|
|
Hello! OcelotHod,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the
Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk) 03:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Hello, OcelotHod. My name is Brambleberry of RiverClan, but feel free to call me Brambleberry. I'm an experienced Wikipedian who would be happy to adopt you. Like you, I enjoy fantasy literature and film, horror literature and film (particularly Stephen King), humor and comedy, and animal behavior. I have even written the page Animal aggression in a state similar to what it is now. Please respond on my talk page if you are interested in adoption by me. Brambleberry of RiverClan meow 19:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I set up your adoption classroom here:
User:Brambleberry of RiverClan/Adoption/OcelotHod
You are my first adoptee! Brambleberry of RiverClan meow 21:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I did not add the unreferenced note myself. I was moving too quickly in the creation of stubs and start-class articles to pay attention to tags. In the future, yes, please respond at your classroom. Brambleberry of RiverClan meow 14:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Something I told you was wrong! Remember when I said that you shouldn't use the edit summary to explain errors? Well I was poking around a page to help me determine whether something was a minor edit and found Help:Dummy edit, which tells you that it's perfectly fine! Hopefully no more errors like this will ocurr. ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 14:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, understood: and don't sweat it, honey! I really appreciate that you always take time to investigate, and then to let me know.
- Brambleberry, I thought we DO spoil on WP?
- Bramble, you are wonderful, and I am always very grateful! OcelotHod ( talk) 17:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC) OcelotHod
- The answer is yes, we do indeed spoil on Wikipedia. There's an essay about this called Wikipedia:Spoiler. For example, if we left out that in Lord of the Flies Roger kills Piggy and shatters the conch, we're missing a significant event in the story just because it's a spoiler. So spoil away! ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Brambleberry, I've mentioned some topics which I'd like to create New Pages for.
When I found that there isn't a page for Tony Kenrick, that has become my major topic.
The major problem is that I wrote an article about Kenrick which was published, but my computer DIED, not just coughed or hiccupped, but DIED. 15 years of writing fiction, nonfiction, correspondence...it's all gone.
To say that I'm upset is ... Well, look, I'd like to start over with Tony Kenrick, because that's a small, manageable project, okay?
You have maybe never heard of him. He's a writer usually compared with Donald E. Westlake. They are both brilliantly funny writers about heists, and I probably really know Kenrick better than anyone except his own family...
And it looks as though my computer is dying again! Believe it or not, here in Miami we are getting a "cool storm" or whatever they call it - it's windy as hell down here, and my cats are afraid to go outside.
Bramble, I've got to go! = I have more to tell you, but in a few hours, OK?
- Meep! Sorry for not responding to you when I've been wondering where you are! Probably should have added your talk page to my watchlist...
- New painkillers! Wonderful! Any day is good for me except for Mondays. Mondays I'm usually up for 18+ hours working.
- The rule that you're looking for about citations should be found at Wikipedia:Inline citation. As for acceptable references, that's sort of a best-judgment guess. Some obviously bad references are automatically blocked when you try to reference them (which is really bothersome when they do a book review), and other bad references can just get reverted by somebody who knows. We are indeed allowed to write [sic] or "i.e.". I think I've done it once, I just can't remember where...
- I'd be thrilled to help you wtih Tony Kenrick!
- As for me, apart from my working like Boxer (don't take me to the knacker's!), I'm doing well. My writing is taking a turn for the better and I can actually get my thoughts out. If only I had the time to get them out!
- Before you went MIA, I left a very lengthy message on your adoption classroom about my writing since you inquired. In addition, that is probably the place we should be discussing everything. See you there! ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 22:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your edits on Safety Not Guaranteed (film) as it needs to be supported by reliable sources such as movie reviews, production notes, and news articles. Also check that it may have original research WP:OR. I'll try to keep the 206 note since I found a news article for that. Thanks! - AngusWOOF ( talk) 18:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I took a look at the draft, and I think it looks amazing for a first article. I also think you handled the potential COI very well, although more references on his personal life would be nice. And since I'm banned from singing the national anthem at Citizens Bank Park and Miller Park, as well as being banned altogether at most veterans' hospitals and symphonies, I was singing folk songs to horses. (Although I'm not actually banned from any of those places, I did actually sing folk songs at an event with a horse). ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 22:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, thank you! I kept looking in the wrong place (I'm the Ocelot) for a response. Honey, I really do hope that you will heal quickly! As I so often say: pain sucks. Please be well. I'll be in touch soon.
