User talk:Girth Summit/Archive 7

4554:

methodology and clear rules are important. The thing is, in my eyes, the rules in English Knowledge have left the "clear" far behind long ago. I remember the time when they were a lot less complicated and we got much more done. We did things, we occasionally got them wrong, then we made them better. One of the rules used to be, 'Be bold!' Now, that's ancient history. The sheer amount of rule pages here is staggering, and people who deal with them a lot more than I do are still confused by them and disagree (see above, e.g.). Also, a lot of rules that are not formally necessary are sometimes presented as final arguments, or at least relied on much more than they theoretically should be. And what's worse, this overgrown ruleset tends to be exported, explicitly or semi-unconsciously, into other projects whose circumstances and foci were not considered when these rules were written, while on the other hand, smaller projects tend to fall off the sight of everyone. (When was the last time anyone seriously analyzed the copyright situation on Wikiquotes across languages, or ran a user experience study on Wiktionary? We just copy the habits and rules from en.wp because that's easy to do.) I don't think it's a good idea to copy that culture. But there's been a lot of change in the Wikip/media culture during these years, and while a lot is good, there is also a lot I wouldn't approve. Not that anyone necessarily cares much about my approval, or should. :) --

4192:, OK, I'll take what you say at face value, and expand. What jumped out for me when I looked at the page was that within the first few sentences of the lead, we were already describing what the CEO sees as 'potential application areas' - that's not the sort of thing Knowledge normally discusses. We then start listing the countries where they have clients, how many types of documents they can read, how many countries they have clients in, how many languages they offer services in... it's like we're trying to impress the reader with the company's significance and capabilities. And phrases like 'according to CEO...' always set me on edge - we shouldn't be interested in what the CEO has to say about his own company, we should focus on what independent, secondary sources say about it. Why are we reporting on the appointment of non-notable executives that have previously worked for notable companies? Why is there a 'Media attention' section - that's something I've never seen in an article about a company. 4175:

quite a lot of people who say they have to fight tooth and nail for anything that isn't mainstream for large English-speaking countries (smaller cultures, women scientists, you name it). I've worked with economic coverage in Estonian Knowledge long enough to have deleted a lot of promotional articles, but also had to explain notability in economy a lot just because most people don't take much interest in it, and what they don't know seems non-notable. Anyway, what exactly seems promotional for you? I tried to tone down the general enthusiasm in the tech journalism and avoid direct quotations which tend to include vocabulary like "we're offering the best value". A decade ago or so, I was a business journalist, so I thought I could be critical enough in English, too. But evidently, I haven't kept up with the editing practices here very closely. --

12763:, which in itself would be enough to justify a revert. Third, I think you are misunderstanding how we write articles. We aren't a dictionary - our articles are about particular subjects, not the words themselves (which can change meaning over time, and sometimes the same word would be used to refer to more than one thing). The first sentence of any article is intended to define the subject that the article is about - since that article is about a social system, that's what the first sentence needs to define it as. If you think that there is different thing that is referred to using the word 'patriarchy', you could add some content to the article about it, or indeed potentially write a whole article about it - but you shouldn't change the first sentence of the lead in the manner in which you did. 8214:

more about Knowledge and got involved in NPP and recently received the NPR right, score dosent mean anything to me anymore and understanding relevant policies and guidelines and answering them in your own words is way better than cheating from other's page. And as about experience I currently have about 1.6K edits in total, I have reported many users to AIV and UAA correctly and have reverted many vandalism and good faith edits since then, I must say that my counter-vandalism work has reduced a bit ever since I got involved with NPP and copy editing but the work I do is done with accuracy. I'm dropping my interests in becoming a trainer but I think a year is too much, I'll try to build up more experience in about two months and would then reconsider this.

