User talk:MarkTraceur

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy and may have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name (or IP) and the date. You should also use edit summaries - these allow other editors to quickly see what you have done and why. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome! IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bosanquet

The explanation of the game is in this section of the article; explaining the game in detail in the lead would be over-weighting, per WP:LEAD. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

uploads to Commons

Hi MarkTraceur, there are important questions regarding your uploads to Commons. Please visit your talkpage on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

questions to etherpad

Hello @MarkTraceur, are you a admin from https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nova_Resource:Etherpad ,then I have some questions to etherpad.

  • How long is one side, 1 day, 1month, 1 year or more?
  • I don't know what this means. Could you rephrase the question? --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was working on a project, for example 1 months, but not working two months, the page will automatically be deleted?--84.183.209.211 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is responsible for the content, though many here can write?
  • Nobody is "responsible" for it. It's just a place to put text, and collaborate on it. --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can I delete a page, if I have no more time for further care?
  • You cannot delete pads, per se, but you can delete the contents of the pad if you don't want it immediately available anymore. Anyone can still find the old contents with the timeslider, so that's not a perfect solution. --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am looking for a place to collaborate in translating a foreign language in a part of a movie. This could be a copy right problem, for permanent publication. What can be done there?--84.183.209.211 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't put copyvio on that site, we *will* take it down if we are alerted to it. You can host your own Etherpad Lite and use that, and then either take down the instance or wipe any data you want from it when you're done. --MarkTraceur (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! --Wasserkäfer (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC) there?--84.183.209.211 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Contributing to Wikipedia' brochure rewrite: draft text is up

Hi Mark! Thanks much for your input about the "Welcome to Wikipedia" brochure. We've got a rough draft for a new version up now, which we'd love to have your feedback on (or edits to).--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Big Data (band)

Hello! Your submission of Big Data (band) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mark, it's been two weeks since this was posted. You've done only a few edits on Wikipedia in the interim, but we'll soon be at the point where the nomination will have to be closed due to a lack of action. Next time you edit, we expect you to post at the nomination. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pale Fires (December 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:
This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics 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. Primefac (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks primefac, this was a person from the help channel who needed help submitting, I guess I forgot to change the username in the submit template! I've forwarded the message. --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:02, 1 February 2015 review of submission by SageGreenRider


Hi Mark, My reading of WP:AUTHOR clause 3 is that if the author's work (not necessarily the author himself) "...has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" then the author is notable. As you note, I referenced such reviews in the article. Clause 3 is worded strangely and is difficult to parse with several subclauses. Please re-read it and see if you agree with me. In full it is:

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

I parse it as The person has created ... work ... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

The key word is the pronoun that which would be a who if the last bit referred to the author not (as it does) to the work. (i.e. it says "...work that has been the subject..." not "...author who has been the subject...").

Thanks


SageGreenRider (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SageGreenRider: I read that clause as having a higher standard than simple notability for the works - that they must go beyond notability to actual fame. I've asked someone to take a second look at it, and I encourage you to resubmit for review. Cheers! --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading text

Hi Mark, thanks for reveiwing my page. It isn't near complete as I thought by the timing that I had more than 3 weeks to do it!! But no hassles, ill keep working on it and get you to have a look again in a bit of time. I appreciate the feedback! jamesbushell.au

07:20:45, 4 February 2015 review of submission by 95.89.193.89

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Dear reviewer,

thanks for quickly reviewing my article. I was wondering why you declined it. I have now added a few more references and external links.

What else would you like to see?

Thanks again for your help!

95.89.193.89 (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@95.89.193.89: The issue here is mostly that, number one, you've only used Vogelsberger's own works as references. You added an NYT article in the external links, however, that article only mentions Vogelsberger briefly, and hardly establishes his work as having a "significant impact" or any of the other requirements of WP:PROF. Thanks for submitting the article, though, and hopefully you can improve it with further references. Also, you might want to consider signing up for an account on Wikipedia, so we can have a slightly easier time of communicating :) --MarkTraceur (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:17:17, 5 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Immiked


Mark, Thanks for reviewing my article. I have added a number of references that should help. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions for improvement.