OcelotHod (
talk) 09:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC) OcelotHod
- And now, Brambleberry, please direct me how to introduce, or to upload, this article for the Masters to agree upon or disagree! It has been a long time since I used the Wizard, and I'd rather ask you directly what is the quickest way, rather than fumbling around.
- I do hope that you're feeling better every day! Pain insists on taking its time, but I hope it won't be long for you. Great big hugs! OcelotHod ( talk) 12:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC) OcelotHod
- Thank you, thank you! I kept looking in the wrong place (I'm the Ocelot) for a response. Honey, I really do hope that you will heal quickly! As I so often say: pain sucks. Please be well. I'll be in touch soon.
OcelotHod (
talk) 09:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC) OcelotHod
Your submission at AfC Tim Sullivan (writer) was accepted
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Mdann52 ( talk) 08:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Great job improving the List of Films Featuring Time Loops! Thanks for your work on this! DonIago ( talk) 13:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
I want help, folks: I am missing which mistake I made. I've been adding to the page "Reamde" - and thanks very much to anyone who can advise me what I've done wrong!
OcelotHod ( talk) 06:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
- I'm sorry, but I reverted the bulk of your recent changes. The entire "Themes and topics" section is your own original research. The only references are about other subjects and do not mention Reamde, so applying them to this novel is synthesis. I also noticed that you bolded character names a while back. Per our manual of style on bolding, we should use boldface sparingly. I took a look at a number of featured articles on novels, and found that 1 had character names in bold, 1 had character names in italics, and at least 10 didn't have a list of character names at all because they are worked into the plot summary in prose. (This is definitely something you can do, if you'd like. Otherwise I can. Either way.) I hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Cheers! Woodroar ( talk) 07:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, and I guess that I need advice on what serves as O.R., because the "bulk" of what I wrote is what Stephenson himself wrote. Am I not allowed to refer to anything unless... Oh, wait. I remember now. Philip Roth, right? Okay, I've been doing minor edits for so long that I guess I really don't know what counts as O.R. Woodroar, thanks very much; and I definitely would like to ask you for more advice. Do I ask you here, or am I supposed to go to email? I really do appreciate it, as I'm definitely a newbie in this area.
OcelotHod (
talk) 07:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
- Original research on articles about novels is tough. Obviously, we can write a plot summary because that's just putting the book in our own words. That being said, there are exceptions. If the plot were
ergodic, for example, a straight-forward retelling of the plot may not be possible. Or if some parts are unclear or open-ended, we'd really just be making educated guesses. And that's where original research comes into play, when we describe what reliable sources say about the plot instead. (Because, ultimately, Wikipedia is about describing what reliable sources say about things, not out own opinions.) Sections on themes are more clear-cut: we can generalize enough to put the novel into a genre (usually), but saying which themes are more important than others or comparing and contrasting elements of other novels is far more than simply summarizing a plot, and for that we need sources. Again, I hope this helps. And feel free to write here. Since I wrote this on your Talk page, I'll have it on my watchlist. Cheers!
Woodroar (
talk) 08:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Woodroar, you've been very kind to take so much time with me ... The fact is that I am, by profession, a literary critic; so my old habits are hampering me. I have, indeed, read all the Wiki rules, but this one didn't sink in, because I think of the O.R. as the new idea that I state at the beginning of an essay or review, and which then I follow with pages of proof. But I did, last night, go back to the instructional O.R. page, and I really do understand now why I have to fight my own instincts. May I check with you, in future, when I feel that I might be treading on "dangerous turf"? You're a great help, and I really do appreciate that you saved me from being UnWikipedian. All best to you!
