Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article University of Notre Dame you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article University of Notre Dame you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:University of Notre Dame for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! 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:

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.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan 01:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eccekevin! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Notre Dame, an outreach effort which aims to support development of Notre Dame related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants, check out our To Do list, and join the discussion on our talk page. Thanks!!!

It seems the Legobot hasn't informed you that I have taken up this review. I will post my comments today. Please respond within a week. Thanks, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 01:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article University of Notre Dame you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:University of Notre Dame for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating UCSF Bakar Cancer Hospital, Eccekevin!

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

Thanks for creating an article, I am a Patroller, I have marked you page as patrolled

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

Learn more about page curation.

Anoptimistix Let's Talk 13:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Hugh Toland, Eccekevin!

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

Looks good! Nice work!

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

Learn more about page curation.

MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your ownership of the Notre Dame article is growing tiresome and tedious. In any case, please join the discussion I've opened on the article's Talk page. And be sure to discuss why you removed the material that I added to the article (complete with a real source - a rarity in that section!). ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost as tiresome as your ownership of the entire Wikipedia category of higher education. Also, my bad, I readded your contribution. I was wrong there. Eccekevin (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eccekevin. 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[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Notre Dame residence halls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Bridget (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) 18:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you took University of California out of the Ineligible section on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 23, but it's still ineligible due to a ((refimprove)) tag in the "Peripheral enterprises" section. Regards, —howcheng {chat} 16:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on UCSF Medical Center. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Natureium (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at UCSF Medical Center. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Embassy chapel 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! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Eccekevin. As you have not edited Wikipedia in over a week and have been unable to respond to the concerns raised in the discussion, I have now marked your DYK nomination for closure. If you wish for the nomination to continue, please return to editing as soon as possible and leave a message there before it is closed. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Notre Dame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Burns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eccekevin. 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[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Bronze statue of Saint Peter, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Cappella dei Mercanti (Turin).

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

A useful article. When you translate an article from another language Wikipedia, you should provide attribution on the talk page. I have done this in this instance, but in future you can do it yourself.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Cwmhiraeth)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eccekevin, Please do not declare "edit wars" as you did when editing University of California, San Francisco; you will have more success as an editor if you collaborate and assume WP:GOODFAITH. I suggest that you post your thoughts on the article talk pages rather than making hostile comments in your edit summaries. Trantorian (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not declare an edit war, I simply reverted an edit you've made and invited you to discuss it on the talk page. I apologize if you misunderstood that as "declaring an edit war" Eccekevin (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted my edit once, which is absolutely fine. In your edit summary, however, you said "stop editing warring" (very odd given that it is only one revert) instead of detailing your reasoning for the revert. Such hostility in the absence of rational discussion has the appearance that you are planting bait for an edit war. That discourages collaboration. For what purpose? How does this improve the quality of the article? Trantorian (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the poem by Burns - who in this case (as very commonly for him) was using an old folk song as the basis for his poem. The actual words of the "old song" referred to by Burns have in effect been lost, so the best we can do is to mention its (probable) existence in our 'history" section. Is this unclear or contradictory? To be fair, we do include a stanza or two from another literary reworking of the same old folk song for comparison. Without speculating too much this is probably closer to the "original" than Burns' version. This whole bit has been done to death on the talk page for the article, but a lot of useful matter has been (necessarily) archived, so you would have to hunt it up there --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Commencement at the University of Notre Dame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Bush (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) 10:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Notre Dame residence halls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Mary's College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eccekevin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Bronze statue of Saint Peter.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Campus of the University of Notre Dame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Touchdown Jesus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Notre Dame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Howard Hall

Dillon Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Howard Hall

University of Notre Dame residence halls (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Howard Hall

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Campus of the University of Notre Dame

added a link pointing to Lyons Hall

Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates

added a link pointing to Notre Dame

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, South Dining Hall, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Campus of the University of Notre Dame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Kernan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an old mistake, sanctioned by repetition after repetition without looking at evidence or archaeological facts. Meetings could not take place IN the Septizodium, because it had no rooms. It was a three-story high fountain. See: The New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore 1992, pp. 349-350): "It was actually no more or less that what appears from the plans and drawings that survive, a scaenae frons intended as a frame for a program of statuary, probably portraits of the imperial family. Thre is no sign of water, and though the architectures of nymphaea and scaenae frontes were always closely related and crossed boundaries with each other, it seems unlikely that water was ever intended to be introduced. Rather we should think of this as complete in itself.... What was left in the sixteenth century was a building of three storeys, progressively diminishing in height like a scaenae frons, all three with Corinthian colums.... There was evidently rich coffering in all three storeys, but the upper storeys can have been accessible only by ladders, and there is no sign of a building of any sort behind this façade." The Deaconry of Santa Lucia in Septasolio did have a church, and it seems there was a monastery attached. I go with Saepta Solis (Septasolio), not the medieval corruptions.

BTW, I walked the area when I was in Rome in 1992, and, IMHO, the clues in the sources (esp. the mention of the Clivus Scauri) suggest that the site of the electoral meeting was at some distance from the Septizodium.