Mike

Immiked (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:16:16, 7 February 2015 review of submission by Zafarkasana


Zafarkasana (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Sarwari Kasana who is my father was a very prominent, social, and literary figure in the Jammu & Kashmir state. Hence, his biography deserves to be published on such a prestigious "knowledge based Educational site like " Wikipedia" The various books published by the Gojri Section of the Jammu & Kashmir Academy of Arts, Culture & Languages such as Shiraza, Maharo Adab, Lok Adab, etc.( which are the independent publications of the Academy's Gojri Section since the inception of Gojri Section in the year 1978 onwards ) are the reliable sources in which Sarwari Kasana's work can be seen abundantly on various topics of interest such as Literature, History of Gujjars, Aspects of Gojri language: Phonological and Lexicographical. The Academy has a website also (jkculture.nic.in) Apart from that Gujjar Desh Caritable Trust, J&K Jammu in its Monthly Magazine Awaaze-Gujjar has written in detail on the contribution of Sarwari Kasana as a scholar towards Gojri language, Literature, and Gujjar History Two reliable persons namely Mr.Masood Choudhary(Jammuu) and Mr.Jawaid Rahi (Cultural Officer- J&K Academy of Art , Culture and Languages, Jammu) can be consulted to verify the credentials of the above noted personalty. Sir, I want to see this articel published anyway. Please, help me fix the problems further, if there are any.[reply]

@Zafarkasana: The one reliable source you mentioned needs to be cited correctly, and there need to be other sources too. We cannot accept personal accounts as evidence of notability, as we have rules against publishing original research on Wikipedia. Please find more independent, reliable sources about your father before resubmitting the article for review. --MarkTraceur (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:14:24, 8 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 2A02:1810:2F15:B900:6441:35D7:26E5:7BB2


Hi, I would like some help on the possible improvement of the requested page on Thibaut Maenhout. I first started this page as a translation of the already existing Dutch language page. There are several independent sources about the subject, but they are, sadly, in Dutch. Would these suffice to make the subject noteworthy, or do they need to be in English for the English version of Wikipedia? Thanks for the review!

2A02:1810:2F15:B900:6441:35D7:26E5:7BB2 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:1810:2F15:B900:6441:35D7:26E5:7BB2: It's totally acceptable to use non-English sources on English Wikipedia! We can always use machine translation to approximately understand what the sources are saying, and we definitely want to approach the sum of all human knowledge, not just the sum of all anglophone knowledge. --MarkTraceur (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:41:40, 9 February 2015 review of submission by Ginnyelizabethprince


Good afternoon,

My apologies for not updating my references properly. My understanding, based on what I had seen on Wikipedia, was that my previous submission had been rejected for using inline citations for general references (as opposed to items that may have been controversial), and thus I thought it was best to "pile them all in a hacky numbered list at the bottom of the article". My intention was not to try to deceive anyone, I was merely trying to follow the approved Wikipedia format, which I obviously did not do. Again, my apologies.

If you have any suggestions to offer to me, I would greatly appreciate them, as obviously I am not meeting the Wikipedia requirements for getting this page approved.

Thank you, and again, I do apologize. Ginnyelizabethprince (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Ginnyelizabethprince (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ginnyelizabethprince: Sorry about the slight snark there, I was trying to be brief and it came out a bit accusatory - the inline citation requirement is there so you will have to use inline citations, so my suggestion to you would be to put back some of the citations you used to have, and to add more in the middle of the article. Also, check out the Wikitext cheat-sheet for some information on how to create real lists (like numbered lists, or unordered lists) in the future :) --MarkTraceur (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:02:11, 17 February 2015 review of submission by Ginnyelizabethprince


Hello,

I have updated all the references for the Wikipedia page on Breda Ennis. I have included journals, books, and news sites such as the BBC. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if further referencing is required.

Thank you again for your time and patience with this.