OcelotHod (
talk) 13:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
- Totally understood. Our policies seemed rather arcane and counter-intuitive to me as well, at least until I saw the never-ending waves of editors attempting to work their theories on cold fusion and perpetual motion machines into established physics articles. That's when I embraced our requirement for "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", so we can base our articles on the sources rather than our own abilities to separate the geniuses from the cranks. Incidentally, I was planning on going to grad school for lit crit before life got in the way, so I know how it goes about building textual evidence. But yeah, feel free to ask if you have any other questions, or reach out to me going forward. Woodroar ( talk) 17:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Woodroar, you've been very kind to take so much time with me ... The fact is that I am, by profession, a literary critic; so my old habits are hampering me. I have, indeed, read all the Wiki rules, but this one didn't sink in, because I think of the O.R. as the new idea that I state at the beginning of an essay or review, and which then I follow with pages of proof. But I did, last night, go back to the instructional O.R. page, and I really do understand now why I have to fight my own instincts. May I check with you, in future, when I feel that I might be treading on "dangerous turf"? You're a great help, and I really do appreciate that you saved me from being UnWikipedian. All best to you!
OcelotHod (
talk) 13:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
- Original research on articles about novels is tough. Obviously, we can write a plot summary because that's just putting the book in our own words. That being said, there are exceptions. If the plot were
ergodic, for example, a straight-forward retelling of the plot may not be possible. Or if some parts are unclear or open-ended, we'd really just be making educated guesses. And that's where original research comes into play, when we describe what reliable sources say about the plot instead. (Because, ultimately, Wikipedia is about describing what reliable sources say about things, not out own opinions.) Sections on themes are more clear-cut: we can generalize enough to put the novel into a genre (usually), but saying which themes are more important than others or comparing and contrasting elements of other novels is far more than simply summarizing a plot, and for that we need sources. Again, I hope this helps. And feel free to write here. Since I wrote this on your Talk page, I'll have it on my watchlist. Cheers!
Woodroar (
talk) 08:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, and I guess that I need advice on what serves as O.R., because the "bulk" of what I wrote is what Stephenson himself wrote. Am I not allowed to refer to anything unless... Oh, wait. I remember now. Philip Roth, right? Okay, I've been doing minor edits for so long that I guess I really don't know what counts as O.R. Woodroar, thanks very much; and I definitely would like to ask you for more advice. Do I ask you here, or am I supposed to go to email? I really do appreciate it, as I'm definitely a newbie in this area.
OcelotHod (
talk) 07:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
You wrote:
"Per our manual of style on bolding, we should use boldface sparingly. I took a look at a number of featured articles on novels, and found that 1 had character names in bold, 1 had character names in italics, and at least 10 didn't have a list of character names at all because they are worked into the plot summary in prose. (This is definitely something you can do, if you'd like. Otherwise I can. Either way.)"
I admit that, when I edit an article -- and I usually do small and minor edits -- I tend to look at a similar article, rather than to re-read the rules to be sure I'm getting it correct.
You've shamed me enough that I will not do this any more!
However, I confess that I didn't fully follow your point above, about character names in bold. I was under the impression that character names, when given a list by themselves, from a large novel or otherwise large book, should be bold-faced.
I will certainly be happy to make any such corrections that you feel need to be done, because I am super good at detail work; it comes from having been a librarian. But please, Woodroar, I do need just a microbial bit more of explanation of what you want done.
Thanks so much for being so friendly and educational; I love to learn; and I do want to be a great Wiki editor.
OcelotHod ( talk) 13:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
- Sure. This is one of those areas with some rules, but also just some general indicators of which way to go. In nearly all cases, we should try to try to write in prose, and save lists for some sequences, definitions and glossaries, and works and timelines. (See WP:PROSE for more.) Similarly, we use boldface sparingly for article titles, terms, and for some mathematical objects or bibliographic formats. (See MOS:BOLD for those.) Those are the rules, or at least the guidelines. But what you said about looking at similar articles is also valuable, so what I had done was to look at all of the "Novels" in the "List of exemplary articles" section of our Manual of Style on writing about fiction and a random selection from the featured articles about novels as determined by WikiProject Novels. I did this because these particular articles are worked on by a large number of editors and generally reflect community consensus about how we should write articles about novels. What surprised me is that the vast majority of these articles had no independent sections on characters, but rather mentioned anything important about the character in the plot section. In the two articles I clicked on with character lists, one was italicized and the other bolded. So this was one of those situations where the Manual of Style suggests to avoid bolding, so I changed it back to italics even though there's no hard-and-fast rule to do it one way or the other. However, character sections are a bit of an anomaly, so we should probably get rid of the whole thing entirely and incorporate it into the plot section if appropriate. Anyways, that's my reasoning. I hope it makes sense. But as always, feel free to ask if you have any questions! Cheers! Woodroar ( talk) 17:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- I do understand all that you've written, and I appreciate that you took so much time to educate me!
