User talk:Stealthound

Archives:

Re:Draft Articles

I see you removed The Associate Content as self published sources (from the 2007 WWE Draft and the 2005 WWE Draft), is this correct, that they are published sources, if so how?--TrU Co -X 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I see, that's all I was looking to understand. Would you like me to archive your talk page?--TrU Co -X 15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done archiving.TrU Co -X 16:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

self-published source removal

Howdy - When you remove a self-published source (as here), please also remove the related content if there are no other sources cited (or at a minimum add {{fact}}) Having unsourced information is, in my opinion, worse than having information attributed to self-published sources. -SCEhard T 16:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention of 'war department' in the remaining source? -SCEhard T 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected there. Sorry. Stealthound (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Just wanted to make sure I hadn't overlooked something -SCEhard T 21:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did the same to Greg Page. At least you could assist by looking for a better source. The Associated Content link was placed there because at the time, it was the best source I was able to find. (I just did a brief Google search and came up empty again.) As a result, I'm reverting it. Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site pays anyone to write articles on any subject. The writers are paid by the numbers of visits their stories receive. Thus it qualifies as both self-published and spam, as they have clear economic reasons to create these links. This is the full reason I removed it in the first place. If there is no source to back it up, it should not be included. Please see Admin Noticeboard. I do believe that there is a growing consensus on this. Stealthound (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the input; this is something I was unaware of before I read the policy. I think the discussion makes a good case for blacklisting AC, so I'll make the changes to Greg Page. I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, so I require the continued tutoring of more experienced editors like you. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Associated Content==

If only I remember them... I'll see if I can find any ^_^ Kopf1988 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Content and my reversion

Since the source in question directly quotes him my initial thought was that this was ok but given the questionable reliability you are correct that it should probably be removed like the other AC based material. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Content

This site pays anyone to write articles on any subject. The writers are paid by the numbers of visits their stories receive. Thus it qualifies as both self-published and spam, as they have clear economic reasons to create these links. This is the full reason I removed it in the first place. If there is no source to back it up, it should not be included. Please see Admin Noticeboard. I do believe that there is a growing consensus on this. I am reremoving the link, and would point out that it already has a reference. Stealthound (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so Associated Content isn't a reliable source - I did not know that, but I will keep it in mind. However, the statement "the author is now considering Anne Hathaway [to play the role of Stephanie Plum]" was the specific fact sourced to the AC, and I suppose the statement itself should be removed as well. The reason I reverted you before was that I'd rather see a fact cited to a poor or unreliable source instead of no source at all, because at least that way it's clear where the fact came from. --Kweeket ^Talk 21:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does a "blacklisted" source mean?

and why can't I use it? Serendi ^pod ous 18:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Pope Gelasius I

First off, I am not trying to underhandedly remove the status of a pope that has been identified previously as Kabyle. That is why I am asking for input and good documentation for his background. I have looked, and not found anything outside of blogs that have substantiated that he was ethnically Kabyle. Any help is appreciated! Thanks, Stealthound (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer... Please use this useful tool (searching Google Scholar). Make sure to click on {{wikify}} found at the bottom of each listing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krakow

(You wrote)
First off, I believe I was very civil in my post; questioning motives is a bit low. I'll cut to the chase:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/12#stateuniversity.com. This is the link to the blacklist - not personal, but sitewide. Please seek to assume good faith. Stealthound (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Please see my reply at: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Krak%C3%B3w#stateuniversity.com Cheers, Poeticbent talk 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of overweight actors in United States cinema

You edited this article. This is a friendly notice that your input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of overweight actors in United States cinema. This information is provided without any request that you support or oppose the deletion of the article. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Stealthound! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.

There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (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) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Stealthound. 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, Stealthound. 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]

Orphaned non-free image File:DakotaStU.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DakotaStU.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]