--Vicedomino (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What were you trying to say where you have "and over" in this edit? And have you a source? Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop removing "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" per our conversation on WT:CATHOLIC. @Drmies:, a word here? Elizium23 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're maybe right about the dioceses (although the technical term is Latin, not Roman), but not about other instances. The term ROman, which is a protestant addition, is seldom used by Catholics themselves and institutions don't use it as an official title. Indeed, the wiki age is Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church is just a redirect.Eccekevin (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Gallup
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Cruces
• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta
• Courage: A Roman Catholic Apostolate
• The Roman Catholic Foundation of St. Louis Elizium23 (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• At the nation’s oldest Roman Catholic law school, students of diverse backgrounds are encouraged to broaden their minds, bodies, and spirits while honing their intellectual and professional skills to serve the good of all. Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, first of all, that link is factually incorrect because it is the second oldest Catholic law school. (in the about section, it is described as a Catholic, not Roman Catholic). Secondly, the Wikipedia page is [[Catholic Church], not Roman Catholic, which is a redirect. So the correct term (when liturgical rite such as in dioceses are not concerned). Additionally, as an alumnus, I know firsthand there are many Eastern-Catholics and non-Latin liturgy is recited, so saying it's Roman Catholic is also incorrect by your own standard.

I apologize if I came out strongly, I appreciate your work. But I strongly disagree with using the Protestant and reductive term when it is inappropriate and incorrect. the University of Notre Dame, as the page itself states, is best described on Wikipedia as Catholic, not Roman Catholic. Eccekevin (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elizium23, is there an RfC somewhere, or a line in the MOS? Maybe there should be, so we can more easily codify it. Eccekevin, I personally don't have a dog in this fight (though my RC family still puts the R in RC), but there is a project-wide consensus, at least a tacit one, and we should stick to that. That's not to say it can't change, but that's not a discussion to wage in article space, user talk pages, or edit summaries: it needs broader discussion than that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drmies, it's been beaten deader than a horse in Talk:Catholic Church archives. Elizium23 (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK but no one is going to go through the archives to look for it. If the horse is plenty dead, then its might as well be put on display at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Catholic Church, for instance. Seriously, go for it and add that entry, with a few links to relevant archives--that would make everything easier, and we'll make a redirect like WP:MOSRoman or something like that. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eccekevin. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page University of Notre Dame, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the ((request edit)) template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Basilica of the Sacred Heart (Notre Dame); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Mean as custard (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's be clear, the stuff you have removed (and in many ways you were right to remove it) was not added by me. I just reverted your edit because you just emptied a page without discussion. While you were right that there was stuff that needed to be removed, your solution was a bit drastic and there was info that deserved to be kept.Eccekevin (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for reverting your edit on Justin Amash - happened to mis-click 'rollback' on my Watchlist. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, so even after looking at the discussion, why are hidden parameters being deleted when they don't even show? Snickers2686 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you've been implementing hiding or deleting the would-be successors from infoboxes. Don't forget the US governors & lieutenant governors. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, since the field's use is currently under discussion we should not be unilaterally reverting editors to push our POV. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current policy for Template:Infobox officeholder is: "The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place." Changing the policy is under discussion. Until the policy is changes, the successor parameter should be empty until succession.Eccekevin (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both are proposed compromises are being rejected :( GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[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) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Michelle Steel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CharlesShirley (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Since the Michelle Steel article is within the realm of US politics, it would be a very good idea for you to engage in talk page discussion before attempting to re-add the material, especially since there appears to be agreement at Talk:Michelle Steel to leave it out. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Josh Hawley shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Note, you have 3 prior warnings re Wikipedia:Edit warring.

Specifically, you are repeatedly reinserting content into the article's WP:LEAD.

• 19:40, 7 January 2021[1] ...contributing to the riots.
• 22:35, 7 January 2021[2] ...and inciting the riot
• 23:29, 7 January 2021[3] ...and inciting the riot
• 01:15, 8 January 2021[4] ...and creating the climate for the riot

and elsewhere in the article:

• 19:27, 7 January 2021[5] ...incited the Capitol riots
• 22:20, 7 January 2021[6] ...responsible for inciting the riots.

UW Dawgs (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Josh Hawley, you may be blocked from editing.

