User talk:Newbiepedian/Archive 2

WikiPolice
As your proposal failed, would I be able to change the redirect so it links here instead, as I think this may be more relevant. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WPT:SIGN listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WPT:SIGN. Since you had some involvement with the WPT:SIGN redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Austenasia keep/merge consensus issue
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, my colleagues on the committee and I have agreed that the issue does not require arbitration at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although our decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.


 * 1) Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions, informal mediation, and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.
 * 2) For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as requests for comment (conduct) or Wikiquette alerts.
 * 3) Grievances about the actions of an administrator (like their decision to block an editor, or protect or delete a page) should also be approached in the first instance on the administrator's talk page, but administrators are expected to be accountable and you can open a request for comment on administrator conduct or ask on the administrators' incidents noticeboard for the action to be reviewed. In the case of deletions by deletion discussion, you can also open a deletion review.

In all cases, you should review Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Regards, AGK  [•] 02:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration
Your request for arbitration has been declined. Other methods are recommended such as dispute resolution, requesting a third opinion or request for comment on a user. For the Arbitration Committee --  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 19:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. When you recently edited Ballingeary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sean-nós (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ads for MS are acceptable on WP?
I think not and ask you kindly to remove the box that says you are using MS Vista. I do too and hate it. It has no relevance for your contributions to WP. Please remove it. Gatorinvancouver (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Parish
Would you mind going back to that article, take a look at the sentence of which you deleted part, and put revise it in some way that makes sense, instead of leaving something behind that is totally meaningless. You are obviously knowledgable in this subject so please fix it!. Amandajm (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I overlooked that. Fixed, with a reference.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 10:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!
The transcription on your page User:Newbiepedian/wip/SCN-Watchlist was causing comment as it transcluded a category, so was appearing in the category list. As you have not edited for over 2 years, I have taken the liberty of setting this in "nowiki" quotes. If you ever find this message, apologies for interfering, and welcome back - Arjayay (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Newbiepedian

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

menstrual management
Hi - thanks for reviewing my submission. It was originally proposed as a section of 'menstruation' as you suggest, and it was those authors who advised to initiate a new page. It is a very large and significant topic in its own right.

I submitted an earlier draft (actually before I meant to) and it was rejected on the same grounds as yours. That reviewer 'retired' before seeing my reply, and another one contacted me to say 'resubmit the [same] article as another reviewer may accept it'.

There are several other existing pages that could be subsumed into 'menstrual management' eg 'menstrual cups', 'reusable menstrual pads' (I'm citing from memory), even 'menstrual hygiene day' and ' menstrual taboos'.

The range and diversity of menstrual management practices across the world is an important area of knowledge that is under-researched in English, and would massively benefit from a wiki approach. There is a lot of evidence that development workers tend to believe that not to use commercial disposable pads is to have 'nothing at all', and that the effect on menstruators is to stop them working or going to school. This is not the case - it's a much more interesting and complex picture (see Joshi et al. in Waterlines Jan 2015, also the work of Sinu Joseph through MythriSpeaks 2014-2015).There is so much more to learn from each other!

I hope you might reconsider your judgment. Until then, I'll keep trying to get it published one way or another. ZanGran (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of diminutives by language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darling. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Re:Scapular of Our Lady of Walsingham
Thank you for the follow-up post User:Newbiepedian. I've sent a message to the new address you've provided. With regards, AnupamTalk

RE: Highland and Island Emigration Society review
Thank you for taking the time to review the article I wrote.

I understand most of your comments, or at least I can see where I need to go in order to get a better understanding of what is needed.

There is one exception - the NPOV comment. Knowing how controversial the general area of the Highland Clearances can be, I tried very hard to maintain a strictly NPOV. That is part of the reason that there are so many quotes - rather than paraphrase in my own words, and be vulnerable to the criticism of pushing my own POV, I chose to include the words of the respected sources that I quoted. Similarly, a lot of effort went into selecting quotes which represented contrasting views on the subject matter.

Where exactly did you feel that the article breached NPOV? Camerojo (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Y'know, going through it I just collated problems by category of problem, and neglected to realise that there was only a single NPOV problem in the article, which I've now gone and amended. It was the description of the history of the Highland Clearances as "sad", which is a qualitative judgment, and therefore not NPOV. I've removed the word "sad" and un-tagged the article for NPOV. Hope that helps!--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 23:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Great - I think I can take it from here. Thanks for your quick response. However, while I have your attention, you clearly didn't like my overuse of quotes. When I was writing it, I was aware that my extensive use of quoting made the article look a bit odd compared to other WP articles, but I felt it was necessary to avoid any NPOV issues. I have often seen cases where an WP author's paraphrasing of a reference has introduced their own POV which, on checking, is not present in the reference itself. This has been particularly common in the Highland Clearances page whose NPOV I have spent some time defending over the last couple of years. What would you recommend? Even apart from the risk of introducing a POV, my own paraphrasing of a source is unlikely to be as well expressed as the original. Camerojo (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no way around it, I'm afraid, you just need to put it in your own words. I find it helps to restructure what was said - formulate it in a stream of thought that flows naturally, rather than the staccato of listing quoted facts. I personally find it fairly easy to avoid introducing a bias when rephrasing things, so I don't really know what to recommend. Thing is, if you do introduce a POV, it'll undoubtedly be picked up on by other editors, especially if you put it forward for GA again in future, so I wouldn't worry.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 09:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Many of the sources I quote are difficult to find - often out of print books or articles that I have acquired after a fair bit of research over the years. So any POV that might be introduced by paraphrasing would not be easily picked up by other editors without access to the sources. Even apart from POV issues, I would regret the loss of information that comes from not providing rare and hard to come by original material. On the style side, it is disappointing that you find the text to be a "stacatto list of quoted facts" because I put a lot of effort into trying to avoid just that. I know it looks funny with all the quotes standing out - but I thought it flowed pretty well when read - however I guess that I am biased in that view! I will work on all the other issues you raised but will probably leave most of the quotes. If that costs me GA status, so be it. Sorry to be argumentative. I do appreciate your taking the time to respond. Camerojo (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge
Hi, at The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest
Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Proposed deletion of Journal of Energy Challenges and Mechanics


The article Journal of Energy Challenges and Mechanics has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable, somewhat amateurishly-produced relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Journal of Energy Challenges and Mechanics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Journal of Energy Challenges and Mechanics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Journal of Energy Challenges and Mechanics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)