User talk:Deisenbe/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Lynching-infobox
Hello. I saw you’ve added some recent victims of lynching in the lynchings-infobox. However, you did not add those infoboxes to the appropriate articles. Therefore, I did it it for the cases from 1988 and later. If I have the time, I will do the rest. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! (Anarcha Westcott and J. Marion Sims)
Hello! I just wanted to say thank you for your excellent edits to Anarcha Westcott and J. Marion Sims. Your contributions – especially to the J. Marion Sims article – have made these articles much more balanced and informative. Have a great day! :) Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Make It Right Project
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Make It Right Project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://independentmediainstitute.org/make-it-right-project-announcement/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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.
- Make It Right Project is mostly a copy-paste of https://independentmediainstitute.org/make-it-right-project-announcement/ "©2018 Independent Media Institute. All Rights Reserved."
Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Deisenbe, Dennis Bratland, I've blanked the page and listed it at WP:copyright problems so that this can be looked into. I'm concerned that it comes so soon after Texas Confederate Museum was deleted as a copyvio. Deisenbe, can you throw any light on what is going on here? Is there some obvious explanation that others have missed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've now looked at the second version of Texas Confederate Museum, and that too has substantial taking from this page, so I've blanked and listed that also. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like Deisenbe has created a number of articles in recent months. It would be helpful if they would just tell us which ones contain significant copy-pasted text so that we don't have to hunt for them. Several cite book and pdf sources that are tedious to check for duplication. It's not up to me but I'd be less likely to want a block of an editor who cooperated rather than one who made us go to a lot of effort to find all the copyright violations. Hopefully there aren't more and this is moot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- What am I being asked? deisenbe (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Deisenbe, I was going to say just what Dennis Bratland has said. In plain terms, with no frills: you're being asked if there may also be other pages where you have copied content from external sources. I hope there aren't, but if there are, it would be very helpful if you would list them here, on this page, with a note of which source(s) you copied from. There is an established procedure for doing this – WP:CCI – but it is extremely time-consuming for volunteers and is hopelessly, irredeemably back-logged. You're in a far better position than anyone else to identify any remaining problem articles, and your help would be much appreciated. As I think you have already understood, what you're not being asked to do is to try to get permission from the Independent Media Institute or anyone else. Please ask here if anything I've said is not completely clear to you. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- What am I being asked? deisenbe (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like Deisenbe has created a number of articles in recent months. It would be helpful if they would just tell us which ones contain significant copy-pasted text so that we don't have to hunt for them. Several cite book and pdf sources that are tedious to check for duplication. It's not up to me but I'd be less likely to want a block of an editor who cooperated rather than one who made us go to a lot of effort to find all the copyright violations. Hopefully there aren't more and this is moot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've now looked at the second version of Texas Confederate Museum, and that too has substantial taking from this page, so I've blanked and listed that also. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Deisenbe, Dennis Bratland, I've blanked the page and listed it at WP:copyright problems so that this can be looked into. I'm concerned that it comes so soon after Texas Confederate Museum was deleted as a copyvio. Deisenbe, can you throw any light on what is going on here? Is there some obvious explanation that others have missed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Make It Right Project was not a copy and paste of https://independentmediainstitute.org/make-it-right-project-announcement/ or any other page.
Here are the first THREE paragraphs of the page you accuse me of copying:
- Officially, the Civil War ended with the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865. But more than 150 years after the war’s end, some 1,700 monuments to the Confederacy dot the U.S. landscape, and not all of them in Southern states. Since the year 2000, more than 30 new monuments have been erected. These statues and landmarks romanticize the brutality of slavery and glorify traitors to the United States.
- Confederate monuments were never about recognizing history, but were instead put up to ensure what historian Jane Dailey identifies as “a white supremacist future.” Most were funded by the United Daughters of the Confederacy to propagate the “Lost Cause” myth, a historically revisionist ideology that claims the Civil War was fought not over slavery, but for the abstract concept of states’ rights. With few exceptions, these structures were hastily built at the dawn of Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement to intimidate and terrorize African-American communities as they struggled toward racial equality and political empowerment. Overwhelmingly sponsored by white women, they venerate white men who fought to defend the Confederate Constitution, which declared the South would pass no “law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves.” That is the unambiguous “states’ right” the Confederacy was established to protect.
- The Make It Right Project is dedicated to working with multiple groups—activists, artists, historians and media outlets—to remove Confederate monuments and develop post-removal protocols to properly historicize and contextualize these markers. The activism strategy will consider recent and ongoing forms of protest against Confederate monuments to maximize effectiveness and build upon groundwork that has already been laid. The point of the initiative is to do more than just “raise awareness” or “start a national conversation,” and instead aims to genuinely move the needle, creating measurable, visible change.
