User talk:Mu301/Archive 5

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Induced seismicity page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=689680944 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F689680944%7CInduced seismicity%5D%5D Ask for help])


 * Fixed. --mikeu talk 01:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced
So can I add anything and put that tag ? Where's the policy for this tag please. 86.190.207.115 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you find a section missing sources it is best to put Unreferenced section at the top of the section rather than blanking it out. This draws attention to improve the sourcing. It would be trivial to find reliable sources to confirm that the information in the tables that you removed is correct and a list of awards could hardly be considered "Contentious material about living persons..." that "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" as described at Biographies of living persons. If the material in those sections is incorrect add a message to the talk page and ask questions about it. Is the information wildly exaggerated? If so it should be reported at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard --mikeu talk 22:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But all the sections are unsourced ? 86.190.207.115 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here I've placed below the opening paragraphs but above the first section header with a message stating that all sections below need sources. Just one edit to cover everything.


 * Are you concerned that the information is untrue/exaggerated or that it is lacking in sources? A suspicion that the information is false or wildly overstated would warrant blanking the sections. If the lists of awards looks reasonable but are in need of sources it would be best to go to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and post the names of the articles and explaining the problem. I'm not familiar with the awards, but it looks like this could be easily fixed with just a handful of reliable footnotes. I checked a few of them and they look legit. --mikeu talk 23:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I also left a message on the talk page. --mikeu talk 23:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tag but I still belive this is misleading information published on Wikipedia since there's no direct access for verifibility via a source/ref. Isn't that Wikipedia all about ? 86.190.207.115 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The goal is to source the statements. But, if you see a statement without a source it would be best to check the facts and insert a footnote to a reliable source where it can be verified rather than just delete the whole thing. Blanking entire sections prevents progress towards sourcing and should only be done when the information is incorrect. Lacking sources and incorrect are not the same thing. I took a quick look at the sections on those pages and did not see any obvious errors. Does it make sense to remove a large amount of error free text just because it lacks a footnote? The templates call attention to the missing footnotes. But, you could also do that yourself to improve the article. I noticed that some of the award articles did have reference that included some of the info on the list. It just wasn't all on the same page. --mikeu talk 07:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks it makes sense now. 86.190.207.115 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WIR A+F
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)