washington.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, Mitzi.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Women's March table
Hi Carole - thanks for working on the table. It's times like this I wish we were able to edit simultaneously, it would reduce the tedious workload somewhat! Sam Walton (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks, yes, it is tedious. I finished the U.S. and am about worn out for the day.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk)  11:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

2017 Fort Lauderdale shooting
Someone keeps adding the shooter Esteban Santiago is known as "Aashiq Hammad", a theory circulated by many conspiracy websites, despite FBI stating that they are still investigating any alleged terror ties or aliases. Please keep a watch on that page for disruptive editing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * - I just saw one attempt, but posted this edit to offer an explanation about why the edit was likely reverted.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah ok thanks for that. There's another issue. A user has changed "President-elect Donald Trump" to "The then President-elect Donald Trump". I am only asking to ascertain proper format, whether we should represent a person as in the post at that time but later in a different post by using "The then". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , I know I almost reverted that myself. Since Obama was president at the time, which is stated in the same paragraph, it seems unnecessary. Event-driven articles state the position that a person held at the time of the event.


 * But, I don't think it hurts anything, so I left it.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links - Cote and Cook
I responded to your WT:EL comment. I may have overlooked some context, but I hope I caught the bulk of it.

I also reverted your edit at Tim Cook, and then went link by link what I think of them. I hope you don't mind my taking that approach to it rather than discussing it first. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not, thanks for weighing in. Nope, I don't think you missed anything - it was really around using a bio/CV on an article page. Thanks much!— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Georgia O'Keeffe into Flower paintings of Georgia O'Keeffe. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, I just moved over a couple of sentences with key points and have been building around the article around it. If I hadn't copied the information over - these were all points that should be added to the article otherwise. Since in all but one case I have been able - and have viewed and often edited info from the source - I will update the accessdates.


 * If create any more Georgia O'Keeffe articles and copy over a couple of sentences again, I absolutely will add a comment to the edit summary for history tracking.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that would be great. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. I struck out a portion of a sentence, I found that I didn't use the source I wasn't able to verify.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 20, November-December 2016 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Partner resource expansions
 * New search tool for finding TWL resources
 * # 1lib1ref 2017
 * Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Beardsley
Hi! I saw "... I would be interested in working on either O'Keefe or Beardsley." on VArts talk. Looking at The Climax (illustration), which gets quite good views, the article lacks any details of its medium and history, for which there are lots of good online sources: eg from this search. The Climax also needs a disam page. Always plenty to do! Best Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I missed this earlier. Yes, that sounds like an interesting place to start. I haven't written a VA article in awhile and that sounds like fun.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Jeetendr Sehdev
Hi Carole, I'm a student of his. Over the next couple days I'm goign to try to update his wiki, which I see you have been a key editor of. It is very outdated. I've made a couple edits. Regarding your "better source needed" for the early life info--this info is origainlly from "The Agency Post", which was a very reputable blog in ad industry. It since got subsumed into HubSpot. Best, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.19.155 (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 173.76.19.155, That means you have a relationship with the subject of the article and are subject to conflict of influence guidelines.


 * "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest.[a] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity.[b]"


 * I suggest that you don't make any further edits to the article. You can, though, request edit to the talk page, but I think it is unlikely that anyone will make changes until the WP:Articles for deletion/Jeetendr Sehdev discussion is resolved. It is a way to document it though for the Afd discussion.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Pomona Envisions the Future

 * The "notes" you added are your personal opinion. You are reading things into the work. The article is supposed to only be about items which have been posted in well known media sources. It's not for your personal opinion.
 * I'm going to go in and correct the article and remove my sources which I wrote as they are false. The mural wasn't finished when they started it because the main person didn't get it done in time. He preferred to sit on the scaffolding and talk to people all day instead of painting. It had nothing to do with money or politics. The main artists listed as part of the project didn't paint one stroke of the mural. Their names were used to get more attention to this mural. The "rededication" ceremony was a publicity stunt to give attention to one "artist" because everyone felt sorry for him. He would tell people his tales of woe which turned out to be fake. We arranged for the city to give him a plaque to cheer him up. I should know as I handled the rededication event, press release... Mary Cummins (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am moving these to the article talk page.--— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Google street view from 34.05783°N, -117.75127°W. Glrx (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, that's cool and helps me visualize it better. I wish I could see the other sides of the building. From the Google view. I don't know how it makes up four sides of a mural, which is stated in the article. Hmmmm. But, that's still a work in progress.--— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apropos of nothing, I love compulsive editors. They do their research and try to get things right. Glrx (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ,— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are four sides to the mural. Three sides can be seen from the position I gave on 2nd St: The main wall and 2 walls of a small, 1-story, protruding structure. If you pop over to 1st St, the back wall of the 1-story is painted for a fourth side. Gotta get the cookies in the oven. Glrx (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that in the uncited description in the article, and I tried to get in with the google link, but I couldn't see it, I'll try again.


 * I have seen, though, different images by Mary Cummins and the artist KSM that show more pieces of the mural. Unfortunately, she doesn't want her images used. There's something in KSM's file that doesn't allow it to be uploaded to commons, so I haven't been able to find an image we could use for the article from a fair-use perspective. I added a tag, though, hoping someone in the area could take some pictures. Hmmm. Maybe I could post something on the Pomona, California article talk page. The mural is a cool concept and it would be cool to see it from start in prehistoric times to future.


 * Enjoy the cookies, sound like they'd go good with the hot chocolate I am about to make after a short walk.--— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello CaroleHenson: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message


 * Thanks, that's lovely, . I hope you have a lovely holiday, too.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote