/Archive1

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I found an article that was created in 2006. When I looked at the subject's website in an archive dated before the article's creation, the text is identical to the article. The current website, having none of the same text, has a copyright notice. Can I tag the article for speedy deletion?

TheGGoose (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, add ((Db-g12|url=source URL)) to the top of the page, replacing "Source URL" with the URL of the page you found the copyrighted material. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I found an article with text copied from its official website. The text was in the article since its creation and is currently comprised of half the article. It had comprised over half of the article in creation. The article today also has lead text that's not infringing. Should the article be speedy-deleted or have the infringing section removed instead? TheGGoose (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheGGoose (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the state of the article etc. Can you link it here please, or say what the name of it is? (t) Josve05a (c) 18:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hmmm.... sounds complex. The best way forward is probably to use ((copyvio)), and follow the instructions, to get wider attention on the article. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article (Opinium Research LLP) now tagged. TheGGoose (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The article Hutson (album) has a short review copied from this link. Is it a potential copyright violation? TheGGoose (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheGGoose (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Copying the AllMusic review in its entirety is an unambiguous copyright violation. I'll deal with it in a moment. Huon (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Gnoufs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 20 minutes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I just discovered that the fact I removed in the article Coopersville, Clinton County, New York is genuine. But I guess no reliable source exists for this fact. Should the fact be restored? TheGGoose (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agentmike41 (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Ok I recently recreated a page of SantApprentice using my own words this time. Also I fix the Synopsis of The Mysteries of Alfred Hedgehog and The Green Squad and removed The Green Squad Poster out. I will fix Matt's Monsters Synopsis with paraphrasing.[reply]

TheGGoose (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheGGoose, if there are no reliable sources that discuss the "fact," then it should not be included. You did the right thing. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. TheGGoose (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm looking for a tool that displays all pages I edited, without using my contributions pages.

TheGGoose (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ? — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c) 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one helps. TheGGoose (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today you nominated several pages for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion ("AFD"). Some of these, like The Haunted Woods, are so unlikely to be opposed that it would be more efficient to use the "light-weight" WP:Proposed deletion ("PROD") process instead of the AFD process.

With "PROD", if nobody objects, it gets deleted in a week. With AFD, if nobody participates in the discussion, it gets re-listed and maybe re-re-listed and eventually after 2 or 3 weeks it gets "soft-deleted," which is the same as a "PROD" deletion in that if anyone asks it to be un-deleted, it will be un-deleted without having to go through a WP:Deletion review.

I'm not asking you to undo your existing nominations, I'm just saying you can probably get faster results in the future by using PROD for anything that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of surviving AFD in its current state and which is extremely unlikely to be improved during an AFD discussion.

Also, for biographies of living people which have zero references at all and which aren't so old to be "grandfathered in," WP:BLPPROD may be the way to go. You can use BLPPROD and PROD at the same time. You can also use AFD and BLPPROD at the same time. You can't use PROD and AFD at the same time though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: Thanks, I will consider proposed deletions in the future. TheGGoose (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for patrolling! I simply to wanted to note that I sourced an article you recently speedied, Oreste Migliaccio, although those are the only available sources I could find but it suffices for now. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I just edited the Kumabito article, adding a Google Books reference generated from here. I made a reference section and a reflist tag, but there is a smaller copy of each seen in the article. I never saw this before. How can it be fixed?

TheGGoose (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheGGoose, you missed the > in your </ref> tag, so the reference was never properly closed. I've fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the ((prod)) tag from Colorado River Log, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the ((prod)) template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I converted an article, shortline railroad, into a redirect to Railroad classes#Class III. I now believe this redirect is inappropriate because "shortline railroad" does not always refer to a class III railroad; it could also include class II railroads (according to the shortline railroad article before it became a redirect). Some sources claim that class II railroads can be shortlines. What can I do to resolve this possible issue, reverting it back to an article?

TheGGoose (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. To reverse your redirect of the article, you could revert it back to a previous version. If you go to the page history for Shoreline railroad, you'll see each previous version. If you click on the timestamp of the version you want to revert to, it will bring you to that version. You can then click "edit" just like you would on a normal page. This will have you editing the page as it was at the time of the previous version. You can simply save it, to restore the previous version, or you can make your own edits and submit them. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 17:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. TheGGoose (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pacific Sun Railroad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Onofre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

In The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson, the release date as said in the infobox is September 11, 1990, this is the incorrect date. The correct date is November 21, 1990. However, I'm having trouble finding the September date in the edit; for me, it appears to be set for the November date.

TheGGoose (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

((start date)) uses YYYY/MM/DD, or 1990/11/21, but someone put it in the other way, so it defaulted to "11" as being the only valid date. I've fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I was adding a song/album named "Black Jack", which I included a link to the artist Christian Baciotti, to the Black Jack disambiguation page. However, an editor kept reverting it, even though it is stated in the Baciotti article that Black Jack is described as a song and an album. (I edited that article after his last revert) Is the article currently illegible or not to be added to the disambiguation? I might be following MOS:DABMENTION.

TheGGoose (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would add it again since it is mentioned at Christian's article. I can add it if need be also. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may add Baciotti's Black Jack to the disambiguation, either the song or the album at the respective section. TheGGoose (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Little Cherry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sina. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheGGoose. 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]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I noticed in a railroad article that information relating to a collision was removed without a good edit explanation. The incident was widely reported in external sources. Are there grounds for reverting the edit?

TheGGoose (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a user removes sourced information (where the source is reliable) without explanation, then it is acceptable to revert them. Please make sure you mention this in your edit summary, and remember to always assume good faith (they may think they're doing the right thing). Also remember that if they counter-revert you, that you should start a discussion on the talk page and invite them to explain why they have removed the related text. If you want more help, change the ((help me-helped)) back into a ((help me)), stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Is inclusion of the news regarding the explosion in Cumbria, Wisconsin in that town's history section allowed?

TheGGoose (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources which describe it, then probably, yes. Rmhermen (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some reliable sources about the incident. And the event should have a major impact to the town, but I'm not sure about the kind of impact or notability in the future. TheGGoose (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Notability#Events. 32.218.34.198 (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline would be relevant only if you wanted to write an article about the event, not for inclusion in another article. That said, if that explosion had a major impact to the town, beyond killing one person and wounding others, we'll need reliable sources to assess that impact. To me this looks like an unfortunate, but hardly extraordinary industrial accident. Huon (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, technically, the notability guideline is relevant only for articles, but WP:NOTNEWS says essentially the same thing, and it applies to content, not notability. "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." 32.218.34.198 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheGGoose. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sony Television. Since you had some involvement with the Sony Television redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Deryck C. 11:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor
• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
• In the media: Women's history month
• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
• Featured content: Out of this world
• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

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]

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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (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) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]