- Our plan is to Make It Right and take them down.
- The Make It Right Project is targeting 10 monuments around the country:
Here is the ONE paragraph plus one sentence of my introduction:
- The Make It Right Project was formed in 2018 to encourage and advance the removal of Confederate monuments. It is a project of the Independent Media Institute; director is Kali Holloway. According to the group's statement, they are "dedicated to working with multiple groups—activists, artists, historians and media outlets—to remove Confederate monuments and develop post-removal protocols to properly historicize and contextualize these markers.... The point of the initiative is to do more than just 'raise awareness' or 'start a national conversation,' and instead aims to genuinely move the needle, creating measurable, visible change."[1] In a later statement, "contextualize these markers" has become "to tell the truth about history".[2]
- The group has compiled a list of 10 monuments it is targetting:
Where is the “copy and paste” in that? Let me point out that when there was a direct quote, I put it in quotation marks and cited the source. I also included another reference which updates what was said on that page.
In the description of the first monument they are targetting, I copied two of the four sentences, but in quotation marks and referenced.
Here is the page’s description of the second monument they are targetting:
- 2. Silent Sam: Chapel Hill, NC
- This nod to the Confederacy stands on the Chapel Hill campus of North Carolina’s public university. At the 1913 dedication ceremony, industrialist Julian Carr praised Confederate soldiers for protecting the “welfare of the Anglo Saxon race” and bragged he had once “horsewhipped a negro wench” near the site of the monument. Student and faculty protests of “Silent Sam” date back to the late 1960s. Most recently, activist and UNC history PhD candidate Maya Little was arrested for spilling red paint and her own blood on the statue in protest.
Here is my description of the same monument:
- 2. Silent Sam, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The group's first activity was the erection in July, 2018, of two billboards in Raleigh, North Carolina, depicting Silent Sam covered by a red X and the words "North Carolina needs a monumental change". The stated audience the billboards were intended to reach — thus the Raleigh locations — were the members of the North Carolina Historical Commission, under the impression, which others as well had until August 2018, that a controvedsial 2015 North Carolina law allowed it to approve the removal of Confederate monuments.[3][4] The Project responded: "The only way to truly contextualize racist monuments and white supremacist statues is to take them down from their lofty positions of public reverence.... The Commission and study committee had an opportunity today to correct the historical record and help bring an end to the era of white supremacist Lost Cause mythmaking. Instead, they chose moral ambivalence and hostility to historical truth. The vote was yet another example of the frustrating institutional decisions that have led community outrage to boil over."[5] At about the same time, the Project printed posters with a picure of Silent Sam, an X over him, and the words ”We need REAL heroes", and students put them up on the campus.[6]
Here is the page’s description of the third monument they are targetting:
- 3. Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson Statues: Charlottesville, VA
- In August 2017, neo-Nazis, members of the alt-right and other white racist terrorists descended on Charlottesville to defend these overt signifiers of white supremacy after the City Council voted for their removal. A day later, a white racist used his car as a murder weapon against counterprotester Heather Heyer, and a mob of white thugs viciously beat counterprotester DeAndre Harris. Despite the City Council’s votes, the Lee and Jackson statues remain in place, due in part to a lawsuit filed by a collective that includes the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Here is my description of the third monument:
- 3. Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson Statues, Charlottesville, VA. In September of 2018 the group erected a billboard depicting the two monuments, and between them the words "Monumental Change Needed". They also prepared lawn signs saying "Monumental Lies", with pictures of the two monuments; these have been seen in a number of yards in the city. "Neo-Confederates made a grotesque parody of the Make It Right billboard in response. And then put it on a truck and drove around town with it."[2]
I am quite familiar with U.S. copyright law. Everything I have done is in keeping with fair use and with Wikipedia:Non-free content. I am offended by your unfounded accusation and that I have to defend myself for something I didn’t do. deisenbe (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's not true. You did place a small amount of the text you copy-pasted in quotes, but most of it is not in quotes and doesn't indicate that you're simply re-using the content from the source. The list of 10 items is essentially all copying, and most of the introduction. Removing all the copied content means removing over 80% of the article. This is verifiable at the Duplication Detector.