Specifically, with this edit [7] you removed a cited section on Israel using a misleading WP:Edit summary of "improve wording", while changing prose in a different section from "both ahead of" to "leading up to". UW Dawgs (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing the section on Israel was a genuine mistake.Eccekevin (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just realized that "Lede" is also correct word for "Lead". I corrected a typo in your post, but I was wrong - both words are correct (I am not native english speaker, so I didn't know that). Sorry :) Felix558 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it's confusing. Thanks! And thanks for your good work on the page Joe Biden.Eccekevin (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Dunne Hall (University of Notre Dame), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 155blue (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Flaherty Hall (University of Notre Dame), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 155blue (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Zahm Hall, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 155blue (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Patrick Dillon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 155blue (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from University of Notre Dame into History of the University of Notre Dame. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but I myself was the author of both. Do I still need to? Thank you for your help. Eccekevin (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at [[8]], (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

You forgot to sign your Vote at the discussion, please do it to avoid confusion. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 05:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FDW777 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:University and college buildings completed in 2020 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

— Wug·a·po·des​ 02:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Wugapodes Eccekevin (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to be canvassing for AfD. [9],[10] This should stop immediately or this will need to be brought to ANI for a topic ban from AfD. You are free to post to talk pages of Wikiprojects, but leaving messages for individual editors you believe will support your position is canvassing. I will note this for the closer, but take no further action if you cease.  // Timothy :: talk  10:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not canvassing for an AfD, I am simply reaching out to members to help me source pages since there's a lot of work to do. This is in line with WP:APPNOTE. (Also, I ohpr you don't mind but I corrected your typo, since canvassing is spelled with two S's) Eccekevin (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've made your point, you will not stop canvassing. You've clearly violated WP:VOTESTACKING, but I will wait until after the AfDs close to go to ANI.  // Timothy :: talk  18:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, I never did canvass nor votestack. Secondly, I have not posted on anyone's page since you said that, so even what you call canvassing has 'stopped'.Eccekevin (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inserting your comment in between the end of my comment and my signature here [11] is very inappropriate. Also alterting your comments after other editors have replied is also very inappropriate.  // Timothy :: talk  19:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was an honest mistake. And I never altered my comments on people's talk pages. Regarding my comments, I am just updating with more sources as I gather them. Eccekevin (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would strike your mistake, with an explanatory edit summary. Altering your own comments in anyway (except for typos) after they have been replied to in any discussion, but especially at AfD is very inappropriate; it gives the false impression those that have replied did not read, understand or ignored the substance of your comment when they replied. If you have new sources you can add them to the article or in a new comment. If you look at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification, you will see that partisan notifications are vote stacking.  // Timothy :: talk  20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I refactored your comment slightly on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography (section), as I felt that as it stood, it did not reflect your intent. Please have a look.

Thanks, LK (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of animated series with LGBTQ characters shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Historyday01 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historyday01 I am sympathetic to the work you are conducting on that page, but you cannot remove ^{[citation needed]} tags without adding a proper citations. Please read Wikipedia:Citation needed. Eccekevin (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am glad to hear that and I just updated those entries. And I just added many more sources today, all of which say those two characters are ambiguous.Historyday01 (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historyday01, none of those sources use the word "Ambiguous", so they are not proper citations for what you need. Eccekevin (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Looked at the sources and I made them a little clearer. I changed Princess Sapphire to trans woman or genderqueer (as that's what Erica Friedman says) and Queer for Oscar François de Jarjayes (as that's what CBR says). Historyday01 (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, better, but read WP:BLPSPS. You still cannot use Blogs as sources. Eccekevin (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, generally, but her blog (not her Twitter of course) is a reliable source based on her role in the anime/manga space when it comes to reviewing content. I mentioned this more on Talk:List of animated series with LGBTQ characters#Original research and lack of citations. If you would like to additional citations, be my guest, but I have limited time and cannot spend every waking moment on Wikipedia. Historyday01 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I saw that you undid the revision on Chesa Boudin's Chinese name, and I would like to point out that Chesa publicly puts his Chinese name right next to this Twitter handle ^[1] and his campaign posters,^[2] and directly works with a lot of the Chinese community despite not being of Chinese descent. See Dashan, who has his Chinese name on his wiki page despite not being of Chinese descent, and Jackson Wang, who has his Korean name on his wiki despite not being Korean. Maskoff89 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a common practice among San Francisco politicians. That doesn't mean every SF politician's page should have a Chinese name if they're not Chinese. Eccekevin (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it, so should I delete the ethnic names of other people on wikipedia as they are not of that ethnicity like the ones I mentioned above, I'm kinda new here so I'm trying to understand everything! Maskoff89 (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia works by policies and consensus. Whatever the consesus is for a specific page is what should be. If you find cases in which you disagree with the presence of such names or so, you can post on the talk page. Eccekevin (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand, I was just asking your opinion as you reverted my edit on Chesa's page.Maskoff89 (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Chinese name should be included if it has a special relevance to that subject, either they’re Chinese, have lived in China and are known by that name, is often found in the sources, or other. In San Francisco, candidates often put a Chinese transliteration on their Twitter page for recognizability, but I don’t think that’s enough, especially since it’s not found in any other independent source, which their personal Twitter is not. Eccekevin (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A self-revert may be wise, before repercussions hit. Zaathras (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Onus is on those trying to remove something without a discussion. Eccekevin (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Eccekevin. Thanks for your input at Talk:Joe Biden. Just a couple of notes: please don’t put your edits in the middle of someone else’s. That just makes it impossible to track who is saying what. I have moved your responses down so they are below mine. Also, a trick I learned about citing references on a talk page: below the note where you cite the references, insert ((sources-talk)). That will collect the references right below where you cited them, hidden under a hat so they don’t clutter up the discussion. Look at the discussion page and you will see what I mean. You can also use ((reflist-talk)) which will display the references without hiding them under a hat. If you don’t put anything, the references will fall to the bottom of the talk page, where they will be in the way and hard to connect with the place where they are cited. Always learning at this place! -- MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your helpful tips!Eccekevin (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) In fact there's a perfect example of what I am talking about, right here on your user talk page. See the two references at the bottom of this page, under this note, kind of orphaned? They are there because someone cited references above, in the note headed “Ethnic Names”, and they didn’t add a references template. So they fall to the bottom of the talk page. You can fix that if you want, by putting one of those templates under the place where they cited the references. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hy ! There are many gay Roman-Catholic popes in history.