Ginnyelizabethprince (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edina edit-a-thon

  In the area? You're invited to the
   Edina edit-a-thon
  Date: Sunday, March 1, 2015
  Time: 2 to 5 PM
  Place: Ethel Berry Room
Southdale Library
7001 York Avenue South
44°52′32″N 93°19′11″W / 44.8755°N 93.3198°W / 44.8755; -93.3198
  

16:36:30, 24 February 2015 review of submission by Chan5555


I thank you for taking the time to review the submission. I would like to humbly clarify for my own information such that I can make this better.

1. Criteria for notability - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]"

The website won the award in the ceremony. "Won the award for the Best Technology and Internet Blog in India..[1] [2]. WIN’14 was India’s first blogging conference and blogger awards and was hosted by BlogAdda on 9 February 2014 in Mumbai.[3]. This was followed by an interview with the blogger which was published.[4]"

2. We need sources that are reliable. Usually this means that the publisher has a reputation for fact checking. Choose: books, newspapers, and other periodicals. Book: Listed in the list of "Top 25 Blogs That Will Help You Make Money Blogging" on Get Rich Click: The Ultimate Guide to Making Money on the Internet by Marc Ostrofsky - a New York Times best-selling business book. Newspaper: Mentions in Indian Express Newspaper, Business Standard, BBC

    • Besides we have mentioned so many web different resources, some by leading web personalities, that cumulatively taken they are **too many to be biased or confounded.
    • Please advise how this website can get more noted across the web and in the physical world.

Thanks for all your help and time. --Chan5555 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chan5555: I spent quite a bit of time going over these sources. My general feeling was that, for the awards, they were not well-known enough to be relevant for WP:NWEB, and for your sources, most of them were blogs that are not considered useful for satisfying WP:N. If you think that you have sufficient sources without modifying the article, feel free to submit it again, and someone else will happily concur with my judgement. --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:16:48, 25 February 2015 review of submission by CityofEastOrange


Good Afternoon! I am Just trying to help provide a page for the current Mayor of East Orange, New Jersey. I understand that I need more citations, but is there a problem with any of the provided sources? Thank You CityofEastOrange (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CityofEastOrange: Well, there are two references, and I see two problems. The first reference is a broken link, because all of the characters were escaped. Please find the link again and add it correctly. The second reference lists the mayor, but it's only a listing, and I don't think the "40 under 40" list applies as a major award, so in my opinion it doesn't really help his notability. Also, unrelated to the article, your account is named incorrectly, because it implies that it is a shared account for employees of East Orange, which is not allowed under our username policies. Please register a new account that is only for you - if you want to name it something like "Mike in East Orange", that would be fine, or "Mike who is an employee of the City of East Orange" (as long as it's not too long...), but shared accounts are a big no-no. --MarkTraceur (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.

MarkTraceur (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! MarkTraceur, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! MarkTraceur (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 25: Information Architecture Summit meetup in Minneapolis

Thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Minnesota#Information Architecture Summit meetup - I know the organizer from participation in various NYC wiki-events.--Pharos (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharos: Thanks! I've already been in contact with them, I'll be there for sure. Cheers! --MarkTraceur (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:24, 5 May 2015 review of submission by Bikerock


Thanks for the review, Mark. Wondering if the decline was due to notability or questions on the references? I will see what I can do to improve the submission with your feedback. Thanks

Bikerock (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bikerock: - it's because most of the references are links to the band's website or other websites that are only hosting music for the band. Please read the linked notability guideline and try to find more independent sources that cover the band in depth. --MarkTraceur (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Marshall (entrepreneur) has been accepted

John Marshall (entrepreneur), 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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MarkTraceur (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:46:08, 11 May 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Surfsupjoe125


I keep getting refusal for this article. You keep stating that there is not sufficient to be notable. This guy is all over the internet and has done everything listed in the article. I am not sure exactly what is causing him to be "unnotable". Is there anyone that may be able to steer me in the right direction? Any suggestions and/or help would be greatly appreciated.