At Texas Confederate Museum, it's the same story. It's clear you highlighted "From 1990 to 1992 the collection was held by the Helen Marie Taylor Museum in Waco, but returned to temporary storage for two years while the Texas Association of Museums, Summerlee Foundation, and the United Daughters of the Confederacy sought a permanent repository. In 1994, an agreement with Hill College in Hillsboro placed the collection on display at the Texas Heritage Museum (formerly the Confederate Research Center) until 2000, when the agreement terminated." and hit CTRL-C, CTRL-V. Copy-paste. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's not true. You did place a small amount of the text you copy-pasted in quotes, but most of it is not in quotes and doesn't indicate that you're simply re-using the content from the source. The list of 10 items is essentially all copying, and most of the introduction. Removing all the copied content means removing over 80% of the article. This is verifiable at the Duplication Detector.
Your tool is mistaken, because it treats documented quotations as illegal copying.
Having taken the time to go over about the first 30-40% of the article, would you please tell me where the unauthorized copying is in those paragraphs? If 80% of the article is unauthorized copying, as you allege, there must have been some in those paragraphs. Thank you.
I would also like you to explain, before escalating this, how you arrived at the 80% figure. The tool’s identification of characters is nowhere near 80%. deisenbe (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- The list of 10 monuments is not in quotes. You did not use quote marks or a quote box or anything to indicate that you copy-pasted the entire list. The text of the article at your last edit was 5,689 bytes, or 572 words. Removing the list of 10 items, we have only the intro, which is 120 words. Of that, you wrote 57 words. So 80% is copyright violation. Properly quoted content is 11%, and the remaining 9% is original prose. Your original contrition consists entirely of
"The Make It Right Project was formed in 2018 to encourage and advance the removal of Confederate monuments. It is a project of the Independent Media Institute; director is Kali Holloway. According to the group's statement, they are [...] In a later statement, [...] has become [...] The group has compiled a list of 10 monuments it is targetting:"
It appears you think the list of monuments is allowed under WP:COPYQUOTE, but the guidelines say "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited" and "the copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted", and here we have at least 80%, more like 91%. You wrote 57 words and copy-pasted 515, and only put 63 of the quoted words in quotation marks. The other 452 words are presented to the reader as if they are origional content when in fact it is entirely copied. I think you should review the copyright rules, and also carefully read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, because inexact copies of others' text are also violations. If you have other articles where you have substantially copy-pasted content such as you did on Make it Right Project, you should identify where. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- The list of 10 monuments is not in quotes. You did not use quote marks or a quote box or anything to indicate that you copy-pasted the entire list. The text of the article at your last edit was 5,689 bytes, or 572 words. Removing the list of 10 items, we have only the intro, which is 120 words. Of that, you wrote 57 words. So 80% is copyright violation. Properly quoted content is 11%, and the remaining 9% is original prose. Your original contrition consists entirely of
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Deisenbe/sandbox/Christopher Rage
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:Deisenbe/sandbox/Christopher Rage, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
- It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of http://gayeroticvideoindex.com/V/6/11196.html (and other websites). (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.
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. North America1000 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Deisenbe/sandbox/honeysuckle divine
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:Deisenbe/sandbox/honeysuckle divine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.therialtoreport.com/2014/10/05/whatever-happened-to-honeysuckle-divine-stripping-god-and-ping-pong-balls/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. North America1000 17:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
People whose statue is in the National Statuary Hall Collection category
Hello Deisenbe,
Is this category you created really a "defining" characteristic of the people in it? (Wikipedia:Defining). It seems reasonable to have a list article of everybody in the Statuary Hall, but that's more about the Hall and less about the person. I'm not sure if people say "Alexander Stephens, that guy with a statue" rather than "Alexander H. Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy and Governor of Georgia and racist jerk." I'm pretty sure that "categories by award" tend to get deleted unless the award is incredibly, incredibly famous and defining - e.g. the Nobel Prize, Fields Medal, etc. I don't think this honor rises to the occasion - I'm familiar with it due to having toured the Capitol, but I'm pretty sure that 99.8% of people have no idea about it or really care. SnowFire (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I’m particularly sensitive to this because Florida, where I live, has just changed its statue. These are not just individuals, they’re something like a prize each state gives out. The point is not that they’re in the Hall. The point is that these are the people each state has selected as their most admirable or noteworthy citizens. Furthermore, the changes - statues replacing other statues - are themselves evidence of changing attitudes. Getting rid of a Confederate hero and replacing him with an African-American woman? That’s pretty big. It’s like revoking a Nobel prize and giving it to somebody else. I think that this is indeed incredibily famous and defining - representing the state in the U.S. Capitol.
