User talk:Mudwater/Archive 15

Happy New Year!




 Mudwater , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America1000 05:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks. Happy New Year to you, too!  — Mudwater (Talk) 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Confederate States of America
Good afternoon,

I can’t edit this article because it’s locked.

The article states, “ All seven of the states were located in the southeasternmost region of the United States,...”

Texas is considered South or Southwest. It is definitely not located in the “southeasternmost region.”

Perhaps it should read, “All seven of the states were located in the Southern and Southeastern regions of the United States,...”

Best, Adam Yakeman47 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thanks for the note. I suggest that you post this on the talk page for the article.  That is, go to Talk:Confederate States of America, click the New Section tab in the upper right, and write a post very similar to the one you wrote here, including you signature.  That way, other editors who are interested in the article, not just me, will see your suggestion.  — Mudwater (Talk) 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Upon further review, I've gone ahead and changed the article to say, "All seven of the states were located in the Deep South region of the United States..." Deep South was already linked there anyway.  — Mudwater (Talk) 23:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Yakeman47 (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Although, Texas and Florida aren’t technically the Deep South... Yakeman47 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. But, it looks like the definition of Deep South is somewhat flexible.  I'll ponder this further, but, feel free to post on the article talk page if you like.  — Mudwater (Talk) 12:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks!   — Mudwater (Talk) 14:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

JW
Hello: You probably already know, but the discography is is proposed for Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 24, 2021. JW articles may see an increase in activity, including OR/POV/unsourced/poorly sourced changes. Some recent edits are problematic and usually contain numerous Manual-of-Style errors. I hope to catch the worst of the lot, but the more eyes the better. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the note.  Yes, I'll try to adopt a heightened level of vigilance.   — Mudwater (Talk) 16:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

RE: MTG
I wanted to explain a bit further my reasoning behind the rvt. WP:NOTNEWS is pretty vague so it's up to a lot of interpretation, but in my opinion, that paragraph is hardly relevant or notable even today, imagine a month from now. Tl;dr of what I'm saying, I don't believe it would hold up. Of course, I'm sure you have a different opinion on it's inclusion; I'm open to discussion! Curbon7 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. Yes, I do think that item is significant enough to include in the article -- both for her views on the pandemic, and for the mistake about the date.  I shall ponder this further.  Also, I think any additional discussion could take place on the article talk page, where other editors are more likely to see it, though I do appreciate your post here.  — Mudwater (Talk) 22:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm re-adding that part back into the article, but I'm changing it a bit so the paragraph focuses more on the whole of the source regarding the demanded investigation rather than just the day thing (it is really good that you brought this up because I just noticed that things like MTG's support for the lab leak hypothesis and and other relevant theories are missing from this page.). Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Thanks!  — Mudwater (Talk) 23:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited What Doesn't Kill You... (Blue Cheer album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page What does not kill me makes me stronger.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)