Surfsupjoe125 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)surfupjoe125Surfsupjoe125 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surfsupjoe125 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Surfsupjoe125: Hi! The issue isn't that we think Jesse isn't notable, it's that we can't tell he is from the references you're providing. We need multiple, reliable, independent sources that cover him in detail or we cannot be certain that anyone actually thinks he's important. It's also important that you find reliable, independent sources to support almost every fact in an article about a living person, or the article may be declined even after you establish notability. I hope that helps clear things up! --MarkTraceur (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:17:11, 11 May 2015 review of submission by Surfsupjoe125


@MarkTraceur

Hi Mark,

You made a remark that the TV singles reference did not even mention him and that is incorrect. You will see a ton of references to Mr. Gibaldi which was his birth name and this is mentioned within the article. I am going over it meticulously adding references from reliable sources to try to get past this lack of notability. I appreciate your remarks and I am trying to adhere to what you have stated.

Thanks

Surfsupjoe125 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Surfsupjoe125: Ah, I see. Well, that's still not a very detailed article when it comes to information about Cutler, and if he's referred to in the press as Gibaldi, then you should change the article name to that... --MarkTraceur (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkTraceur

Thanks Mark. He quit using his birth given name and for over 40 years now has been Jesse Cutler so I will stick with that and try to dig up pertinent info. So much of this is so old that it is somewaht difficult to find the publications, references, etc. that are considered reliable and reference him directly. I will keep working on it.

Thanks again

Surfsupjoe125 (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)surfsupjoe125Surfsupjoe125 (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad token" error when uploading local images to EN and a request for a "retry upload" button

Hi,

I attempted to upload an image of Darren Rainey to EN for his article, but I kept getting "bad token" errors as the upload finalized. Whenever that happened, it was not possible to "retry" the upload and I had to start all over in the upload process, re-entering all of the fields. Do you know of any plans to add a "retry upload" option that allows the upload to be done successfully without having to enter everything again?

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We actually fixed this exact error in UploadWizard - see T71691 - you can use the same badToken function to potentially improve any gadgets you have that allow local uploads on enwiki. I don't really have any involvement in that gadget, but if you're talking about Special:Upload then I may be able to help. Further details would be nice to have in that case :) --MarkTraceur (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. I was trying to upload File:DarrenRainey.png using the English Wikipedia's Special:Upload feature since it was a non-free file. I had to fill in all of the information before the upload took place: NFCC rationale, source, descriptions, etc. At the moment it was supposed to be uploading I got a notice that said "invalid token" (no error codes appeared that I know of) and there was no option to retry the upload of the image. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michele Ann Suttile (June 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Arthur goes shopping 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.
Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Gratification
Thanks for your input. I'll keep trying Thedistinguishedlunatic (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:29, 11 August 2015 review of submission by Seanwallace


Hi, can you let me know how I can make the page better? I simply based it on the same page as KJ Parker, and Richard Parks has been in the field just as long, and with as many award nominations. Is it simply that you need more citations?

Seanwallace (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seanwallace: Not "more", just "better". The link to his own website is obviously his own words, not him being covered by independent sources. The interviews are, in our eyes, the same thing - he is talking about himself, so he can make things up without scrutiny. Look for third-party, independent sources that cover him in depth. See WP:42 for the absolutely most basic guidelines. --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Joywave

Draft:Joywave, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Joywave and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Joywave during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2015 (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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Generalised Whitehead Product

Dear Mark Traceur,

Thank you for reviewing my article. You wrote

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

It is difficult if not impossible to provide context for articles in pure mathematics for those not familiar with the subject. This is because pure mathematics is such an abstract subject. Also it builds on itself so that any concept is defined in terms of previous concepts. All of the pure mathematics articles in Wikipedia that I have seen were written for readers with some knowledge of the area being discussed. In fact, the article "Whitehead Products" to which mine is a follow-up, provides much less context than mine. May I suggest that you look at some articles in Wikipedia on pure mathematics subjects (topology, group theory, complex analysis, for example) to see what context they provide for the general reader.

Thank you. Ark of WitsArk of Wits (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 5 January 2016 review of submission by Akmur0

EDIT - I now see your comment on my submission. Thank you for the specific suggestions! I will try adding a better third-party source.

