User talk:Gecko990

AFC Dave Holmes (Professor of Nursing)

Hello. Thanks for your comment. I'm somewhat confused by part of it:

If Holmes is indeed an author, then the article should list books he has written.

The three books are clearly noted in the Bibliography section. I'm not quite sure how you might have missed them. Perhaps I could move the Bibliography section higher in the article?

This article contains too many non-notable details.

It would help to know which details you feel are non-notable, so that I can either defend their inclusion or editing.

The article needs to be condensed to show only notable accomplishments per Wikipedia guidelines

In response to your comment, I've just been through Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) again, and I can only see reason TO include Professor Holmes, and nothing to indicate that he's NOT notable. Indeed, there are many single criteria that Professor Holmes meets in Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) that on their own indicate notability and inclusion. Despite the caution about Google Scholar, a glance of http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dave+Holmes clearly shows citation in many peer-reviewed academic journals in his field. In fact, the article notes that Professor Holmes so well regarded and notable that he was the editor of one of those journals, effectively being the gatekeeper of what the peer-reviewed journals would and would not accept for publication.

That he is a FULL professor with tenure AND holds the University chair of his field clearly makes him notable per the Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) guidelines, too. Professor Holmes's membership of the peer review committee of CIHR (the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the primary health research funding body in Canada) would also seem to make Professor Holmes notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). This important details are in the article, but in a chronological fashion, so as to demonstrate the progression of his career and notability. I'm not sure what else I can do in that respect. If there are specific items/lines that you feel do not add information about this notable person, I'd be very happy to discuss their inclusion in the article with you.

Perhaps the Graduate teaching section could be eliminated, but the Conferences and Committees, Editorial and Review, and Disctincions and Awards sections all address specific guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). They are put together to clearly tell the story of why Professor Holmes is notable.

From Wikipedia:Notability_(academics):

Criteria:

1. Met. See citations, etc..

2. Met. See distinctions and awards in his field.

3. Met. Membership of review committee of CIHR, for example.

4. Met. See published work (representative examples of which are in the article) and citations, etc..

5. Met. Professor holds the named chair, University Research Chair in Forensic Nursing, at the University of Ottawa.

6. Met. Professor Holmes is the Director, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa. He is also the Associate Dean of that faculty.

7. Met. For example, see the Conferences and Committees section.

8. Met. Professor Holmes was the Editor-in-Chief of Aporia – The Nursing Journal.

9. Not applicable.

General Notes:

Bullet 1: Met. Please verifiable references have been provided in the article.

Bullet 2: Met. As the article clearly shows, Professor Holmes is clearly notable both as a teacher, theorist, and researcher in his field.

Bullet 3: Met. Not applicable, given the foregoing.

Specific criteria notes:

1. Met. Significant effect is in evidence both in the number of citations of published articles and research, and the positions he has held in the field.

2. Met. Please see the Distinctions and Awards section.

3. Met. Please see the Conferences and Committees section, not least of which is membership in CIHR committees.

4. Met. Professor Holmes not only teaches Graduate classes at his university but is published and cited on theories of teaching in his field.

5. Met. Professor Holmes holds the named chair: University Research Chair in Forensic Nursing, at the University of Ottawa.

6. Met. Professor Holmes is Director of the School of Nursing at the University of Ottawa.

7. Met. Professor Holmes was the Editor-in-Chief of Aporia – The Nursing Journal.

Citation metrics:

A careful examination of http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dave+Holmes shows that the caution about Google Scholar is not applicable in the case of Professor Holmes.

I believe that almost all the listed bullets in the article, perhaps with the exception of the Graduate Teaching section address notability, but I'm more than happy to discuss in/exclusion of any given bullet of the article.

I look forward to any other comments out might have about the article or my reply. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor Jacques (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'll find date of birth, etc., and try to remove the least significant bullets.

