User talk:Writeful

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Music of Missouri has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\byoutube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gu8ik16RL0). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Rod Blagojevich and Ravenswood Articles
I noticed that you have recently edited the Ravenswood, Chicago article to reflect the fact that Rod Blagojevich is not a resident of Ravenswood, but of the separate area of Ravenswood Manor. According, I edited the article on Blagojevich to reflect the difference between Ravenswood and Ravenswood Manor, however, another user, apparently disregarding my edit summary, has changed it back. Any assistance you could provide in clarifying the difference, as it affects the article on Blagojevich would be appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

hello. ah, the joys of wikipedia.... thank you for your considerate inquiry. i'll do my best to shed a little light. Chgo neighborhood designations are confusing, especially depending on how the real estate market is doing! R Manor (btw, I am abbreviating unofficially for the purpose of this communication) is a specific neighborhood recently designated as a Historic District in Chicago. It is bounded by Montrose Avenue to the south, Lawrence Ave to the North, Sacramento to the west, and the North Branch of the Chicago River to the East. There is a similar neighborhood, called R Gardens, just to the east of R Manor, bounded by the Chgo Rvr to the west, Lawrence Ave to the north, Montrose south, and Western Ave to the east (or perhaps just to Campbell to the east?). the Ravenswood neighborhood is basically due east of R Gardens, which itself is east of R Manor. This will make sense if you look at a map of the area. I am almost certain R Manor is the only one with Historic District designation. Ravenswood is bounded (approx) by Damen Ave (or perhaps by Ravenswood Ave?) to the west, Foster to the north, Ashland to the east and either Montrose or Irving to the south. keeping in mind that chicago real estate draws exaggerated boundaries on neighborhoods, generously extending borders just to include their property in the "desirable" area, this website has some info on Rwood, but i think they have taken liberties: http://www.chicagohome.com/NHDetails.cfm?NH_ID=40  site says Rwood encompasses all of these subsets, but that is misleading. RManor is a subset of Albany Park (the neighborhood, not the park named Albany Park). RGardens can be considered adjacent to and/or possibly a subset of the Lincoln Square area. i am not certain since there is a specific Lincoln Square commercial district in the Lincoln Square neighborhood and i am not certain how much of the surrounding area gets called Lincoln Square by proximity vs by official neighborhood boundaries. Lincoln Square is known for German families settling. much of the north side of chgo was settled by germans, however. Rwood is a desirable neighb, but they lost a lot of trees to the beetle infestation in recent yrs. Huge 100 yr old homes--many on large lots, nice area, great location, good public transportation access....high prices. RGardens and RManor have different housing stock than Rwood, and thus have different character. the distinction of Historic District is specific to R Manor. that and it being west of the river. there is a street called Rwood Ave that runs up the ~middle~ of the Rwood neighborhood, and there used to be a hospital by that name at Damen and Wilson. please refer to a map to follow along. All of these are considered desirable areas to live, if desirable means a quiet but sometimes lively established residential neighborhood, perhaps for raising a family and putting down roots, many residents' families have lived in the Manor for several generations.... if you want nightlife and hubbub and bustle or highrises this isn't the place. Not to mention being separated by the river and by the longest spanning North/South street in the country (confusingly named Western Ave. b/c i think it was once the westernmost thoroughfare??? a loooong time ago). i hope i have not confused you further. hopefully you can see the distance that separates RManor from Rwood, though? i do not see how RManor could somehow be a subset of both Rwood and of Albany Park, and i am 100% certain that RManor is a subset of Albany Park, albeit a tiny one. i own a rental property in R Manor and prospective renters are very confused when they hear the place is this far west, being west of Western...and they'd been after something over in Rwood. Until Blago, not very many people outside the neighborhood had heard of RManor. another note, there is an article in the Chicago Journal (a neighborhood newspaper) that you may come across about the Manor and the historic district designation, but it has some misinformation. ("the Manor", btw, *is* how residents refer to their neighborhood, but they do not mean a manor in terms of any particular building, they mean the neighborhood known as Ravenswood Manor, a nickname.)  the Chgo Journal article states that "Billy Corrigan the lead singer of the Smashing Pumpkins" lived in the Manor. that is erroneous. they mean Billy Corgan, although, who they REALLY mean is Jimmy Chamberlin, the drummer for Smashing Pumpkins. Corgan used to live in the Lakeview neighborhood but has long since moved. Chamberlin used to own a house in RManor but also has long since moved. now Blago is the most notorious resident. great. his being the governor meant secret service patrol 24/7. now it means helicopters hovering from 6:30am to 9:45am and CNN trucks and news vans parked at the curb. there go the property values. i have to say i kinda like the confusion about Ravenswood and RManor used interchangeably. keeps the tourists out. Peace. Writeful (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the Blagojevich article again. this time leaving a note on the article's Talk page in hopes that other editors will actually engage in a discussion before making any further incorrect changes.--TommyBoy (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bottle Rockets
Is it possible for you to stop inserting Bottle Rockets promotional stuff in articles? Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If Brian H. knew what you're doing, I would think he'd be embarassed. Inserting this biased, promotional copy is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.  See wp:spam.  I suggest really stepping back and thinking about your edits.  Should Music of Missouri have more Bottle Rocket content than Scott Joplin? 1 You know that they are not nearly as notable or acclaimed as Uncle Tupelo.   Speaking of, your inserting of BR stuff in the UT article was pretty weak as well. 2.