Hey there! I was wondering if you could help me understand why my submission to Articles for Creation (Michael J. Tougias) was not accepted. Your reasoning was that I did not clearly state the subject's notability; is there a way you suggest I improve on this? Is it a simple edit or should I try to simplify the page to just the subject's notable accomplishments?

Akmur0 (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help decide the future of Wikimania

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Rachel Faro Article Decline- January 29, 2016

Hi Mark,

I am currently working on finding a lot more valid sources , as I know that there are many. This is my first time creating a wikipedia article, and I realize I didn't cite everything properly/gather enough credible sources. However, I would like to point out that it is not that the artist lacks notability, it is my lack of adding notable sources. There are in fact multiple wikipedia articles that mention her music and producing, yet she does not have a page herself. Rachel Faro is mentioned in many books, newspapers, and articles, and I will gather as many digital references as there are. Again, Rachel Faro's notability should not be in question, but the credibility of the sources I gather, which I hope you will take into consideration once I resubmit the article for review.

Thanks, Amy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amymcmahon (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amymcmahon: Yes, Amy, my decline and comment both mentioned that you had plenty of sources, and that it meant the artist was probably notable, but that I couldn't verify that because none of your sources were reliable. But thank you for so succinctly repeating my point for me. Best of luck reworking your draft to meet our policies. --MarkTraceur (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center

The Loft Literary Center edit-a-thon
  • Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016, 6–8pm
  • Location: Loft Literary Center, 1011 S Washington Ave, Room 203, Minneapolis
  • Sponsor: The Loft Literary Center
Hello MarkTraceur! You are invited to attend an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center which will be held on Thursday, February 11, 2016. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to artists from marginalized communities. Please bring a laptop. Refreshments will be provided.
We have also recently formed a user group for Minnesota editors. If you would like to join, please add your name to our page on meta. Thank you, gobonobo + c 01:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Towards a New Wikimania results

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Firstsource Solutions'

Hi marktraceur, following the upload of the article several users made suggestions for edits which were carried out. Notices were placed on the article by one user until such times as the edits were completed. Would you mind reviewing the article when you get a chance and remove them if you feel appropriate. Many thanks, Michael McGoldrick (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:59:38, 22 September 2016 review of submission by 2604:2000:E016:A700:9910:BEF0:88FC:B7A4


The guidelines that I was pointed to in the decline indicate that this person is notable. By virtue of having competed in the Olympics. I don't understand the decline -- the review says the person is not notable, and then points to a rule that says quite the opposite.

@2604:2000:E016:A700:9910:BEF0:88FC:B7A4: I'm sorry, you're correct, I should have declined because of the lack of reliable sources, not notability. If Erez Shemesh participated in the Olympics, then he's notable, but we have to have good sources to prove that, and the other things the article talks about. --MarkTraceur (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for admitting that your first reason for declining was mistaken.

As to your second reason -- There is proper sourcing as to the fact that he competed in the Olympics. Every Olympic athlete is reflected in the sport reference source. And we have umpteen Olympic athletes reflected on wikipedia on the basis of the sport reference source. It is used as a reliable source in over 39,000 wp articles. It is clearly a reliable source.

I'm really surprised under the circumstances that you would say that the sport reference source is not a reliable source. I think you are flatly wrong - or else we have thousands of articles to delete. Really, what is your basis for saying that? Have you explored all the articles it is used in, as a source for notability by virtue of Olympic performance? Have you looked at who runs it? Have you looked for discussions that say it is not a notable source? Or are you not doing those checks, but just saying without support that it is not a reliable source? If so, that is not good for those editors whose work you review. People will be driven away who should add articles here, because someone guesses incorrectly that a source is not a good source, without checking if their guess is correct.

