This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
Hi, what was wrong with my edit or at least what was the reason for removing it?-- Kotys ek Beos ( talk) 00:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:VIDEOREF: "Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission. Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, music videos, advertisements, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not obviously uploaded by the copyright holder."
Secondly, regarding your claim that "The editors who are interested in that page will surely understand it", you have to appeal to a broader audience within any article. Whether you talk as an editor or as a reader, the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform others, so you have to assume that those who may be reading it may very well not know anything about said topic so to cite a video that can't be verified through the normal processes makes it extremely difficult to maintain the validity of the claim. See WP:POPE and WP:NOTBLUE. Thanks! Snickers2686 ( talk) 14:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)An article you recently created,
Anne Witkowsky, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
Onel5969
TT me 14:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Is there any reason why you are removing additional biography information from judicial nominees I have inserted? I have included references on all of them. One example is on Jennifer Sung's page. Dequanhargrove ( talk) 02:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The references come from The Vetting Room website. I do not believe that should be considered as user generated contact nor social media. It is researched with numerous references at the bottom of each article. Also I wrote it in my own words however in order to include the information there will be similar wording. However I referenced the article so it should not be in any violation of policy.
Dequanhargrove ( talk) 03:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I guess I am confused because I see the same thing done on numerous other judicial nominees pages & when it’s done by other users I do not see the research deleted.
For example, on the page for Ketanji Brown Jackson the very first reference is from the same Vetting Room page that I reference. So I am trying to understand why it is allowed for some users but not for myself?
Dequanhargrove ( talk) 03:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I did not state I was being singled out. I stated I am confused as to how so many other articles seem to use the same pages I use & seem to not have their work deleted while my work is deleted. I am trying to understand what the difference is so going forward I can enter the references correctly.
If your saying their errors just haven’t been cross checked while mine seems to always get cross checked then I guess that’s just the luck of the draw on my part. I will try to use more detailed references going forward.
Dequanhargrove ( talk) 03:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Wonderful. I will make sure of that in the future. Dequanhargrove ( talk) 15:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Snickers2686,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
You've been around way to long to be thinking stuff like this is any way compliant with WP:DOB / WP:BLP. Then you go and add [1]?. Did you read that template you added? Toddst1 ( talk) 19:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
Hi there. I see you've reverted my edit again without engaging at the talk page. This is incorrect and rather rude. I think 32/14/18 is the correct position but happy to discuss it. Just reverting without actually checking the sources isn't helping. Andrewdpcotton ( talk) 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Andrewdpcotton:, it's not rude if the information you're relying on is incorrect: Judges taking senior status are:
Court of appeals: 14
District Courts: 17
And Tydingco-Gatewood's term expired in 2006, but that's a territorial (Article IV) court. Snickers2686 ( talk) 23:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging. I see it was Bernice Donald you were counting in the 14. Was a little difficult to tell as neither Donald nor Pooler / Cabranes had any sourcing on that page only on the relevant circuit pages.
Your 17 district court vacancies does not include Raymond Alvin Jackson from ED Virginia who is listed as taking senior status on 11/23/2021 on the US Courts future vacancies page so I suspect that is the discrepancy. Andrewdpcotton ( talk) 23:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Jose Perez (judge) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Jose P. Perez. This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Hzh ( talk) 00:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it’s crazy how, according to your (GVT officials that have been arrested) page or whatever you like to call inadvertently says that not on democrat that works in an important position in the GVT has been convicted of a crime. I looked up gvt officials who have been arrested in the recent years, and how you have 2017-2021 (Trumps presidency) or however you worded it like Obama wasn’t in office in 2017 as well. Take your political opinion out of things your gonna put up as “informational” on the internet. 38.124.248.52 ( talk) 00:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. KidAd • SPEAK 23:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Two other territorial judges' terms have expired. Table formatting is hiddden in my comment.
You could also move the page to the wikiproject, but of course you don't have to.
Star Garnet ( talk) 03:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 08:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC).
I don't understand how this minutia can be worth mentioning in the article, let alone worth edit warring about. Why don't you take it to the talkpage and explain how the three-day delay is of interest or significance? Bishonen | tålk 08:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC).
Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2017–2018 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 06:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The article Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
What "controversies" are this page discussing? How is this needed when we have List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden?
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}}
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. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 17:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Reflecting on the above conversation, we probably should have a supertopic article on United States federal judicial appointment controversies, explaining what constitutes a controversy and how they tend to arise and resolve. BD2412 T 03:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, can you please let me know why you reverted my edit of the page? I simply rearranged the ministers in the order that is listed in the official government website. I even cited it and everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirSX3 ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory B. Williams until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Hatchens ( talk) 14:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana C. Reyes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)