User talk:ReconditeRodent

Hello, ReconditeRodent! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello! ReconditeRodent, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in most if not all editions of the Hitchhiker novels, the spelling is "Sqornshellous". Cheers, MetaEd (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, however, Sqornshellous is not the standard spelling in all editions, compare [1], [2] and [3], editions of Life, the Universe and Everything. [2] always uses Sqornshellous, [3] always uses Squornshellous and [1] uses Sqornshellous in "Sqornshellous Zeta" and Squornshellous in "Squornshellous Swamptalk" (one of which is most likely an error). It may be variation between US and UK editions. In any case, I was aware of the inconsistency already and I have ammended Sqornshellous/Squornshellous as alternative spellings. Sorry for being pedantic, bye.

- ReconditeRodent (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My review of published editions of the Adams Hitchhiker novels turned up no inconsistency. All used "Sqo". See my research results at “User:Metaed#Notes”. Perhaps the examples you found which use the "Squo" spelling are not from published editions of Adams' work. They seem to be reproductions by third parties. At least one edition of the radio scripts did use the "Squo" spelling, as well as at least one edition of Eoin Colfer's sequel. Sorry for being pedantic also. Cheers! MetaEd (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Sqornshellous is the correct spelling, thanks for sorting the matter out. This doesn't, however, explain the spelling in the Google Books edition, which is usually reliable and appears to have been scanned directly. This must either be an error introduced during re-publication or a mistake on Adams' part. Also, it shows how "geeky" (or "devoted", if you like) the Hitchhiker's fanbase is to have a discussion about the spelling of a minor location in his series. I have ammended Sqornshellous as the correct spelling and Squornshellous as a misspelling where necessary. So long, and thanks.

- ReconditeRodent (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious: which Google Books edition used the "Squo" spelling? The ones I reviewed, including the one you linked to, don't; they use the "Sqo" spelling. Cheers! MetaEd (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[4] mostly spells it "Sqo" but it is written "Squo" in the phrase "Squornshellous Swamptalk" and "Sqo" in "Sqornshellous Zeta", search for "Squornshellous" and you should find it.

I have also had a chance to review my own copy of Life, the Universe and Everything from 1982

First published 1982 by Pan Books Ltd,

It uses the "Squo" spelling consistently as does my 1985 edition of So long, and thanks for all the fish

which uses it twice in the phrase "Squornshellous Beta". This leads to the question of how did the "Sqornshellous" spelling end up in later editions? Perhaps Adams had intended it to be spelt "Sqo" and asked them to ammend it upon republication. In any case, Squornshellous and Sqornshellous both appear to be acceptable spellings. Thanks!

- ReconditeRodent (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ReconditeRodent, I wanted to say welcome to Wikipedia and thank you so much for the very nice new article on Helix nucula. This new article is a very useful addition to WikiProject Gastropods, of which I am a member. I wonder if perhaps you have a particular interest in gastropods? If so, I would like to give you this invitation to our very informal group:

I've noticed your edits on pages relating to Gastropods; perhaps you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Gastropods? If you would like more information, please visit the project page or the project talk page.

All very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for Helix figulina too! By the way, the shell photos on AnimalBase are free use and can be uploaded to WIkimedia Commons so that we can use them in the article. Here is the Commons Upload Wizard intro page if you are interested:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ReconditeRodent,

Thank you for deleting the Mister Gusty page, sorry for any complications it caused. It was supposed to be a test. -Hamer(talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, if you want to perform tests you may do them in your personal sandbox.