• Advocate.com: Gay popes --188.96.230.248 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read WP:CATLGBT. There needs to be an academic consensus and good sources, not a simple list article on a non-academic online magazine.Eccekevin (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

its a good academic list by a very good source: Advocate. --188.96.230.248 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a magazine, not an academic source. Also, a consensus among sources is needed, read WP:CATLGBT. Eccekevin (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It' s both ! --188.96.230.248 (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a magazine, not a peer-reviewed academic journal, source, or book. Eccekevin (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to make sure you're aware of a discussion regarding an issue you have previously discussed at Talk:University of Mississippi. If you already are, disregard this. Thanks and have a great day. ~ HAL333 16:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FDW777 (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good-faith edits, like this one, are not vandalism. There is a legitimate content dispute about how to present this individual's nationality, and I don't think either side is editing in bad faith here. However, continuing to label good-faith edits as vandalism viewed as an attack on those editors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• While I generally agree, in this case this page is constantly targeted by IP addresses, sock puppets, and other shady accounts for political/nationalistic reasons. Users that are aware of the nuanced conversation on ethnicity will discuss on the talk page, but vandals will edit the page without going to talk first. Eccekevin (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fatima al-Fihri. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Largoplazo (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, regarding your edit of the page University of Notre Dame, the word "changes" is a more appropriate word, as some of the changes that happened under Hesburgh's administration were and are still controversial especially among many Catholics. The word "changes" maintains the neutrality of the article. Jjfun3695 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eccekevin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Johnson Family Hall, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eccekevin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:South Dining Hall, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[12]

IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong), Professor Oka Mihoko referred to him as a 奴隷 (slave; I've never seen it translated "page") in the NHK documentary this May. She posted a number of criticisms of the final product on her blog, but "they called him a slave, but he was a page, not a slave" doesn't seem to have been one of them.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thank you for your comment. I just reverted the IP addition of the fact that he was a slave owned by Valignano for the following reasons:

• The IP user who added that he was a slave of Valignano did not add any sources
• The primary sources, such as the Histoire Ecclesiastique Des Isles Et Royaumes Du Japon^[1], don't use the word slave but words such as "valet" and I have found no primary sources that explicitly state he was a slave owned by Valignano.
• I also haven't found any secondary academic source that state with certainty that he was a slave owned by Valignano, and the few ones I have seen alsways treat it as a possibility. Professor Lockley states that it is a possibility that he was a slave as a child and brought to Inidia as such, but that he likely was freed there before he met Valignano.^[2]
• Does Professor Oka Mihoko state that there is proof he was a slave owned by Valignano? If yes, could you link the source? I was not able to find it.
• He might have been a slave before he met Valignano, but this does not mean that Valignano was his slave owner.
• Finally, and most importantly, I think we have to be very careful how we state it. Because it is a supposition without primary evidence in the sources, but it is possible that he was a slave according to some authors, I think it should be phrased something like: "Some authors believe he might have been a slave, potentially owned by Valignano when he arrived in Japan". I don't think we can write that he was "a slave of Valignano" without having any hard evidence and agreement among scholars (I inserted this but it was deleted). Wikipedia policy is very careful about not overstating the knowledge we have. What do you think? Eccekevin (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will get to the rest of your comment when I have time (and when I've rechecked the sources, which I haven't looked at since June), but this is important: please do not call Lockley a "professor". He is an associate professor of English. Oka Mihoko is a full professor of history historian, specializing in Japanese international relations during the period in question, at the most prestigious university in Japan.

In the meantime, would you mind telling me which secondary academic sources you have consulted? Professional academics are unlikely to "state with certainty" much at all about Yasuke's biography given the paucity of sources. History is, to quote Bart Ehrman, about establishing "what probably happened in the past", so it's a judgement call. In this case, we have one primary source referring to Valignano being given three slaves in Africa, sending two home, and keeping one with him, and then a reference to him presenting a black man to Nobunaga later on his voyage. Given this evidence, and the fact that a Todai professor scholar specializing in the relevant field says it was probably the same guy, I think you'll have an uphill battle arguing that he was not a slave without falling into OR or reliance on sub-par pop culture sources (like the above Time article about the Netflix cartoon).

