User talk:Lordgilman

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RJFJR 20:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletion nomination of （ ≖‿≖）
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as （ ≖‿≖）, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Pseudomonas(talk) 21:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Dream
Hi. I don't think you understand what I meant by references. Have a look at Citing sources and Identifying reliable sources. You can still create the article but it must have these. Deb (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin
I see that you have attempted a large re-write at bitcoin. Please review your edit and make sure that all of its statements are cited to secondary WP:RS citations. Otherwise, editors may challenge or delete your efforts. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Xkcd, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Gallery question response
Hi, I responded to your question (but don't have the answer) on the Help:Gallery tag talk page. -Mindfrieze (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_cwgY2G4NNodfnlr&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. AS it happens, the last three people to edit this, including the speedy deletion nominator, were all admins, so I'm not alone in feeling that the article was blatantly promotional and probably involved undeclared paid editing, which is not permitted. I deleted the article because


 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the  organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. References should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. Most of the text was completely unreferenced, and of the three references that were there, one is the company itself, one appears to be non-existent now, and the third gives the message 451: Unavailable due to legal reasons (presumably because I live in the EU and the content breached EU data protection laws), so I don't know what it says. Effectively then, no independent verifiable references that I can see.
 * The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits, not just that they sell onion rings


 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. There is clear evidence of company input, including a sprinkling of TM symbols {it's not our job to protect their trademarks) and the founder is referred to throughout as "Sally", encyclopaedic and suggesting a lack of neutrality. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include:  Sally was the one who coined the final spelling and pronunciation... grew rapidly during the 1980s... one of the staple foods at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln... are popular with sports fans

The text appears not to be copyright, and I've seen worse, so I'm prepared in principle to sandbox it for you. Please read the following carefully


 * If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. In particular, if you work directly or indirectly for the organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:     . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block.  This isn't an accusation, but a question that always needs to be asked where a company article is concerned.
 * Your comments on my talk page included quotes and comments about the restaurant. Note that any article should not include any sort of review of the restaurant, we need facts, not opinions.
 * Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources.

If you still wish to proceed, let me know and I'll recreate in a user sub-page for you
 * You will need to decide whether to have a separate article, or add to the existing Runza article with a redirect.

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Runza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chili ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Runza check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Runza?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridgeway Mine
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ridgeway Mine 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridgeway Mine
The article Ridgeway Mine you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ridgeway Mine for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ridgeway Mine
The article Ridgeway Mine you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ridgeway Mine for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Archive urls
Hi, I noticed your edit to Runza and fixed it. In the citation template, the url= parameter should stay the original URL. If that link goes dead, we add | url-status=dead | archive-url=(archive url) | archive-date=(the date the page was archived) to the template. If you compare your edit to mine, you'll see the changes. Happy editing! Schazjmd  (talk)  23:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"Jesuit friday" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jesuit friday and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Accreditation warnings
Thanks for adding current accreditation warnings to several articles about US colleges and universities. When I've done that, I've often added a brief note in the lede as it seems like a critical detail; when I've added that kind of note, I've also explicitly worded so it's clear that the institution is still accredited. Additionally, you may find it more helpful to link to Higher education accreditation in the United States in these articles instead of Educational accreditation as it's a more specific, helpful link for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * A brief note in the lede? Ooh, that's spicy. Didn't think we could get away with something like that. I may take you up on it.
 * I was sort of wondering if it should be in the infobox too.
 * Thanks for feedback on the wikilink. Lordgilman (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * My rationale has always been that a serious threat to institutional accreditation - a formal warning or, worse, show cause status - is an existential threat to the institution that rises to the level of a brief mention in the lede. I think that in most cases I've only included one sentence in the lede with further details left for the body of the article.
 * I haven't made those edits very often recently because I worry about inconsistency - these accreditation actions don't seem to be consistently reported in one place and I've never put in the time to make sense of the websites of all of the institutional accreditors and then spend time to visit them regularly for updates. ElKevbo (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)