User talk:Username6892/Archive 3

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
For expanding 2020 Missouri Amendment 2. Can't review it at DYK as I created the page but I really appreciate you adding more details! Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . Do you think the article, as I have it written now, could have its rating improved to C- or B-class? I'm thinking it's C-class but would like further comment. ~ UN6892  tc 04:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The classifications don't matter much below GA; you could definitely up it to B-class if you want. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The only issue I have with B-class right now is whether it contains "obvious omissions", I assume not though I am concerned about the Constitutional Amendment Republicans proposed to potentially gut the expansion and add a work requirement, searches for news about it past what I have cited have not found anything regarding it besides this which is paywalled (except for the first 5 seconds as the page loads). I'm thinking of a possible future GA push for the article, though that would probably require much more work. ~ UN6892  tc 04:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I have expanded the article enough for tonight, though I am curious, how far would you say the current version of the article is from GA? ~ UN6892  tc 06:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty close. If you want an example of a GA I've written on a ballot measure, 2000 Alabama Amendment 2 is one. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for 2020 Missouri Amendment 2
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2020 Missouri Amendment 2
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2020 Missouri Amendment 2 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Onegreatjoke -- Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2020 Missouri Amendment 2
The article 2020 Missouri Amendment 2 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:2020 Missouri Amendment 2 and Talk:2020 Missouri Amendment 2/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Onegreatjoke -- Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2020 Missouri Amendment 2
The article 2020 Missouri Amendment 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2020 Missouri Amendment 2 for comments about the article, and Talk:2020 Missouri Amendment 2/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Onegreatjoke -- Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Considering an AfD nomination
I don't believe the following can be answered with a simple help template. However, I am unsure where to ask about NORG-related concerns and general analysis of sources. If you are reading this, know where or who to ask (including if I should just go straight to AfD), and believe the following would be an inappropriate use of the template, simply point me to where I need to go. ~ UN6892  tc 04:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have recently been conducting a laborious WP:BEFORE search for Centre for Education in Mathematics and Computing. The results, as of now, seem to lean toward the subject not being notable (which I find a bit surprising) and I would like to bring the article to AfD if it continues this way. The main reason I have not done so yet is that I am not at all confident that the topic is non-notable. I have already asked for advice though I believe he is unfamiliar with the sourcing here so I would like some input from others. As of now, I've searched Google using the terms "CEMC" and "[article title]", the more specific search Novem Linguae links in his essay about GNG using the same terms, and Google Scholar using "CEMC" math as my search term. Here are the sources I've come up with (out of probably 150 or so results I've tried to look at): I mainly conducted this search because I wanted material to rewrite the article with given its current state, but it's proving very difficult. Are there better ways to find sources on such a topic or should I go straight to AfD? ~ UN6892  tc 04:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * CBC - I think this one works, though the courseware may count as a "product". As a national outlet, CBC should count as non-local.
 * a truly great source until I realized it's not independent
 * some I can't access but are (ok I'll stop citebombing) likely passing mentions based on context clues. These always came from Google Scholar. I suspect a problem with a ton of these results is there are several things which CEMC stands for.
 * this and many others like it. Mainly give a couple of sentences. All from Google Scholar.
 * All the sources I mentioned on 's talk which have issues preventing them from counting toward notability (usually being primary or lacking depth). This is a newer example I have found.
 * self-published
 * A ton of passing mentions which make me wish there was an easier way to do WP:THREE.
 * Nominating an article at AfD is indeed the way to spark the discussion you are trying to make happen here. While formally that discussion is about deletion, it often becomes a consideration of whether the participants think that sources to establish notability probably exist, even if they can't all be lined up and pointed to. You've clearly done the BEFORE work and the efforts you describe here are more than many AfD nominations have behind them.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)