On a loosely related note, I'd love to get your take on User:Hijiri88/Matadayū: I'm hoping to make it a WAM entry by the end of the month.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC) (edited 15:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC), since apparently [according to NHK] Oka is a 准教授 like Thomas, but unlike Thomas she is a historian rather than language instructor; anyway, my bad)Reply[reply]

Exactly, as you say, historians are very careful about making absolute claims, and Wikipedia is too. That's why I said that we should be very careful about how we phrase it. I didn't say we should say he was never a slave, but that we should present the facts with nuance and attribute information. We should write "professor X says ... and that they conclude that he was possibly a slave because ..." with the appropriate sources, rather than claiming with absolute certainty that he was a slave, since we cannot know this for sure, we only have clues.

That's my whole point, we cannot make absolute claims about Yasuke because so little is known. You're very right that we cannot claim "he was a samurai", in the same way we cannot for certain claim he was a slave, we can only say what the experts conclude and their theories and present them to the reader, not make a judgement call in the lede.

Can you link the sources of Mihono claiming he was a slave? I could not find them. And can you link the primary source referencing the slaves being given to Valignano in Africa?

Of course, I will take a look at Matadayū. Thank you!

Eccekevin (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly, as you say, historians are very careful about making absolute claims, and Wikipedia is too. That's why I said that we should be very careful about how we phrase it. FWIW, I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to be careful about the kind of claims it makes based on the presence or absence of primary sources: it follows the best-quality secondary and tertiary sources, in this case professional historians with training in the relevant research areas. The only specialists I know of who have commented on Yasuke are Oka Mihoko and Kaneko Hiraku (both professional historians affiliated with the University of Tokyo, the former a specialist in Japan's European relations in the 16th century and the latter a scholar of Oda Nobunaga). I haven't checked what the latter wrote on the matter since June, but the former definitely considers Yasuke to have been the slave acquired by Valignano in Africa. Here's the link, anyway (the primary source is apparently a recent discovery [although I don't trust the NHK narrator when he says that] dug up in the Jesuit archives in Rome, a letter Valignano sent to Rome dated 7 August 1574 -- the camera hones in on what very much looks like the word wikt:schiavi, which both Oka herself and the narrator translate into Japanese wikt:奴隷; Valignano apparently gave away a number of the slaves, keeping three for himself, and sending two of those three to the monastery of São Roque in Lisbon [or something like that]). Oka had problems with the final product, but if the issue was their editing around her to make it look like she was saying the exact words she says in this particular portion of the documentary, she probably would have mentioned that. The problems she discussed on her blog[13][14][15][16] instead have much more to do with the credulity that the documentary gave to Lockley's views about Yasuke's ultimate fate, nothing to do with where he came from. As for Kaneko, he doesn't talk about "Yasuke" so much as the textual tradition of the Nobunaga Kōki: he's been misquoted by Lockley and others as referring to a particular text (the Sonkeikaku-bon) as being an "earlier edition", but he actually seems to consider it a later aberrant text, which adds in details apparently taken from other, now lost, written sources or from eyewitness testimony, and among these additions is a reference to Yasuke; it's unlikely Kaneko passively refers to Yasuke as a 奴隷 in his brief discussion of the passage in question, but he definitely did not say "I don't consider Yasuke to have been a slave", since that would have had nothing to do with the textual analysis he was engaged in. (Kaneko was interviewed in the NHK documentary, but he talks only of the position attributed to Yasuke by the Sonkeikaku text after his being presented to Nobunaga, not about whether he was a slave before that.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For dubious claims, such as him being a samurai or a slave, Wikipedia needs to provide attribution for the claims (in line with WP:ATT). Given this rule, we need to attribute which historians claim he was a slave, not merely say 'he was a slave'. Hence, why I am looking for positive claims in the secondary and tertiary sources. That's the issue, as you know well there are so few sources on the topic, and I don't think a NHK docuemtary counts. Did Kaneko or Oka write any peer-reviewed papers or books on Yasuke? she probably would have mentioned that this is an assumption that we cannot make, we can't prove a negative. Overall, we can't work on supposition, which is why I am trying to find definitive claims by historians. The only one who has expressed an opinion on the topic so far is Lockley, although as you said yourself he's not properly a historian. Eccekevin (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For dubious claims, such as him being a samurai or a slave, Wikipedia needs to provide attribution for the claims (in line with WP:ATT). Given this rule, we need to attribute which historians claim he was a slave, not merely say 'he was a slave'. Hence, why I am looking for positive claims in the secondary and tertiary sources. Would you apply the same standard to the claim that Yasuke existed as a historical person and is not, say, an amalgam of unrelated people or even semi-fictional references made in dubious sources, inferred by some modern scholars as "probably" having existed historically? Did Kaneko or Oka write any peer-reviewed papers or books on Yasuke? No. Kaneko wrote a seemingly well-regarded scholarly monograph on the Nobunaga Kōki, and in his discussion of one variant text, which he says can't be dismissed as a wholly derivative forgery, discusses Yasuke to some extent. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any peer-reviewed academic paper or book on the subject (Thomas Lockley's pop history writings have not been peer-reviewed by professional historians, the closest being a piece submitted to a seemingly-not-peer-reviewed Law School faculty organ), though, so I don't know how that is relevant: if no one has written a peer-reviewed book or paper focusing on a particular historical figure, does said person not meet GNG? this is an assumption that we cannot make, we can't prove a negative. Have you read her blogs? I'm sorry, but before I engage in a discussion of the relevance of a Japanese-language blog by a professional historian, I need to know if you can read or understand Japanese. Anyway, you seem to have it the wrong way around: you are making an assumption that, just because I have been unable to find a retraction of the positive statement Oka made in the interview, it doesn't mean no retraction exists. The only one who has expressed an opinion on the topic so far is Lockley, although as you said yourself he's not properly a historian. Again, I'm going to have to ask you: do you speak Japanese and have you watched the Oka interview where she refers to Yasuke as a slave. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the WP:ATT standard applies to anything on Wikipedia, including his existence as a person. But WP:ATT is only required when something is contested, but so far no editor has contested it. You can read the guideline page. Eccekevin (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It violates WP:NOR (if not in letter then certainly in spirit) to include inline attribution for only those claims that at least one "editor" has contested. If I or someone else applied the same "beyond a reasonable doubt"-esque standard to his historical existence as you have been doing to his having been a slave acquired by Valignano, then would you be willing to edit the article to say he is a hypothetical person believed by X, Y and Z to have existed?

