User talk:Verita.miner

Reference errors on 6 May
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) 00:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Benjamin Bannan page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=718939454 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%2F718939454%7CBenjamin Bannan%5D%5D Ask for help])

Nomination of Scranton General Strike for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scranton General Strike 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/Scranton General Strike 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. Anmccaff (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"Sockie" or "Meatie"
Hi, Verita.minor, and welcome to Wikipedia. Just FYI, the obscure terms refer to Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry. The fact that the terms were spelled unusually playfully, I think, means that the concern was't very serious. By random change, your first efforts here included some that user:St_o'hara (a recent troublesome editor) had also been involved with, and someone thought you might be associated. Some established editors here are suspicious of new users, since some are newly created fake users. I would ignore the whole thing; keep editing as normal and your distinct reputation will be automatically established. If you have questions, feel free to ask me. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Verita.miner (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Thank you so much. The user who used these terms, Anmccaff, has been after me relentlessly and in a rather uncivil manner. Please refer to the Talk page for the Scranton Strikes. He/she has accused me of dishonesty a few times now. I'm trying to take his/her suggestions seriously, and I think you'll see from the Talk page that I've been approaching it collaboratively. It is quite discouraging to be treated this way, though. What should I do? Verita.miner (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look and... yikes. I'm sorry you've run into such problems right out of the gate.  This isn't the way we like to have things work on WP.  But, you're doing the right thing: being WP:BOLD in creating new content and taking things to the talk page to discuss the details.  To help cool down over-heated discussions, it's important to always address the edits, not the editors.  Also, WP is built from WP:RSs; that's ultimately what decides what content goes in the articles, per WP:V.  There's a learning curve to contributing to WP efficiently (including learning a bunch of acronyms); it looks like your leaning will be quicker than most.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the words of encouragement. A couple of editors also got involved in the discussion on that entry and, I think, have manged to calm down Anmccaff... You're right about the learning curve!Verita.miner (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I got involved from a Legobot asking for review as I do a lot of history/political science articles. Sorry you ran into this buzz saw. Do not understand the problem, but that is the kind of behavior people complain about - both old and new editors. Please continue to participate and thanks for contributing. The article is getting stronger as editors find new sources and gain insight into what was going on. There is a complaint process, but it can be time-consuming. It might be better to continue to participate for now and see if we can get more issues settled. Cheers! Parkwells (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Parkwells. It's been interesting to say the least. I'm not sure why the entry is so opposed by this individual. But overall I guess it's a learning process. Thanks for the encouragement. Verita.miner (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Colons for indent
Might be a good idea to take a look at WP:INDENT. It's fairly important to follow this in lengthy conversation, because it can get hard to follow fast. All you have to do is put +1 colon before your comment (one more than whatever comment you are replying to...
 * So that...
 * the thread...
 * ends up...
 * looking like...
 * this. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * this is helpful! thank you. i'll read up on it and just look to see if this appears to be right.Verita.miner (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign
Hi, just looked into this - a campaign for ideas on "dealing with harassment" on Wiki projects. One was "Don't feed the trolls" - easier said than done when some of the editors are trying to get work done and one is disruptive. But thought you might like to look at the project and posted ideas - everyone can contribute as well to developing these for action. Parkwells (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)