User talk:Riverstogo

Welcome!
Hello, Riverstogo, 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: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

January 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Streisand effect, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD
Hi mate, I removed the comment your added from that other editor and moved your question to the AfD talk page - (here). I've left a more comprehensive note there explaining why. I have encouraged that editor to contribute to the AfD directly and have warned her about a couple of things in her note. It's usually best just to give your own opinion and make your own comment rather than commenting for others, especially in cases where you might be digging them a hole. Cheers, Stalwart 111  04:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks, so basically - a No Consensus could mean either the end of the matter or another seven day "vote".
 * In my view I am unfortunately developing a specialty in spectacularly bad ideas, involving copying. I was meaning to look up what a canvassing user was. I didn't pick that personal attack as being so serious, I guess because it wasn't directed at me. It's great that Wikipedia is given to providing warnings, I would imagine most lack of understandings that result in "censor" are due to a process where ignorant comments are not alocated their own space. Enough to allow genuine talk to tempt well meaning attackers to edit a copy of their malfeasance. I was not sure if I should comment here or there but I assume this will suffice - I can never hold myself to, or block myself from the first rule of holes, hope she'll be right.--Riverstogo (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A "no consensus" close would still be the end of the AfD, and that would default to keep. If after 7 days an admin decides there is no consensus yet then he/she can relist the debate which means it would be open for another 7 days to garner more comments.
 * "Spectacularly" might have been too strong a word but I was probably having a bit of a moment. I had tried to quietly deal with that comment by adding a comment to the user's talk page and specifically didn't respond on the article talk page, not wanting to admonish a new editor in a more public place. Given it was her only contribution, I didn't want to remove it entirely; something that might have upset a new user even more. When it then popped up (word-for-word) in the AfD itself, I first thought she had copied it herself, despite my comment on her talk page. When I saw your additional note I was somewhat relieved but still concerned that it ended up there at all.
 * The hilarious part, of course, is that we've become a self-fulfilling prophecy - I "censored" her comment from the AfD (and the discussion in general). Obviously not because of her views but because of what else it included. I have no doubt she had every good intention, which is why I didn't report her to WP:ANI or some other archaic drama-mill (we have plenty around here).
 * You should have a read of WP:QUACK - I would have no hesitation (based on writing style alone) vouching for the fact that you and the other editor are not one in the same (eg. a sock-puppet) so have no fear that anyone might suggest as much on the basis of that post. You should feel free to comment here, there or anywhere else you like. If you have a view about whether or not the article should be kept (it seems you do), you should post your own comment at the AfD itself. You'll get no criticism for it from me! Happy editing! Stalwart 111  13:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited You're the Voice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spoof (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) 12:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

NetHui
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of NetHui, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://2014-south.nethui.org.nz/about-us.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject
MaudeG3 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Discussion


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Discussion, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you posted there texts written by other people without even informing them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Though initially I tried to inform other people by pinging them, I think now the effort of informing them would have been wasted anyway as I have decided the article probably should be deleted. I should really have used the sandbox, though I didn't realise that immediately. Thank-you for tidying up my mess. Have you voted? --Riverstogo (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yes, I voted on one of the first days. May be you could move it to your sandbox then, and I could speedy the redirect?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All done, now I have just have to vote. --Riverstogo (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lerer Hippeau Ventures, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Quire and Kik. 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) 08:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment
Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lerer Hippeau Ventures


The article Lerer Hippeau Ventures has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Delete 'Sources' cited (techcrunch, chrunchbase) are not sufficient to demonstrate this firm meets WP:CORP"

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)