Do you accept that history is about establishing what probably happened in the past and that historians generally don't talk about what "possibly" happened or what "definitely, beyond all doubt" happened?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry but no, read WP:ATT. Anything contested needs attribution, and that's not OR. Although everything on Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice, not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. No one here is questioning the existence of Yasuke. But if someone did, then yes, we'd have to provide attribution (although int hat case it would be easy, so no issue).

And yes, of course this is about establishing what probably happened. Hence why we need to phrase it as such, not misguide the reader by saying that he was a slave without any doubt. Eccekevin (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already have provided attribution here and on the article talk page: you are talking about inserting the attribution into the article in a manner that implies it is a view that is not widely held. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am talking about providing attribution, the manner of which can be discussed.Eccekevin (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the manner of which can be discussed Are you open to just using an inline citation like in most of the statements in most of our history articles, and matter-of-factly describing him as a slave in the article prose? I am uncomfortable with anything equivalent to According to [Oka], he was likely a slave acquired by Valignano in Africa and mentioned in one of Valignano's correspondences, but according to [Someone], he was likely never a slave because of [such-and-such reasoning] unless you can provide evidence that [Someone] is a reputable historian and/or [such-and-such reasoning] has gone through some kind of peer review. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The green text you wrote is exactly how this should work according to WP:ATT (even just the first half with Oka). Additionally, is there a Oka source that is not the documentary? As you and others have pointed out, that's not the best source either and is not peer-reviewed.Eccekevin (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The green text you wrote is exactly how this should work according to WP:ATT (even just the first half with Oka). I've been ignoring your citing of the unfamiliar acronym ATT until just now. (I was assuming good faith and therefore guessing that you were misreading an actual policy page.) But WP:ATT is a failed policy proposal. Do you now understand how your proposal violates the actual policies of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR? is there a Oka source that is not the documentary? Her blog. Again I'll ask, do you read Japanese? As you and others have pointed out, that's not the best source either and is not peer-reviewed. You need a reliable source to make that claim. Otherwise, we take the Oka interview as being generally accurate. My problems with the documentary are Oka's: they also interviewed non-specialists whose views they presented as though they were good history. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a policy, states the same: Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. ([WP:ATT]] was a merger page, its elements all come from WIkipedia policies). Hence, you need to cite and attribute the source for the claim that he was a slave. According to WP:CHALLENGE, the burden of proof is on those supporting inclusion. Eccekevin (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That quote refers to inline citations. I have always interpreted it, in writing articles (but not criticizing others' articles) as meaning Attribute all content to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with writing Scholar X says such-and-such [but I say different].

Anyway, you've been highly evasive throughout this discussion, so I'll ask you again: do you read Japanese, and have you read Oka's blogs on the matter?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have restored the stable version of the article, since you have consistently failed to provide any reliable sources in support of your claims, and have repeatedly dodged virtually all of my questions. Do not revert back without a reliable source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eccekevin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Walsh Family Hall of Architecture, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Eccekevin. I won't continue discussing with you via edit summary as we are getting nowhere. The disputed statement in the lead is a misleading and gross oversimplification, whether he became a secular hero (he did!) much later (centuries!) after his death or not. The balance about who thought possitively about the guy or, for that matter, who even cared for the guy before the late 18th century is much nuanced that the unattributed and vague "widely venerated" "in the centuries after his death", which I think you have failed to properly source so far. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Antoni Gaudí shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already reverted three times this edit you did without consensus. I will not revert it any more. I ask you to please undo that edit yourself and change the short description back, until a consensus is reached. If not I will be forced to ask for administrator assistance at the edit warring noticeboard. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing "Spanish architect" to "architect" is also not valid until a consensus is reached. To follow WP:BRD you need to please undo this edit and restore "Spanish architect" in the short description. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eccekevin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Johnson Family Hall".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 San Francisco District Attorney recall election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 San Francisco District Attorney recall election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Francisco District.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for you here: Talk:2022 San Francisco District Attorney recall election PacificDepths (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dude why do you keep reverting prop H stuff to your earlier versions that have a number of factual errors and are so badly written ... i don't get it 192.234.214.110 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upcoming Indianapolis event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride Indy
	You are invited to join us at IUPUI University Library for a Wiki Loves Pride editathon—hosted by IUPUI University Library, and supported by the Central Indiana Community Foundation—where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme: Tuesday, June 21: Wikipedia:Meetup/Indianapolis/Wiki Loves Pride 2022 (RSVP), focusing on Indiana LGBT history and culture. 11am–4pm at IUPUI University Library, Ashby Browsing Room. We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic & Jere