– Happy Editing, ReconditeRodent (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent cleanup of dozens of dab pages! Azylber (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted your edit, because I couldn't really understand it. But I made 'katakana' a wikilink, which should help -- "katakana gloss" is I think better than just "gloss"; though I'm welcome to corrections that 'gloss' isn't quite the right word for an indication of pronunciation, for example. I also don't see what Japanese characters would be needed: the IPA characters *are* the characters being used in Japanese! Brian Chandler Imaginatorium (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! The misunderstanding was entirely mine: I thought the 'japanese' template meant 'lang=ja'. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ReconditeRodent, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Microsoft Windows typefaces has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alakzi (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ReconditeRodent. 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]

Hello, ReconditeRodent. 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]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Xi Axing ‎ does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. Witotiwo (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This change shows that you have added a reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Polo_Bridge_Incident&type=revision&diff=858932375&oldid=858238844 --Witotiwo (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of English words of Spanish origin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sierra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ReconditeRodent. 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]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turner (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crocker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ReconditeRodent. I've seen that you've edited Help:IPA/Italian in the past, so I thought you could help me to understand a thing. Note 5 says: "the n in /nɡ/~/nk/ is a velar [ŋ], and the one in /nf/~/nv/ is the labiodental [ɱ]". I was wondering why in the symbol list does appear ŋ but ɱ doesn't, but I've read in the same note: "but for simplicity, ⟨m⟩ is used here". Why such a distinguo is made here? In Italian a nasal always assimilates to the following consonant, so ŋ can be found just before k and g while ɱ can be found just before f and v. If it's for simplicity, then also ŋ should be transcribed as n (since, unlike in other languages, in Italian this sound can't be found elsewhere). But this makes the transcription less accurate. Then, why doesn't ɱ have its own place in the list? It's weird to me such a different treatment... Could you enlighten me about this issue, please? Versazionecon (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Versazionecon: There was a long discussion at Help talk:IPA/Italian/Archive 1#Assimilated [m] that touched on this but it looks like that took place after the move from ɱ to m was already made, and is mostly debating n vs m. Short answer is probably just that ɱ falls under the arbitrary line of how narrow we think it's useful to make our transcriptions. It's only a separate phoneme in one recorded language, while ŋ is often one. You could ask on Help talk:IPA if you want a more detailed explanation or to suggest changing it. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up that bit about Piaget in Internal monologue. Biogeographist (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sipapu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acoma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Thomasomys ucucha.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ReconditeRodent. You have new messages at Talk:Unicorn Store.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Been busy with other things but thanks for your third opinion. Although I would prefer to simply restore the review, I instead took your suggestion and added the review from the Independent and again shortened the IGN quote. -- 109.78.219.98 (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. It's always tricky to decide and really your opinion is as good as mine. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian accepted the extra review but rejected the shortening of the IGN quote. I've asked him to shorten it himself. If he doesn't I'd appreciate if you shortened it.

There's plenty of room for several more reviews positive and negative, but editors can always selectively quote a positive review to say bad things or a negative review to say good things. At the moment the reviews give a broad overview but the article is still far from the standards of the best articles which use the reviews to further analyze the details such as acting, direction, cinematography.

