User talk:Adamsirius

This is Adamsirius's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bloody Margaret (May 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bloody Margaret and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bloody Margaret, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 03:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adamsirius! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 03:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Adamsirius. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

thank you to whoever added that information and citations - I was flummoxed ! Many many thanks

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bloody Margaret has been accepted

Bloody Margaret, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Tazerdadog (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Adamsirius! You created a thread called Bloody Margaret entry at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Delivered by Muninnbot, an automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Roseanne Barr, you may be blocked from editing. MissTofATX (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a stupid joke, that was perceived as racist. You can not categorically 100% with any degree of certainty say that is what Roseanne intended. It was not meant to detract from the overtones of the crass remark, just to make the article less partisan and more objective.

The event was widely seen as "racist" and it has been discussed on the talk page. Since this is a WP:BLP biography of a living person, we, as editors are only supposed to include things that are well known/widely accepted as facts. We are not called upon to interpret intentions of the person. MissTofATX (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions you may be interested in on Roseanne Page

Just a friendly FYI: there are several conversations going on now about the treatment of the tweet, including the use of “allegedly” I think someone pinged you in it, but I’m a newer editor as well and not totally sure about how “pings” work. Just wanted to make you got ping/ or are aware in case you wanted to participate in discussion and survey.

I may have disagreed with with your opinion in this scenario, but I believe everyone should have the opportunity to be heard and stand up and have their vote be counted.

I hope I’m including the links correctly (If it does, it would take you directly to page an section Talk:Roseanne Barr#“Allegedly” racist....works like wiki, click pencil to edit section at the bottom.

MissTofATX (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I wanted to impart was that whilst no one could deny it was in bad taste, it's become clear the woman believed she was making a dumb superficial comparison aesthetically between a woman she thought was caucasian and a fictional film character. The fallout from this alone is bad enough - but there is more than enough evidence in the show itself over the run that RB is not racist, per se. She may have a bonkers Twitter account but there are millions of those. I thought Wikipedia was meant to be more objective and less partisan in its content, that was all. Balanced. Non-judgmental. Based on objective "fact", not popular opinion/perception. But then ASD makes me over-literal and more concerned with impartiality than some.