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 19:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC).)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truly unnecessary. You know full well all I do is comply with WP:BRD and in no way am I engaged in an edit war.Eccekevin (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've twice reverted the same material (removed by two different editors); that is de jure edit warring. You've been warned previously and you're an experienced editor - you know better. Claiming that the editors didn't discuss their edits when we both left very clear, succinct edit summaries is disingenuous.

I've opened a discussion in Talk. Please participate. ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Succint summaries do not make up for a lack of discussion in the talk page. I simply reverted to the stable version of the page while discussion starts, this is by the book procedure. Eccekevin (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eccekevin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Walsh Family Hall of Architecture".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eric Voegelin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noesis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Upcoming Indianapolis event - July 28: Food Deserts & Food Policy
	You are invited to join us at Ruth Lilly Law Library for an edit-a-thon on Food Deserts & Food Policy hosted by Ruth Lilly Law Library and United States National Agricultural Library. Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on food deserts, nutrition, and related local and federal food policy. Thursday, July 28th from 11am-4pm, in Room 235G, Inlow Hall, 530 West New York St. Indianapolis, IN 46202. Visit the Wikipedia/Meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more. We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic, Jere, & Jamie

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 08:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC).)

So sorry for the edits! And thank you for correcting. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bloomington	Upcoming events around Indiana - Nov. 1: Environmental Justice editathons 2 locations: Indianapolis & Bloomington (and virtual option)	IUPUI
	You are invited to join us for a multi-site editathon organized by Indiana Wikimedians at IUPUI University Library in downtown Indianapolis and the Herman B Wells Library at IU Bloomington (with virtual option). Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors, with faculty subject matter experts, will collaboratively improve articles on environmental justice in Indiana and globally. Join us at either location or virtually! Tuesday, November 1st from 11am-4pm, at... Indianapolis: IUPUI University Library, Ashby Browsing Room (2nd floor) Bloomington: Indiana University Bloomington, Wells Library, Hazelbaker Hall, room E159 (1st Floor, East Tower) [Visitor Information] Virtual: Via Zoom (please register on Eventbrite for link) Visit the meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more. We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic & Jere

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC).)

I agree with the edit, but you did not leave an edit summary, nor did you explain what the problem was to the editor. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was reverting to status quo what appears to be vandalism. Eccekevin (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then please make that clear in an edit summary and/or on the editor's talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Dean Preston, you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect "Serenissima Repubblica di San Marino" and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22#"Serenissima Repubblica di San Marino" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Nov. 11-13: WikiConference North American Meetup! IUPUI University Library (and around Indianapolis)
	Registration is now open for WikiConference North America 2022 (Nov. 11–13) held jointly with Mapping USA! If you would like to experience this virtual event in-person, you are welcome to join our meetup in Indianapolis! We will be meeting at IUPUI University Library for the weekend, with AV set up for conference streaming and presenting (for those who've submitted proposals). Anyone is welcome to join, we will have some light refreshments and are planning evening activities. Feel free to join us for an activity, a day, or the whole weekend. Please let us know you are coming via the meetup page and please register for the conference. We will share more about in-person activities on the meetup page as they are finalized. Visit the WikiConference North America site for the schedule and visit our meetup page to sign up and learn more. And don't forget to register for the conference! —From the Wikimedia Indiana team!

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 17:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC).)

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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Eccekevin. As we talked, I finally divided the Kingdom of Sardinia as the 1720-1861 period of the Savoyard state, which according to the Wikipedia naming convention retains the main title as a national state, from the medieval regional Kingdom of Sardinia (1324–1847) which gave its royal name to the latter.--Revolution Yes (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Compagnia di San Paolo, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 11 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes, Notre Dame, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes at the University of Notre Dame (pictured) contains two stones originally from the grotto at which Our Lady of Lourdes is said to have appeared to Saint Bernadette? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes, Notre Dame. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes, Notre Dame), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Eccekevin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Walsh Family Hall of Architecture".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Upcoming Indianapolis event March 17: Indiana Women in the Arts
	You are invited to join us at Newfields for an edit-a-thon on Indiana women in the arts, co-hosted by Wikimedians of Indiana and IUPUI University Library. Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on women artists and artworks of Indiana. Friday, March 17th from 10am-3pm, in Stout Reference Library, Newfields (Indianapolis Museum of Art), 4000 North Michigan Rd, Indianapolis, IN 46208 Visit the Wikipedia Meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more. We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic & Jere

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC).)

