User talk:Schematica

Thanks for creating

Wikipedia editor Sulfurboy just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great work. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Sulfurboy's talk page.

Learn more about

Hi Schematica! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 20:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

Hey, good working with you the last day or so. Together we're making these article better. A couple of pieces of advice that you might appreciate:

• Sources affiliated with the subject of an article (such as websites and press releases) aren't prohibited per se, so you don't have to remove every last one. The important thing is to adhere to the criteria listed in
  WP:ABOUTSELF
  .
• Please keep in mind the often-overlooked
  not here to build an encyclopedia, which could get you in trouble. My recommendation, focus on making the articles comprehensive and balanced representations of the reliable sources. Try incorporating more material from this source
  , for instance. You and your articles will appear more credible that way.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple additional pieces of advice that might make your day a little easier:

• Check out
  notability
  , no number of sources that mention the subject incidentally will suffice; all that matters are sources that have substantial coverage.
• Please be sure to read
  WP:BLOGS
  . You keep throwing up blog sources even after I've referred you to that guideline a number of times. Consider sparing us both the trouble.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another note: long edit summaries do not help other editors. This one, which says "One of the more robust online models for achieving this goal is called Judgepedia, which fashions itself like Wikipedia and offers one of the biggest databases on judges and courts." looks like a quotation from the reference you added. If this is a good quotation, it might be added to the citation as part of the reference. It will not be part of the article and it is not informative to your fellow editors. Sometimes we just say "ce" for 'copy edit' or "rvv" for 'revert vandalism'. In AFD discussions, we will just say "k" or "d" to summarize what our !vote is. (
  WP:EDITSUMMARY. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Don't get "bent out of shape" because a notability tag is posted. Tags are indexed for other editors to see. They review such indexes and look for interesting articles to work on. So a notability tag can have a small positive impact on the article when people come by to see why it is tagged. That is, they will often seek to improve the article. (Notice how the template has links in it for sources?) Now for the advice, you are jumping into the deep end of Wikipedia feet first, which is fine. Continue your efforts. You cannot break Wikipedia. Please don't get frustrated. With this in mind, you should strike your comment about "disingenuous" because the remark reflects your frustration rather than Fleishman's motives or behavior. Do so with the <s></s> Wiki markup at the bottom of the editing window. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re this comment, thank you, and I'm sorry, I've never noticed you could do that in Google Books. Please do try to keep the snark level down, as it only leads to more tension. By the way, you might get a kick out of

Some other things that might add to the tension would be you accusing me of having a "pattern of promotional activities across all the articles you've been working on," without offering any specific examples. [1] I'm not really sure how taking an an entirely self-sourced article, cleaning it up and adding five reliable secondary sources is "promotional." [2] Or my removal of a bunch of text straight from an organization's website, and the insertion of a number of reliable sources here [3]. You ask me to

Judgepedia, but you don't know how to, or are unwilling to learn to do a Google Book search. Or how about this edit, where the citation at the end of the paragraph clearly verifies the first sentence (which is a common citation style, so as not to clutter the prose), but instead of checking it, you slap a "citation needed" tag on it. [6] Are these the behaviors of someone trying in good faith to improve the articles? They appear to me as more of a pattern of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Schematica (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I could go through this list and explain my good faith on each one, if you think it would help ease the tension between us? It would take some time. Or I'm open to other suggestions? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Allegheny Rugby Union may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:Non-profit organizations based in Pennsylvania]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alliance Defending Freedom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {cite web|url=http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/whatwedo/training/Blackstone.aspx |title=Our Work > Training > Blackstone Legal Fellowship - Alliance Defending Freedom |publisher=Alliancedefensefund.org |date=
• [[Category:Non-profit organizations based in Arizona]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alliance for Marriage may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:Non-profit organizations based in the Virginia]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Center on Conscience & War may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:Non-profit organizations based in Washington, D.C.]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to American Widow Project may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:Non-profit organizations based in Texas]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Re this, if you ever have any uncertainty about why I (or anyone else) tagged something, please ask. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel compelled to comment about the content on my user page? It's none of your business, and it's weird that you're watching it and that three hours after I make an edit on my own user page, you feel the need to comment on it.Schematica (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So that wasn't about me? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Messages for you would be left on your talk page, where I've left you messages before. My user page is my user page, not a message board for you or anybody else. Schematica (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geesh. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you are working on an article which could reasonably be expected to have an article on another language's WP, such as Parc Kellermann, but there are no interwiki crosslinks at the right in the Languages section, it helps if you add a link on the English WP page such as I just did there. If there are multiple languages, it's enough to add a link to just one, as I did; the others will be added automatically to all versions. Similarly, you don;t have to add a backlink to the enWP on the other language's page--that too gets added automatically. The link usually goes all the way at the bottom, but can go anywhere. There is a conveneient multi-langage search bar here. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love you ambox! Can I suggest you add or even discuss it? Andrewa (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Schematica. 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]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-profit organizations based in Port Townsend, Washington has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]