User talk:Schematica

A page you started (Lucy Burns Institute) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Lucy Burns Institute, Schematica!

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 page curation.

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

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) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Schematica, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

A couple of notes

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 WP:NOTEVERYTHING. In essence, just because the subject of the article was mentioned in a news story doesn't mean it automatically gets real estate in WP. Listing every single time a subject is mentioned gives the article a promotional feel. WP has a strict anti-promotion policy. It also exposes you personally to the perception that you're 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)

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

• Check out WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD. There's really no benefit to throwing up 5 sources that all say the same thing. When it comes to verifiability, one citation per sentence is enough. And when it comes to 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)

• 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:GLOSSARY has more.) For more info, see WP:EDITSUMMARY. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability tags & advice

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)

Snark

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 this funny. P.S., I'd still like to know how the Marketing Weekly News and Telecommunications Weekly sources discussed Judgepedia, if you know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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 WP:AGF, but then you condescendingly write "Please say you're serious before making me go through the trouble of proving something that you can easily verify for yourself." Easily? It took you 13 sources to cobble together your case. Over at Ballotpedia, you remove a dead link and replace it with a "citation needed" tag. You're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to tag the link as a dead link, and preferably check internet archives for a version of the page [4]. You're intent on wanting articles to be deleted, but it seems clear from your comments that you've never actually sought reliable sources about the subjects. Yet you have such strong feelings about why they must be deleted. Take Citizens In Charge Foundation, which you nominated for deletion without apparently making any attempts to find reliable sources. I Googled the organization, and within several minutes I'd obtained a variety of easily accessible reliable sources [5]. It seems to me you should have done that before nominating the article for deletion. You're eager to delete 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)

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)

August 2014

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 these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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 these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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 these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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 these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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 these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

tagging

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)

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)

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

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)

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

interwiki links

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)

ambox

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

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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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 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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Non-profit organizations based in Bellevue, Washington

A tag has been placed on Category:Non-profit organizations based in Bellevue, Washington requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Non-profit organizations based in Lorton, Virginia

A tag has been placed on Category:Non-profit organizations based in Lorton, Virginia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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)

Category:Non-profit organizations based in Port Townsend, Washington has been nominated for merging

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Non-profit organizations based in Madison, Virginia

A tag has been placed on Category:Non-profit organizations based in Madison, Virginia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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)