Concerning the "current concensus" -There isn't one, and that is why there have been several changes. As the primary writer of this article (several years back), I agree with a recent poster that the word "Italian" needs to go in there. But Leonardo is not famous for being n Italian. It is a descriptive word, and he could be equally well served by being descrobed as "Tuscan" or "Florentine" or "Renaissance".

His primary encyclopedic description is polymath and Italian High Renaissance tells the reader the rest. However, if others have a strongopinion on this, and good reason for holding it, then it is not a matter of great consequence.

What is your reason for the reversion, precisely? Amandajm (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page has settled for a while on using Italian, so it is the current consensus, although a RfC could change that. That said, I very much disagree with the statement that he is not famous for being Italian, since he is a national symbol of Italy both within the country and abroad. Finally, eminent sources, like Britannica, describe him as "an Ialian polymath", and was Wikipedia editors we follow the sources. Finally, it is common practice and settled consensus on Wikipedia, for example the page on Albrecht Dürer uses German in the first sentence, despite being as far from the creation of Germany as Leonardo was from Italy. Eccekevin (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Amandajm (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kingdom of Sardinia into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palace_of_Venaria&diff=1149214533&diffmode=source Whpq (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upcoming Indianapolis event - May 13: Indiana Politics & Government 2023
	It's been an eventful state legislative session in Indiana, and local elections took place this week, so we have lots to cover! You are invited to The AMP at 16 Tech in Indianapolis for a Politics & Government editathon to improve write articles about local political and government topics of interest and improve information about local officials, candidates, elections, and legislation. Come join us at this fun venue, with free parking and refreshments provided! Saturday, May 13: Indiana Politics & Government 2023 (RSVP), focusing on Indiana politics and government and the Indiana Spring 2023 session. 11am–4pm The AMP at 16 Tech in Indianapolis, IN. We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Wikimedians in Indiana User Group

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC).)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Flag of Vatican City, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upcoming Indianapolis event - June 24, 2023: Wiki Loves Pride Indy
	You are invited to join us at Spades Park Branch Library for a Wiki Loves Pride editathon—hosted by the Wikimedians of Indiana User Group with support from the Central Indiana Community Foundation. Together, new and experienced Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on LGBTQ+ topics, individuals, organizations, and legislation in Indiana. Saturday, June 24: Wikipedia:Meetup/Indianapolis/Wiki Loves Pride 2023 (RSVP), focusing on Indiana LGBT history and culture. 2 pm to 5 pm at the Spades Park Branch of The Indianapolis Public Library. We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Wikimedians of Indiana User Group

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 16:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC).)

Hello, Eccekevin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Compagnia di San Paolo 2, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upcoming Indianapolis event - July 30, 2023: Indiana State Fair Wiknic
	We are partnering with the Indiana State Fair to offer FREE tickets to the fair for Wikipedians! We will be meeting on July 30th at 10am to pass out tickets and have a quick info session before we attend the fair (feel free to branch off and share your accomplishments on the Meetup page later!) Detailed instructions on how the day will go is available on the Meetup page! We hope you'll join us to edit about things related to fair (historic buildings, foods, animals, activities, and the fair itself). All levels of experience are welcome! Please RSVP so we know who is coming. We hope you'll join us! Sunday, June 30: Wikipedia:Meetup/Indianapolis/State Fair Wiknic (RSVP), focusing on topics related to the Indiana State Fair. 10 am to ? at the Indiana State Fairgrounds; meet at the Deaf School Gateway We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Wikimedians of Indiana User Group

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 13:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC).)

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upcoming Indianapolis event - October 11, 2023: Indiana Under-represented Artists Edit-a-thon
	You are invited to Herron Art Library in Herron School of Art & Design for an Under-represented Artists of Indiana Edit-a-thon—hosted by the Wikimedians of Indiana User Group with support from the Central Indiana Community Foundation. Together, new and experienced Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on under-represented Indiana based artists and art/artist organizations and groups in Indiana today, and historically. When: Wednesday October 11, 2023 11:30 am - 2:00 pm Eastern Where: Herron Art Library in Herron School of Art & Design 735 W. New York St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 Parking: Please park in lot 88 - the visitor parking area in the garage across the surface lot from Herron. We will have parking vouchers available. What to bring: Your preferred editing device and necessary charging cables, and any material you may want to reference. Lunch and refreshments will be provided. All levels of experience are welcome! Please RSVP so we know who is coming. We hope you'll join us! We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Wikimedians of Indiana User Group

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 00:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC).)"

Pietà (Mestrovic), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Pietà (Mestrovic) 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Spinixster (chat!) 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect D'Arcy Boulton (heraldist has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20 § D'Arcy Boulton (heraldist until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]