FWIW, the info box has sections that I modelled after the boxes of some nobel laureates and other notables on WP, IIRC. The attempt was to provide at least as much detail as I found in those WP model articles. Could you suggest some items that you think could be deleted without 'harm'? Thanks. :-) Trevor Jacques (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on trimming it down and have done some of that, already. I will get to the book references very soon. I've also added the date of birth.Trevor Jacques (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The books need to be properly referenced as books, with the name of the publishers, dates, and ISBN numbers if possible.

That was there from the beginning. The reference marks 4, 5, and 6 at the end of the line of each book link to the References section at the bottom of the page with all the details you had requested. Did you want to see these details within the body of the article? Trevor Jacques (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better to add a section called Works in the body of the article, and then list the books and perhaps a few of the most important articles or chapters, etc.

OK. :-) Given that the works were, effectively, covered in the bibliography section, I renamed it Words, per your suggestion, and broke out the examples I had provided, but with their titles. I hope that's in a format that is closer to what you had in mind. Trevor Jacques (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your requests, I've bulleted the books and added publishers and dates to them; bulleted the other lists for clarity and to maintain a consistent style throughout the article; and removed two sections to cut down on lists and potentially non-notable information. Trevor Jacques (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gecko. Thanks for admitting the article into the article space. :-) Trevor Jacques (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jean-Pierre Weill

Hi!

Thanks for taking the time to review my article. I've taken efforts to edit and rewrite it in line with your criticisms. I would really appreciate it if you could find the time to re-review it and let me know if it now passes mustard. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.48.19 (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ben Speer

Thank you for your comments. I have added last names for siblings to avoid the confusion that you mentioned.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Please fix coding for references." All of the references, except one that refers to a book, are taken from the WebCite archiving service. I followed the WebCite page's suggestion, "Alternatively, please use the "transparent" (but very long!) WebCite® URL:" by copying and pasting the URL that WebCite provided. What else should I do?

Eddie Blick (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice about the citations. I didn't realize that they would cause problems in their current form. I have used that same technique in several other articles, too, so I have a lot of cleaning up to do! I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I made all of the necessary changes to Web references in the Ben Speer article. If you don't mind, I would appreciate your taking a look at the article again to check on them. I need to make similar changes in other articles that I have submitted, but I would like to be sure I'm on the right track. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about consolidating repetitions of the same references. I tried your suggestion, and it worked well. Now I will apply that (along with your previous suggestion about URL references) to other articles that I have submitted. I have also changed references from "Ben" to "Speer." Again, I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teblick (talk

I made some changes, including the one you suggested, to try to make the article sound more like the style of an encyclopedia. Thanks again for your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• contribs) 22:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation and farewell

Thank you for all of your suggestions for improvement of the article about Ben Speer. I could try to list some of the Speer Family's best-known recordings; as far as I know, he didn't have any solo recordings. I am reluctant, however, to continue to put more time into the article on the slender hope that someone will find it notable.

Today I also received word from another editor that a different article (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Teblick/Aunt_Mary_(radio_soap_opera)) was rejected because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." I had assumed that articles in two trade publications would be reliable for an old-time radio program, but I now understand that I assumed incorrectly.

You have been very gracious and kind in trying to help me, and I appreciate your time and efforts. However, I see no reason to continue to invest time and energy in doing research and writing when the likelihood of acceptance of my submissions is slim at best.

Eddie Blick (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eddie,

Don't give up yet! I think that the Aunt Mary article is definitely notable. I found a Wiki page listing lots of old-time soap operas, and many of them have their own pages.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_radio_soaps

I think yours should work, if you could clean up the repeat sources and one or two more sources. Is there anything online that doesn't cause copyright problems? Or how about the book On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio Oxford, 1998. ISBN 0-19-507678-8 ? It's more recent than the book you cited. It would also be good if you could link the Aunt Mary page to the List of Radio Soaps page.