user:Lugnuts seems to do a good deal of work in this area. Perhaps he can explain why this second reason is also not applicable. 2604:2000:E016:A700:9910:BEF0:88FC:B7A4 (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2604:2000:E016:A700:9910:BEF0:88FC:B7A4: Sorry again, I'm not familiar with that particular site, I didn't do a lot of research about other articles in the area, but I'm happy to step back and let someone give you a second opinion. For my part, I don't necessarily trust a website that has no editorial board. I would much rather have a secondary, reliable source mention the subject being involved in the Olympics. I'm sure they're out there, you just need to find one and cite it, then we can get going! --MarkTraceur (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note The official record from the 1992 games confirms (see here: [1] on page 482) what is said in the article and in my mind make the sports reference question irrelevant. I'm going to add it to the draft and then approve it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP: we all make mistakes, and Mark has been nothing but gracious about this one. Please drop the stick and move on. Joe Roe (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:24, 19 October 2016 review of submission by Tobiastan



Hi there, thanks for the constructive comments and the edits, I will work on this over the next 2 weeks and resubmit, Cheers Tobias Tan (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review needs your help

Hi MarkTraceur,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MarkTraceur. 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]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

Hello. Here's an event happening soon. Might you be able to make it? Jonathunder (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  In the area? You're invited to a
   Minnesota Wikipedia Meetup
  Saturday, December 17, 2016
  Meet in the MIA Main Lobby at 1 p.m.
  2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis
  

Mia edit-a-thon

Minnesota Wikipedians are invited to an upcoming event. Even if this isn't your usual topic, experienced editors are needed to help new contributors. Might you be able to make it? -McGhiever (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  In the area? You're invited to an
   African American Artists Wikipedia Edit-a-thon
  Saturday, January 28, 2017
  Meet in the Minneapolis Institute of Art's Friends Community Room & Library at noon
  2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis
  

Your draft article, Draft:Discovery Hope Sports Academy

Hello, MarkTraceur. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Discovery Hope Sports Academy".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CatcherStorm talk 16:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Cloud, April 15, 2017: Wikipedia as Social Activism

Please come and join if you can!

  In the area? You're invited to
   Wikipedia as Social Activism
  Saturday, April 15, 2017
  St. Cloud State University Library at noon
  720 4th Avenue South, St. Cloud
  

Shaded0 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MarkTraceur. 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]

May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting

  In the area? You're invited to the
   May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
  Date: Sunday, May 20, 2018
  Time: 4 – 6 p.m.
dinner afterward on Eat Street (Nicollet Avenue)
  Place: Minneapolis Institute of Art
2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis
Target Wing: Art Research and Reference Library Reading Room 44°57'30"N 93°16'30"W
  

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MarkTraceur. 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]

Wikipedia Day 2019

There's discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Minnesota of a celebration in the Twin Cities on January 19. It would be great if that fits your schedule. Jonathunder (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2018 (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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tina Rexing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tina Rexing 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/Tina Rexing 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. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Greater Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thons

2022 Greater Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thons

Location: Kandiyohi County Museum, Kandiyohi County Historical Society, 610 Hwy 71 Service Rd, Willmar, MN

Location: Blue Earth County History Center and Museum, Blue Earth County Historical Society, 424 Warren St, Mankato, MN

Location: Weyerhaeuser Museum, Morrison County Historical Society, 2151 Lindbergh Dr. S, Little Falls, MN

Location: Clearwater County History Center, Clearwater County Historical Society, 264 1st Street, Shevlin, MN

Location: Minnesota Discovery Center, 1005 Discovery Drive, Chisholm, MN

Location: Nobles County Historical Museum, Nobles County Historical Society, 225 9th St, Worthington, MN

Location: Winona County History Center, Winona County Historical Society, 160 Johnson St, Winona, MN

Location: Otter Tail County Historical Museum, Otter Tail County Historical Society, 1110 W Lincoln Avenue, Fergus Falls, Minnesota, MN


Hello MarkTraceur,
You are invited to attend a Greater Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon at a Local History Museum. Help increase and improve the depth of information on Greater Minnesota history topics. Find your own topics to edit or work from a list of suggested topics. Please bring a laptop. Lunch will be provided. For more information view the information page at the Minnesota Historical Society. If you are not attending the event in person you do not need to register but only need to sign up on the Event Dashboard.
Myotus (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:MarkTraceur"