- When I first joined Wiki, I made a point of reading all of the rules. But years pass, and so I got into the sloppy habit of seeing what other contributors do. Which is lazy of me (and of others); those rules/guidelines were put into place after a lot of hard work and deep thinking, after all.
- I hope that I will not be bothersome to you; but it's comforting to know that I have a mentor.
- Thank you, and happy holidays, and may you win the Lottery, and all that other great stuff!
- OcelotHod ( talk) 16:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
- Woodroar, I have a sharp sense of having done wrong in the page /info/en/?search=Black_Widowers...
- Please look down to the story "When No Man Pursueth". I feel sure that if this story is important, then I should have created a separate page for it, and then added the comments by Jenkins to that page. If you advise me that I'm right, then I will see whether other comments have been written about the story (they have been, actually), and I'll clear this bumpf away from this page. Thanks, again, for your time and efforts.
OcelotHod (
talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
- WP:TOPIC and WP:UNDUE would be the relevant guidelines here. You're right, it does seem odd to have that much detail in the middle of a list, which usually indicates we'd want to move that material to the article about the book, or possibly a new separate article about the story itself. About the only time we wouldn't do that is when aren't enough sources to justify a separate article. If, for example, a book has multiple reviews and they all seem to praise one story in particular, there may not enough there to write an article on the single story, but it would still be fine to focus more on that story in the article about the book because the reviews do that. In short, we should try to match, proportionally speaking, what the reliable sources say. Woodroar ( talk) 21:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey! I have gotten myself entangled in a situation which is maybe not worth the trouble.
I've always been amused by the Aptronyms, so when I came across a lady named Dianne Crittenden Forcast, who is a major casting agent in Hollywood, I wanted to add her.
This is probably a waste of time, because someone who monitors the Aptronyms page loves to keep paring the list down. (Some day, I need to have it explained to me why one person gets to decide for everyone else why a list is too long; especially when it is a popular list.)
I have a not-marvellous citation for her name: http://mediatheque.adck.nc/mediath/notice.cfm?numnot=11971
Better and authentic, though, is her name in the opening credits of "Crocodile" Dundee II, where her name, Dianne Crittenden Forcast, is listed right up front. The Wiki page Wikipedia:Citing sources shows that one can, in fact, use a movie as a citation, but I really need to look at an example to understand how. And when I've used the IMDb, I usually find my citation deleted, with the warning that it is not a good source. No offense, but I think it is a much more trustworthy source than Wiki; at least, the IMDb's front pages of movies usually are.
Even if everyone here agrees that Forcast is not a good aptronym for casting agents -- and that's fine, I won't be offended -- I really do want to know how to cite a movie or TV show.
Thank you so much! I am enjoying learning all the rules. OcelotHod ( talk) 22:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
- Some good questions here. I'm a bit short on time so my apologies if I'm brief.
- Our guide on identifying reliable sources lists "self-published media" as generally unreliable sources, and specifically calls out IMDb as an unreliable source. This is because you (or I or anyone) could update IMDb and then come here to cite it as a source. Some people have actually tried this. (On a related note, Wikipedia is an unreliable source as well.)
- There is information about citing sources at WP:CITE, including how to cite television shows and movies, but it's rarely ever done except in the case of reliable programs like high-profile news programs or documentaries. Fictional shows/movies could be used for in-universe citations but really nothing more. Even credits are questionable due to the prevalence of screen names and other pseudonyms like Alan Smithee.
- If someone removes content for being unsourced, per WP:BURDEN the editor who adds it back must supply a reliable source. The same goes for other policies: if someone removes negative information about a living person, for example, per WP:BLP the editor who adds it back must ensure that it meets all of our policies. In cases like this, the Talk page is probably the best to start that sort of conversation.
- Per WP:LIST, articles that consist of lists to other articles aren't exempt from any of our policies. They should still be cited, and in most cases an entry should have a corresponding article on Wikipedia. If someone doesn't feel an entry applies, it's still the job of the person who wants to put the entry back to make the case to include it.
- WP:OWN has some good information about editors who tend to revert a lot on "their" articles. In short, nobody "owns" an article. However, they could be perfectly justified in reverting over and over based on policy.