Gecko990 (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Gecko990 (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your support and encouragement. I have decided not to give up after all! Acceptance of several of my articles in recent days has revived my spirits. I have been adding links to articles that have been accepted. Someone also provided a link to pages about infoboxes, so I have added those to articles as I have had time. I'm still in the learning stage. I did know about the list of radio soaps page; in fact, that's what turned me on to doing research on some of the soap operas that were not in Wikipedia.

I apologize for not replying sooner. Somehow I missed seeing notification that you had responded. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

AlcoSense AFC page

Thank you for your comments on my submission. I have checked the source codes which now seem to be ok. As regards the company logo I had an image of their logo from AlcoSense but was previously advised that I cannot post this until the page goes live. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NowEddy (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Wiki Page-Giovanna Huyke-Edit Comments

Dear Gecko 990

Thank you for spending the time to review the Giovanna Huyke proposed wiki page.

Relating to your "sourcing" comment: I have added book publishing references (including links to Amazon.com if applicable as proof they exist) where I can find them (there are several books out there of which I am aware but do not have copies, so I intend to update the publishing specs when I can acquire them).

Relating to your comment on "neutrality": all of the language I used was in the same tone as what I read from the articles written about Giovanna Huyke, so I am not sure what particular part appears not to be written in a neutral manner. For example, I use "celebrity chef", which could seem like an opinion, but that is what the books, news interviews, magazines, etc, refer to her as. In addition, I would think chefs who have their own TV show or regularly appear on other TV shows would be considered "celebrity".

Any help would be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso57 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kristen_Rudisill

I noticed your comment on this article. Is the main reason because the professor is untenured? I believe the article satisfies Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria. Please give me your thoughts. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 15:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:ACADEMIC, it doesn't state tenure as a requirement anywhere. Being tenured doesn't automatically make someone notable. Also under Criteria it says:

Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.

So being notable by Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria would be enough.

~~ Sintaku ^Talk 22:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips

I appreciate the tips that you gave me several weeks ago -- one about the way to handle repeated citations in Wikipedia articles and the other about using templates for Web citations. Both of them not only make my reference lists look better but also make the citation process easier. Thanks again! Eddie Blick (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Etta Federn (December 3)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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:Etta Federn and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 17:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Etta Federn has been accepted

Etta Federn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Etta Federn

On 30 December 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Etta Federn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Etta Federn. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 12:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso57 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning. I am working through the process to edit the page prospective page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Giovanna_Huyke

I have fixed the technical errors (bad formats, etc) and would like to ask your advice as to any specific item that you believed not properly supported (your initial concerns) so that I could work on fixing any such items.

thanks in advance

Espresso57 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gecko990. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gecko990. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gecko990. 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)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Edith Klemperer has been accepted

Edith Klemperer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

MurielMary (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edith Klemperer with her light-up model of the brain, 1931.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Edith Klemperer with her light-up model of the brain, 1931.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 05:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Wikiacc (¶) 05:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism

Hi Gecko990,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 08:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green

Hey @Gecko990. I recently came across your article on Etta Federn and thought it looked great! It seems to be more or less in a completed state, so I was wondering if you would consider submitting it as a good article nomination for the Women in Green edit-a-thon? No worries if you have other plans, just thought I'd extend an invitation. :) -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Grnrchst — wow, I’m deeply honored that you like the Etta Federn article, which is close to my heart. I have just now submitted the good article nomination. Thank you for all that you do for Women in Green!!Gecko990 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Etta Federn

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Etta Federn 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) 18:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Etta Federn

The article Etta Federn you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Etta Federn 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) 18:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's very disappointing, especially given that Wiki continues to be weak on women's history. But thank you for your attention. As the author of several books, I frankly don't see why the article needs copy editing. But I leave the future of this article to others who are wiser... Gecko990 (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your tone as an editor struck me as unnecessarily impolite and unprofessional. Gecko990 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:44, 28 November 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]