Coincidentally there is a discussion asking if a review is listed on Rotten Tomatoes is that good enough: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Is_RottenTomatoes_a_good_indicator_of_reliable_review_sites? -- 109.76.225.99 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your earlier comments again I notice in particular your comment about the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Perhaps you'd like to add to the article of that name as a Counterexample? -- 109.79.78.174 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Environmental vegetarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, colleague. I appealed to DRN because of stalemate on Iraqi Turkman Talk Page discussion. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please give your summary? John Francis Templeson (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Hagwallah.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This term is not mentioned in the target, but seems to be associated with it based on an internet search. I'd suggest you consider adding mention of it in Tafheet.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No disambiguation is needed, as the Green MEP is known as Alex Phillips. See the external link there. Moonraker (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you'd edited a page on a newly elected UK MEP who could be confused with one with an identical name. I think some of the disambiguation issues have been resolved, but there is a question of titling one or both pages. I'd like to invite you to comment at Talk:Alexandra L. Phillips#Title_of_article_-_proposed_move. --Cedders^tk 21:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please respond at WP:DRN? Thanks, --MrClog (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrClog: I'm really sorry, I'm just so exhausted with the whole thing and even though I know it looks like we're nearly done it's looked like that a lot and honestly I don't feel confident enough that it's going to go anywhere. It's not my fight and I've been fighting it for ages and there are better ways to spend the energy. I'm sorry if this is disappointing result but is there any way I can just withdraw? I'll unfollow the page and forget about it and if someone wants to pick up the torch later they can note my dissatisfaction. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my thanking you for that closure was both for the kind attention you gave to my arguments, and because I knew that the close was almost certain to get challenged and overturned. In the future, I'd suggest avoiding closing any discussions that would make significant changes to guidelines or policies until you have a lot more experience...I try to stay away from closing those discussions too. But in the meantime, treat yourself to something sweet! Closing that discussion as anything other than "no consensus" would be jumping on a grenade even for an admin. signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Awww thanks! I really appreciate it. And yeah, I probably should've chosen something a little simpler for my first try. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came to leave a similar message. Thanks for taking the time to take on what would be a difficult close for anyone. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to withdraw your close of the RFC, you need to reinstate the request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure since the bot has now archived it, and remove the "done" template. SpinningSpark 16:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, done. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thank you for contributing to the discussion on Palestine’s categorization in Asia talk pages. I would like to encourage you to invite more editors to the discussion and I would also like to know where you stand on the matter?

Lo meiin (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an article about this subject? Please give your opinion here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I mentioned you here. There is no implication that you did anything wrong; you were only opining based on what you knew at the time! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notification, in case you are no longer watching that page, that an RfC you recently responded to at Talk:Daily Mail, has been closed and re-filed with a different question. BorkNein (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no exceptions to the rule that one must notify users at their talk page that they are being reported at WP:AN/I, which you did not do for Honoredebalzac345. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Flaughtin (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kodo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kōdo Station.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you systematically removing NY Post articles as sources. The NY Post is not a WP:DEPS, nor does it meet any of the other categories of unreliable sources in WP:RS. Please stop removing content solely on the basis of its being published by the Post.

Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallnot: WP:NYPOST is agreed to be an unreliable source. However, I'm not removing references arbitrarily – the majority of cases I've reviewed I've left as they are, like when the supported information is relatively uncontroversial or likely to be WP:DUE regardless. That said, when content is already verifiable in two or three other cited sources, I don't see a need to keep a generally unreliable source on Wikipedia just for the sake of it. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 23:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

”Agreed”—where and by whom? Wallnot (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Wallnot (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. If you click WP:NYPOST it should send you to its entry on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which contains a table summarising the current consensus on several frequently discussed sources, with links to the original discussions/RfCs. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 23:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sorry about that. Wallnot (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you merged the content from the Valentine's Day in Iran article into the main article it left Valentine’s Day in bold. How do you get rid of that? Caryn Jones17 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the same section back and added sources. Caryn Jones17 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That works too. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Caryn Jones17: Yeah that bothered me too. You could transclude it with Template:Excerpt instead only then there's a bar at the side (which you're supposed to be able to get rid of with "|indicator=no" or maybe one of the other parameters but it wasn't working for me for some reason). Alternatively you could just take out the link to Valentine's Day in the main Valentine's Day in Iran article and probably no one would care. Or you could merge the whole thing (minus the intro) into the top-level article since I'm not completely convinced it needs its own page. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ReconditeRodent

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that All Things at Once had been redirected to the author's page.

Wikipedia:NBOOKS states that a book is presumed notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." In other words, so long as there are at least two book reviews analyzing the book from an independent source, the book should be presumed notable.

From the revision here, I would not use Momlogic nor NY Post, and I am not sure about Washington Times, but I would use The New York Times, The News-Times, Kirkus Reviews, and Publishers Weekly.

What I could do is do a clean slate and start writing the article from scratch. How does this sound? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]