Hello, PDGPA! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! CaroleHenson (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thank, Carole. You are correct that I added that sentence from personal knowledge, which I realize is a violation of Wiki style (although I can assure you from being in that building since it opened that what I wrote is true). I will poke around and try to find a source. My expertise in more in federal courts than in art, whereas I see that your focus is on women artists, so if you find an acceptable cite for my addition that would be great. My objective was to justify the link to the article on the courthouse building, so that more people who entered from that direction might come to know of Nevelson and her work. PDGPA (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello, I'm CaroleHenson. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Louise Nevelson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. There was a sentence added within a block of text in this article, but without a citation or reference: "Also in 1975, she created and installed a large wood sculpture titled Bicentennial Dawn at the new James A. Byrne United States Courthouse in Philadelphia."

Since it appears as if the block is within the following sentence citation I've moved it here to get it resolved. Please let me know if you have any questions about formatting a citation, I would be happy to help if you identify the source.

Do you have a source for this information? Thanks! CaroleHenson (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added a reference, and on that basis undid your edit. Would welcome your formatting the reference better for me. PDGPA (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I just ran Reflinks tool to have it formatted:

1. after entering the url http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks in your browser, click on "Interactive" tab at the top left

2. enter the article name in the "Page title or url" box

3. click on "Run reflinks"

When it's formatted the link(s). Select "Show preview" and then "Save".--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PDGPA. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent contribution to Bwatue. After consideration, I thought it was best to remove it, but I wanted to explain why, and to tell you that if you disagree and want to revert me, that's okay.

Wikipedia doesn't allow links to websites that include material in violation of copyright. See WP:LINKVIO. Including such a link may be considered contributory copyright violation, that is, Wikipedia may be seen as contributing to others' violating the copyright law. Had you added an external link to YouTube, I would have removed it per WP:ELNEVER. But you didn't add a link to YouTube, you merely told readers that they could find an audio recording of "Bwatue" and its b-side on YouTube. That's why I spent some time thinking about what to do.

I would prefer to err on the side of caution, so I removed your addition. If you think I'm being too cautious, we can discuss the issue, here or at Talk:Bwatue, or you can feel free to revert my edit without discussion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of whether the YouTube posts of Phil Ochs' "Bwatue" and its B-side are in violation of anyone's copyright. I would have to assume that if the copyright holder objected to the posts, they would have complained to Google/YouTube, which of course would have resulted in the posts' being blocked or taken down. But I also am not a Wikipedia expert, just an occasional contributor of edits to articles on subjects that interest me. (I am not even the principal author of any articles.) If Wikipedia's copyright policy is stricter and more cautious or conservative than Google/YouTube's, then I would not want to violate it. Personally, as a lawyer (but not a copyright lawyer), I don't see how a factual statement that a YouTube copy exists, without even linking to it, could be held to be a contributory violation, but as I say, I respect Wikipedia's right to have a more conservative policy if it so chooses. Obviously, anyone who reads the Wikipedia article and is curious to hear the cut, is probably bright and energetic enough to find where it is posted and listen to it, without my telling them that they can do so. -- PDGPA (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PDGPA. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I got your message and fixed the problem. Essentially, only the actual URL itself can be in the "URL" parameter; everything else must go elsewhere. I moved the extra information to the title field, so it's good to good now. Canadian Paul 19:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PDGPA. 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]

PDGPA,

I agreed with the gist of what you wrote, but was bothered by the vagueness of the "some critics" stuff. It would be more effective with direct quotes from critics/scholars rather than your summary of their views, especially without a link so sceptics can verify for themselves. It also belongs in separate paragraph (IMHO).

The editor who deleted your additions may be a descendant or fan. I have no dog in this hunt, but even I felt it bordered on a hit job. But some mention of it belongs in the article.

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at re-editing per your suggestion (but not in a new paragraph). See what you think.PDGPA (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this so I'm sorry if I'm making mistakes. Where do I go to explain why it is that I deleted the inaccurate statements about Henry Drinker? Ncfc01 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most appropriate place, I think, would be the Talk Page on the Henry Drinker article. I am very curious to see why you feel that virtual direct quotes from reliable sources are "inaccurate." PDGPA (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shawangunk Correctional Facility, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Gilbert. 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) 05:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "nearly" from "nearly 28 years" on the Babette Josephs page. She served 14 full 2-year terms. It is an oddity / technicality that newly elected officials are sworn in January 1, a full month after they could have been sworn in on December 1. Unless we go back and change the number of years for every official elected to a Pennsylvania state house, I think it is best to leave this at 28 years rather than "nearly" 28 years. Thanks! 67.248.76.2 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to fight you on this.PDGPA (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of peace activists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Baldwin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tony Saletan into Michael, Row the Boat Ashore. 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. — Diannaa (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Thanks for this helpful advice. I was the editor-contributor for the original, copied material at the source article. As the cited policy states, "If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary." Not exactly sure what you mean by "attribution," if it is not that; the WP:RS for all material is provided in both articles, and the content is clearly appropriate for each article. What more should I do? PDGPA (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you copy from one Wikipedia to another, you have to say so in your edit summary, so that the original authors get credit. If you were the original author, attribution is not technically required, but it's helpful for patrollers if you do so anyway. — Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Can I go back and revise an edit summary of a past edit? I was not aware that was possible. Would it be helpful if I did so? How? PDGPA (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't change an edit summary after it's been posted, but you can add the attribution on a subsequent edit. Like I did here. — Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited People's Songs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fixed PDGPA (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of peace activists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Harris.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wesley Snipes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Venue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your PROD of Jefferson Davis: The Man and His Hour. I removed it, because the notability criteria of books allows for this.

Wikipedia:Notability (books) states that one criterion (only one is needed to be notable) is:

• "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."

So long as all of those history books have at least two book reviews from reliable sources (not from online blogs, of course), then they all (yes, all) are eligible for having Wikipedia articles (books can be merged into a single article covering a series of books, however). These academic book reviews describe and analyze these books in detail (which is why they confer notability), and not all of them are yet used in The Man and his Hour. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe I was not aware that the standard of "notability" for books was so low. You appear to be correct, but I have to say I find it disappointing that all it takes is two legitimate reviews to make any book eligible for its own article. Surely, that standard would apply to thousands, maybe tens of thousands of books, although only an arbitrary handful would actually have an article written about them. And it seems very likely that those would most often be the product of someone with an axe to grind, if not an undisclosed conflict of interest. (Not implying anything against you, of course.) But so be it; the rule is the rule. PDGPA (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is that, from my observations, the vast majority of academic book reviews are generally positive (they might point out some minor errors or minor flaws, but otherwise be overall positive). Therefore, it shouldn't be common for a tone of an academic book article to be overall negative. If the thrust of an article is negative, then usually there can be more scrutiny on the article and what it used as sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]