User talk:3vvww661

	Archives
	User talk:3vvww661/Archive_0

Your GA nomination of Criticism of Wikipedia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Criticism of Wikipedia 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 TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hi 3vvww661! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Criticism of Wikipedia that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was mistaken in assuming that the addition of single sources and statements would be considered a minor edit, like in (The non-verified source) Fandom.com. I’ll remember this, thank you Tompa! 3vvww661 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Criticism of Wikipedia

The article Criticism of Wikipedia you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ideological bias on Wikipedia

Hi! I noticed that you nominated the article Ideological bias on Wikipedia for WP:Good article status. You do not appear to have edited the article prior to this, and there is no discussion about nominating the article on its talk page. It used to be the case that anybody could nominate an article, but it was decided back in January to only allow editors who have significantly contributed to the article to nominate it (see Wikipedia talk:Good Article proposal drive 2023#Proposal 11: Ban drive-by nominations for the discussion that led to this change and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions for further details). I have consequently removed the nomination for now. Consider discussing whether the article is ready to be nominated with the article's principal editors on the talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe unanimous gatekeeping and illogical because for many topics there are no new verifiable sources easily accessible or in the news circulation; and prevents nearly all well written still existing articles to have dissatisfactory content removed under the guise of “contributions,” and I suspect future edits would reflect this gatekeeping, but I digress. Sweeping away the unrelated nonsense, is the article itself in your opinion close to fulfilling the GA requirements? 3vvww661 (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what your first sentence is trying to say. In answer to your question: I don't know, as I haven't taken a close enough look at the article and the sources on the topic to be able to make that assessment. I would suggest that the editors who have made the most contributions to the article (you can see who that would be at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/wiki.riteme.site/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia) would be in a better position to answer whether the article is ready to be nominated. TompaDompa (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does "“Undue weight” is an excuse used by… those who remove with undue integrity." mean?

Is "undue integrity" bad or good? Doug Weller talk 08:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations \| March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: University of Washington

Hello 3vvww661! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as University of Washington, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.realchangenews.org/news/2023/06/14/uw-accused-poor-conduct-2400-postdocs-and-researchers-strike, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:University of Washington and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, University of Washington, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:University of Washington. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:University of Washington with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:University of Washington saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! ⸺RandomStaplers 05:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]