- As far as Aptronyms goes, that article is in pretty bad shape. Maybe 10% of the entries are cited, so someone would be entirely justified in going through and removing everything uncited. (I doubt anyone would do this, but you never know.) I do see an editor or two who reverts a lot, but they appear to be sound policy/guideline-based reverts.
- I'm out of time for now. I hope this helps! Woodroar ( talk) 00:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Woodroar, you are an excellent mentor, and I'm very grateful. I do understand all your points, and I'm going to re-visit some of these guideline pages -- which I did study about 2 years ago, but which I need to study again. The case of Smithee is a powerful argument, no question.
- So ... two days ago I added Mr. "Grant Show" to the Aptronyms because he has been on quite a lot of television shows. He was deleted at once. Should I assume that I didn't "give good ref," then; or was it perhaps not funny enough? Because humor and irony seem as important components as aptness in the sanctioned specimens. But I should be asking JesseRafe, who appears to be the arbiter for the page, and not annoying you with my bemusement.
- I really do appreciate your advice, especially when you give it while pressed for time! Take care, and I hope you'll, like, win the lottery or something equally good.
OcelotHod (
talk) 18:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod
- I'm glad I can help! As far as that revert goes, he apparently thought it was "tenuous" per his edit summary. Personally, I'm on the fence. The last name "Thespian" or "Actor" would definitely apply, but "Show" is marginal. I'd probably even say no unless (or until) he has his own program. (If my last name were Show, I'd totally try to get my own show just on principle.) But if you feel it applies, I'd say you have three options: find a reliable source saying "Show" is an aptronym (best, but unlikely to find a source that specific), bring it up at the article Talk page (next best, and transparent to the community), or bring it up at JesseRafe's Talk page (okay, but this implies it's something between you two and not an issue for the community to decide, which it ultimately is). Cheers! Woodroar ( talk) 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't add anything false; and I gave citations. So wtf? Thank you, anybody and everybody!
Hi there. I saw you added some content to Night of the Comet. One problem is that the links to some of the citations seemed to go to unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted works. We can't link to that. Also, you included a review from a self-published blogger. That's not a reliable source. Generally, Wikipedia looks for works by professional journalists that are published in a source that has editorial control. When a website has a button that "contact me" instead of "contact us", that's usually a sign that it's self-published. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I understand; VERY sloppy of me. I do know better. May you find a winning lottry ticket!
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Second sight page, your edit caused a cite error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Dierkop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Man on the Moon. 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) 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ellery Queen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Campbell. 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) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
4TheWynne. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on
Jeremy Renner, but you didn't support your changes with a
citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning
how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you!
4TheWynne
(talk)
(contribs) 22:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
List of films featuring time loops, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
DonIago (
talk) 12:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, OcelotHod. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I really liked this blog but unfortunately, it does not meet our source requirements as it's a self-published Wordpress blog, so I've undone your edit. I know that's frustrating sometimes. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs ( talk) 15:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, OcelotHod. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, OcelotHod. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, OcelotHod. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. — MATRIX! ( a good person!) citation unneeded 12:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to decline this for now, but I would suggest you try and write things in your own words where possible and try not to lean too heavily on reception sections being full quotations. I know there's no way around not having some, but when that encompasses a significant portion of the article then it can be a bit concerning. Wizardman 01:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Surprise (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lost and Chyron. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Your edit to
Innocence (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. —
Diannaa (
talk) 15:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi there! In literature grad school, I was taught that quoted content is permitted (encouraged, even) as long as it is properly cited. But I want to get it right at Wikipedia and I appreciate your clarification. A bit of synchronicity: this past week I found two instances of others plagiarizing my own academic works. Thanks so much for taking the time to correct me. OcelotHod ( talk) 03:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Doppelgangland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Osbourne.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Home (The X-Files), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 17:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
-
Selfless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
- added a link pointing to Him
-
The Replacement (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
- added a link pointing to Whom Gods Destroy
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to
The Replacement (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) have been removed because you cited the information you added to another Wikipedia article or an external
wiki. As discussed at our policies on
circular sourcing and
self-published sources, Wikipedia and other wikis should not be used in citations because they are not considered
reliable sources. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reference, perhaps from the article you originally linked to. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
DonIago (
talk) 03:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)