User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 14

Edits to Dan and Bramwell Noah
Hi there, I am a sanctioned representative of the subjects of this article. We have taken your lead in paring back the article to include only neutral facts and fully verifiable sources for every item presented. It has also been provided with a flow that is both balanced and accurate. The article that has been reposted also omits a number of public record facts (i.e. Massacre of the Innocents as the debut work) and therefore has major gaps in the facts that are being presented. It also features errors: amongst which is the opening paragraph misspells the name of the project "I, Timon". And 2018 is incorrectly presented as a date for "Something to do with Death". This can and is verified as 2019. In our edits we also drew on an official website of the subject. This is not a fan site or unofficial board. The information is vetted and only posted when officially announced. Can I ask that we at least be given some guidance to present something that reads fairly and is accurate.

Libraryroad (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

-, The information in the article is based upon reliable sources. You have been looking to add information that does not come from reliable sources... sorry, I know that can be frustrating, but until it's published in newspapers, magazines, or reliable websites, there's nothing I can do about it. If you can provide published sources, then I can make updates.

- I will double-check the spelling and the source for when the movie will come out.

- It sounds as if you are declaring a close connection / conflict of interest. I will post information about how to request edit, etc. on your talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Moved content for continuity of the discussion. The proper way to respond is to stay within the section and indent responses. See WP:Talk pages.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. And thank you for correcting the name if the title in the first paragraph, although the date of the upcoming project has now moved back a year to 2017? This should read 2019.


 * I have read over the COI guidelines and absolutely nothing submitted in the post that was taken down violates this; without exception every item is verifiable. The only one I would ask about is the Golden Door Film Festival an, which is a Facebook. Happy to be corrected if this doesn't fit. Outside of that sites such IMDB and the subject's official site is not gossip or fan based. This is officially managed and contains only officially notified announcements. How do I get a fair hearing please?


 * Libraryroad (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , If you can find reliable sources, I am very happy to help with edits. Facebook is not a reliable source. Personal websites are not reliable sources. WP:User-generated content like imdb.com is not a reliable source. If you can find newspapers, magazine articles, books - for instance - I am happy to help.


 * I worked long and hard on that article to improve it and find sources. Please see Talk:Dan and Bramwell Noah sections regarding Sources and Recent edits... as well as the posting on your talk page with the Welcome message about unhelpful edits and the added comment about finding reliable sources.


 * Please do not ask me again to make edits without providing reliable sources.


 * If you can help me understand your complaint, and what guidelines you think are being violated, then I can point you to the right Wikipedia forum.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * CaroleHenson, changing the date to 2017 actually adds one more inaccuracy to the article. And the entire article as it stands ignores (and dismisses) a mass of verified information. I too have taken the most extreme care, focus, energy and attention to verifiable facts (over a period of time reflected in the edit history) to create an objective and factual article. And no amount of selective application of wikipedia policy should be allowed to misrepresent any subject. This kind of bullying simply isn't fair.  Please point us in the direction of arbitration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libraryroad (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , See Dispute resolution.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , Since you have a connection with the subjects of the article, you might also want to contact the sources with the incorrect information and ask them to update it. In the short run, we could remove the information from that source. In the meantime, I just removed the year, see if that is sufficient.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the pointer on mediation. I have one question first please. You suggest "you might also want to contact the sources with the incorrect information and ask them to update it". If i'm reading this correctly, is this asking and presuming that information contained on the official website of the subject of the article (and which matches all other sources cited in the article you have taken down) is being judged as incorrect? Can you please explain your own source of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libraryroad (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am tired of properly formatting your messages. Please don't write me again if you cannot put it in the right section and indent it.


 * You told me the information was wrong. All the information in the article is cited... with links to the sources.


 * I am beginning to think that this is either a joke or a troll.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No it isn't a joke. It's a genuine attempt at dialogue towards a fair resolution. The fact remains that papering over facts with policies doesn't add up to an article that does either the subject or the medium justice.  Libraryroad (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, if you can find Reliable sources for more information, I would be happy to help. Got newspaper or magazine articles?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Newspapers etc as opposed to a primary source (i.e. an official site)?. Reference is made above to a personal site as something to be lumped with social media etc. This simply doesn't make sense. Do the countless offical websites (corporate or otherwise - but always sanctioned) that directly inform article after article count as personal websites? I can't see where there's a sliding scale of what constitutes official anywhere in the policies referenced. And IMDB doesn't count either? Someone really needs to spell that out to every professional legitimised by its profiling of the industry. I'm not aware of any bigger or more vetted billboard. In fact there's a chief irony in the fact that the sources retained in the article submitted by yourself are actually dependant upon IMDB before they are published. Feel free to check that. Likewise, the official site of the subject includes updates from a genuinely global community of registered organisations and entities (festivals etc). Again, is there a question mark over every one of these? Wikipedia as I understand reports in the spirit of truth and to the minute updates. Apologies if either the tone or detail of this chat come across as argumentative. That's absolutely not the approach or intention. But the questions are precisely as big as the gaps in the article.

Libraryroad (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have nothing new to say. If you don't believe me, please read WP:RS, query WP:RSN for sources, post a complaint against me for insisting on reliable sources, post a question about this on WP:Teahouse... but asking me again to consider sources that are WP:User-generated content, etc. isn't going to get a different answer from me, no matter how many times ask me. I am very familiar with the guidelines about this and they are not subject to change because someone wants them to be looser. See WP:ISNOT, too. Over and out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I strongly suggest that you pay attention to what Carole is saying and stop posting over and over again on their talk page. It's been explained to you several times and at this point you're entering into disruptive editing for not letting it go. WP:RS is not flexible and Carole's in the right here. Drop the stick. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

test
test archive

Give peace a chance


–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 23, June-July 2017

 Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta! Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Library card
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
 * Bytes in brief

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Nursing matrons navbox
I have moved the see-also links you added on British nursing matrons to a new navbox, Template:British nursing matrons in the 19th century, and am in the process of adding it to all the linked articles. I hope you will find this makes it easier to maintain this list in the future. Ibadibam (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello CaroleHenson: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  North America1000 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

WP:CLEAN

 * thanks so much for the Halloween and this message! Sorry it took me awhile to get back to you, I have been off-line for awhile. It's nice to hear from you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

 * thanks so much! Sorry it took me awhile to get back to you, I have been off-line for awhile. It's nice to hear from you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks so much! It's nice to hear from you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user - your availability
Hello. I realise you've been a major contributor, and I'm a total newcomer, but could I ask you to check and, if necessary, update your availability details at Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, please?

I've been updating that page, plus the list of over 100 people seeking adoption (which I've now stripped down to around 20 active editors genuinely seeking help.

I've been working to identify those who are currently available, and those who haven't been active on Wikipedia for a while. But I don't think the bot has been updating correctly, so a manual check from you would be really helpful. (I've marked you as 'currently unavailable', as I see you've been having a break from editing recently. I hope that's OK?) I've also made some suggestions and a few edits to make life easier for newcomers, and have put some of my concerns down in answer to a recent post about inactivity of some Adopt-a-User Project contributors. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I took my name off the list for now. I will add it back when I have more available time. Thanks for working on this!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, Carole, thanks for the update. I'm going to try to work up a proposal for a bit of a change to how AAU might operate in the future. I do hope you'll be able to contribute, based on your past involvement. I'll be in touch if I do. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Courses Modules are being deprecated
Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Education noticeboard/Archive 18.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)