 * No need to reply to this, just please stop. I think the Bottle Rockets would appreciate it. I'm a casual fan of them and embarassed that a fan of theirs thinks that it's necessary to spam wikipedia with their info. They're a better band than that. Thank you --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2009 (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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Percy Lavon Julian
Hello, I'm 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you.

2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Writeful, given you haven't edited here in twelve years, and the missteps you've made to an community acknowledged good quality article, I'd strongly suggest treading lightly there. Thank you.


 * Hello. Thank you for your input to the in-process edits I am making to this article. Would it be possible to allow me to complete the moves of content to their own sections before undoing the edits? I have transparently documented reasons for the edits I am in the process of making. While this is a substantive article, content is not organized optimally -- which I am rectifying, step by step. If there is an order in which steps must be taken I was not aware but will attempt to honor in my process going forward. Likewise, I would appreciate the researched substantive and verifiable content I add not be removed. Thank you. Writeful (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are living documents meant to be improved with verifiable credibly sourced content additions, particularly when misleading, incomplete, and/or poorly organized information is published in the existing wiki, and when new credible research becomes available.
 * I would appreciate actual guidance with how to form citations on wikipedia rather than have an editor arbitrarily remove the sourced external links I supplied. I may have been absent from wikpedia for several years’ time, but quality of work not quantity or frequency is what ultimately matters.
 * I gave clearly stated justification for each of the minor revisions I made today. Had I attempted to make major changes I would have dug into the talk page first. Please advise what your objections and justifications are when making any edits or reversions. And note that I did not see your reversion until I refreshed my screen, so playing undo/redo IRT is not helpful. Waiting for finished result is more prudent, particularly when an editor clearly states WIP.
 * Editors are supposed to be transparent and helpful. No editor must stand in the way of revisions that reasonably improve arrangement or add verifiable sources. Preventing the addition of content that makes wikipedia more robust is counter to the mission. Thank you. Writeful (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Writeful, in response. Your edits were not minor. The removal of external links is not an arbitrary move--it's standard, per WP:EL, which was explained above in 2010, and which you acknowledged at that time. You've not edited here for twelve years, and before then, very little....and much of that, at The Bottle Rockets and Music of Missouri was over the top promotional in tone; at some point I'll look and see if the issues there have been corrected. Given the lack of experience, errors are inevitable. But choosing to return to do a major revamping of a good article is a calculated risk. Concerns were raised by the following, in rapid succession: putting the section on the Nova documentary at the top of the article is a non-starter, as is capitalizing 'Nova';, ,  external links in the body of the article;  'Nova' in caps;  WP:EL;  the inclusion of the documentary's effect on two children, which is itself of questionable inclusion for a bio on Julian, and definitely not in the first section, and more WP:EL;  the removal of important sourced content prior to restoring elsewhere in the article--on this point, you ought to be using the 'show preview' feature, rather than removing good content in a finished edit, and by this time, I frankly didn't much trust you to improve the article format;  changing the wording of the header--you may have a point about this, but again, it would carry more weight if the previous edits hadn't been borderline disruptive.
 * I appreciate your reverting to the earlier version, and am listing these diffs only to clarify that nobody was attempting to "stand in the way of revisions that reasonably improve arrangement." These were not improvements. I've asked for feedback from several experienced copy editors. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)