- The harm is Wikipedia:Overcategorization, wherein sufficiently famous people have 100 categories where half of them are things like awards they were granted, organizations they belonged to in college, appearances on magazine lists, and so on which makes the entire category list unreadable. Basically, it's the wrong way around. Wikipedia has Category:Paintings depicting Adam and Eve; Wikipedia does not have Subjects of Michelangelo paintings. Or, for a better example, something like "People who are depicted in the Metropolitan Museum of Art."
- The claim that this truly is an epochal honor, a defining characteristic is more compelling - but I'm not sure it's really true. Category:Burials at the Panthéon, Paris is something closer - the Pantheon is definitely a Who's Who of greats in French society. I'm less certain that the Capitol statues have that kind of cultural impact, though. The fact that there have been so many horrible people in this list - Confederates and the like as you point out - without great uproar seems to show that people just don't care that much. The Florida replacement will get a few news stories and then move on. I don't think getting your statue here is at the level of, say, Medal of Honor awardees.
- One thing to keep in mind is that many of these people honored with a statue have not received any other type of prize at all. Look at Florida’s John Gorrie, Georgia’s Crawford Long, Kansas’s John James Ingalls, New Mrxico’s Dennis Chávez. It couldn’t be more different than “Paintings in the Museum of Modern Art”. With museums the focus is on the artist; the artist’s subjects are usually less important, or even unknown. With the NSHC it is the reverse: it is not an exhibit of scuptors’ art, it is an exhibition of honored citizens. The sculptor is less important, the person depicted is the most important aspect. deisenbe (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Deisenbe: Sorry about that! I was really busy, followed by forgetting this conversation was still ongoing.
Anyway, your comment is interesting, but I guess a side issue to my point. Hypothetical, silly example: if I was to collect paintings of people I think are awesome but not fuss too much about the artists, that's nice, but nobody cares about my personal collection, so it isn't very notable. The question is: how much do people / the general public really care about this kind of honor as it applies to the person themself (who is almost always long-dead by the time this posthumous honor is bestowed)? This Google Books search seems to only show Congessional resolutions and very little Books interest, although it's possible my search terms are wrong. Basically I see plenty of news stories in relation to the statues & the collection as a political statement (e.g. endorsing the various Confederate leaders who are there), but not so much the other way around: if you search for info about Robert E. Lee, something like [[1]] is pretty low in priority, and most of these memorials aren't worthy of categories to begin with. To put it in WP:CFD terms, it's WP:OCAWARD, "Categorization by winning an award".
Anyway, just to be clear, I could be wrong about this! If you're not convinced and think the category is worth saving, let's ask others at CFD - that way you don't waste your time working on a project if it gets deleted, and if it turns out others agree with you, I'll definitely lay off, because I agree that there is a case to be made that this award really is notable enough. SnowFire (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, Deisenbe! I went ahead and created the CFD here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 23. Check it out and feel free to add your input as category creator. SnowFire (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Susan B. Anthony, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018 - History of radio
Crystal radios receive the AM band (540–1600 kilocycles) only. Amplitude Modulation means that the shape/strength of a signal changes in conformity with the sound being transmitted. The crystal (actually, an electrode touching a crystal, usually quartz) is a rectifier: it permits current to pass in only one direction. Cutting the amplitude-modified signal in half, by passing it through a crystal rectifier, means that you have a reproduction of the original sounds. With strong signals, the current received from the antenna is sufficient to power headphones. That is a crystal radio's only power source.
Crystal radios (tuned circuit and a detector) can be used at any frequency. "Electrode touching a crystal" is redundant. Quartz is a nonconductor and not used for detectors. The signal is not "cut in half" but is rectified - only only polarity is passed through the rectifier, converting the amplitude modulated signal into something that can be reproduced by headphones. The paragraph is redundant in the place it was placed in this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Sex offenders in Florida has been nominated for discussion
Category:Sex offenders in Florida, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Liz Read! Talk! 15:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you
... for your work on so many articles about monuments and memorials. I am curious, do you have experience promoting articles to Good status? If not, you might consider trying this, assuming you have any interest. Either way, keep up the great work! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. In general I ignore the whole system of rating articles, seeing so many labelled incorrectly (called stub class or start class when an article is more advanced than that), and so many editors, some quite discourteous, that are wrongheaded, at least in my estimation. I did renominate Silent Sam as a good article, but it was rejected. I do not agree completely with the criteria for good articles. I once, with constructive intent, stupidly expressed my disagreement and got such a destructive, hostile response that I won’t repeat the experience. I just do my thing and try to keep my head down. deisenbe (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting, I've had a generally good GA experience, but I understand. Was just curious, thanks for replying! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)