User talk:Sarahrosemc

In general, local politicians and officials are not notable: politicians are generally eligible if they've been elected to statewide office. A county Commonwealth's Attorney, of any gender, is unlikely to be notable enough for inclusion unless they have a very high profile in national media. See

]

Sarahrosemc, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sarahrosemc! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 16:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw

Please read

Fixing it now. :) Sarahrosemc (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you already fixed it. Thanks a bunch!!! Sarahrosemc (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal. It's just more obvious what's being cited (and shorter for you to create). In this case instead of having a very lengthy list of references it turns out the article is actually not that well sourced. Three of the refs are to local articles from around the time of the lynching (and so are not really independent sources), a fourth is a book (I don't have access to it, but it probably quotes the same newspaper articles), a fifth is nothing but pictures of steamboats (it does not support anything in the article so I will remove it), and the sixth is a personal comment by the creator of the same web site where you found all of the other refs except the book. Meters (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Put the ref back in. I see that it is actually supporting the identification of the boats as being in the area, rather than that the man was working on them. Sorry. Meters (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I wasn't trying to make the reference list look that impressive. Just wanted to cover myself, and not say anything that wasn't printed before, while also, putting it into my own words, so it's not plagiarized. I worked really hard on it. I have other books, and will add more sources in the future, but those books are buried underneath a bunch of other junk, so as of now, I'm taking a break on it. Plus, it's 1876. I'm not sure what sources you'd find acceptable, to make it qualify as "well sourced". There's certainly no videotape. First person sources... Private diaries, oral histories... that's been typed up, and put into a book? I won't find any of those. Being that it's 1876, I'm happy that there were any articles written about it, let alone 3 or 4. Just go back 100 years, and you won't find a single article written about anything in Kentucky. (The first settlement was founded in 1774). So, any suggestions would be helpful, because I believe if there were those sources, I'd add those, to make it better.

Again. Thank you. Sarahrosemc (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a bit weak for coverage of a modern event, but given the era, it's fine. An interesting read, and nice work. Thanks. Meters (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sarahrosemc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to

]

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages

Thank you for your recent articles, including Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

A Barnstar for you!

		The Bluegrass Barnstar
		For jumping in with both feet in creating referenced articles about events in Kentucky history, I give you this barnstar, and my thanks. Don't let a few deletion discussions get you down. It's been my experience that lots of people – including me – get their first few articles AfD'd; sometimes they even survive that! Anyway, welcome to the project from a fellow editor interested in Kentucky! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Acdixon. Sarahrosemc (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marco Allen Chapman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles Moore, District Judge and John Delaney. 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) 09:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the articles and redirects alone. I had an admin check my work and he agreed that what I had was right. I put a lot of time into fixing your mess, and I do not want to have to go through this again. Meters (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was complying with what you wanted, I thought. I won't touch any of it anymore. Sarahrosemc (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is confusing you, but you are doing the wrong thing. You cannot move the article when there is an AFD under the original name, or you risk doing creating the same mess as before. You had 2 simultaneous AFDs on the same article, and neither one was at the title you are trying to move everything to. And if you cut and past the article we lose the edit history. Don't ever move an article that way. Just stop and wait for an admin to delete what needs to be deleted. Once the AFD is closed we can move the article to the correct name. Your actions are disruptive. Meters (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you. Sarahrosemc (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boone County, Kentucky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Petersburg, Kentucky. 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) 09:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Girty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cumberland County. 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) 11:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Girty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Paris. 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) 14:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Simon Girty

added links pointing to Fort Pitt, Beaver River, Henry Hamilton and Wyandot

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Simon Girty page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Hugh McGary

added links pointing to

Battle of Yorktown, John Todd, Boonesborough, Licking River and Fort Randolph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sarahrosemc. 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

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]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect 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.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=5jRFD5Mzx9sHZLT_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_0q4wdXxcKKJKZqR&Q_CHL=gl

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) 15:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sarahrosemc. 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

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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hites Run, Kentucky is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hites Run, Kentucky until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Geoff Young has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Candidate not otherwise notable: see

WP:NPOL

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 09:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Geoff Young is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Young until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

––FormalDude talk 11:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]