13289:, hi. I've just reviewed the conversation that you had on Cass's userpage, and see that you are editing through a mobile. I've got to be frank with you - I don't think that Counter Vandalism work is something that should be done on a mobile device, even on the 'Desktop' mode. There are a few reasons for this - you often need to have multiple tabs open, you need to be able to read the edits carefully and make a proper assessment, and also it's just too easy to hit the wrong button and accidentally revert a good edit. I have been doing CVUA work for a couple of years now, and I almost never do it from a mobile - it's just too fiddly. I'd advise you to look for other ways in which you can contribute from mobile. You might find 7897:, hi, and thanks for reaching out and expressing an interest in going through the CVUA course. Before I accept a student onto the course, I take a look at their contribution history to see what sort of things they've been getting up to in the past - please don't think I do that because I'm nosey, I want to see whether I think that CV work is likely to be well suited to their interests and skillset. In your case, I'm a bit concerned. Your recent requests for lots of permissions you don't need was a bit of a red flag, as was your remarkably high proportion of edits to user talk space (as opposed to, say, article talk or article space). What really gives me pause though is your recent comment on 8121:, it's something of a grey area - the two categories overlap. If a userpage is set up as an unambiguous advert - e.g. if the language is like 'Ace Ladders Inc is the number one provider of latter in the US. Visit AceLadders.com to find out more about our amazing range of high-quality ladders at fantastic prices', I would delete under G11. If it's someone writing their CV extolling their SEO skills U5 is probably more applicable. If in doubt, a lot of admins will go for U5 because there's less room for disagreement - I can imagine a situation where the applicability of G11 would be borderline, but where U5 would definitely apply, so it is the safer choice. 3659:, hi - personally, I find the ping stuff a bit confusing. My understanding, though, is that for a ping to work, you need to insert it on a new line, and sign the post - if either of those doesn't happen, the ping doesn't work. However, one other possibility is that they are being sent, and I'm missing them. I get quite a lot of pings (I just logged in again after taking the dog for a walk, and had six pings and a thank waiting for me), it is possible that I have looked at one and forgotten about it. I wouldn't worry about it too much - if a couple of days goes by and I haven't responded to something, feel free to ping me again to remind me. Cheers 7901:'s talk page, where you said that you were easily affected emotionally. Counter vandalism work involved dealing with a lot of unpleasant trolls and vandals, who will often attack you personally; we nevertheless have to deal with them in a calm, impersonal and professional manner. I'm not sure that you're ready for that, and I don't want to put you through an unnecessarily unpleasant experience. If you spend a bit longer learning the ropes here, do a bit more work in article space, and are still interested after a couple of months then come back, but for now I'm afraid it's a no from me. Sorry, and thanks again for your interest. 3767:- so, from what I see in your talk page history (which isn't super-easy to navigate, because you didn't use edit summaries...), it looks like Cluebot III hasn't done anything since you changed the configuration. I am not a Cluebot III expert, but I don't think it will change your existing archive structure - it'll probably just start archiving things in the new manner in future, you'll probably have to tinker with the old archives manually to get them into the right format; alternatively, you could dump to contents of the old archives back onto your talk page for now, and just wait for Cluebot to archive it in the new format? 9259:, hi. I wouldn't be averse to a couple of sentences being added to the body painting article discussing glitter (but with the language considerably tuned down - we don't refer to 'tits' and 'ass' in Knowledge's voice, we would say breasts and buttocks). Essentially, the subject is the decoration of the external surface of the human body with coloured substances. The fact that these substances may sometimes be shiny doesn't seem to me to be sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate article - that could be covered in the main article. I think that these terms would be suitable redirects for the body painting article (and 4269:

interview, their own website, or whatever, we're not interested (except for basic details such as office holders, street address and the like). The reason I nominated it for deletion is that I think the entire article would need to be rewritten from the bottom up to achieve a neutral tone; however, the reason I nominated it for deletion, rather than simply deleting it myself, is that I agree that it's close enough to the border to want a second pair of eyes on it. If another admin sees the template and agrees with my assessment, it will be deleted; if not, the template will be declined, and we can go forward from there.

8233:, hi. Put it this way - it's not your job to decide how many marks you should get for an answer in a test - that's the teacher's job. If you had asked me about it, that would have been one thing, but for you to change it yourself afterwards was wrong. You changed my comments - which had my signature after them - without asking me whether it would be OK, or telling me that you had done it. That's seriously not OK here, and it will affect the levels of trust that people feel able to place in you. Please continue editing and building up experience, but think about how things like this might affect people's judgement. 4715:

prudently, being sure to check that your change makes sense. If you are reverted, do not reinstate your change. Be aware that in making the change you are not implementing an established consensus, rather you are imposing your preferred form of words - other editors, such as the original author of a sentence, may disagree with you. If reverted, you will need to establish either a local consensus on the talk page of each article to support the change, or you will need to go back to another community level RfC and try to establish 'their' as the preferred variant. That's my advice anyway - do with it what you will.

13636:, the latter being related to a sensitive topic. While the blocking admin did point out that I had been careless with those two reports, I still got an indef partial block from editing the entire project namespace. I would like to kindly ask if the scope of the block was too broad? The reasoning was clearly related to UAA and also involved my activity at AIV, but I feel hindered from participating in discussions that take place at other noticeboards, such as ITNC, RFPP, and SPI, where my contributions were relatively less but not controversial. 2729:, hi, and thanks for reaching out. Let me start by saying that I don't know a great deal about Huangdi, so I hope I don't say anything stupid. If our article about him is accurate, he is a legendary figure in ancient Chinese history; your contention is that he shouldn't be mentioned in our article about blond hair, because there is no evidence that he existed? I'm not sure that quite follows - I don't see why we couldn't have famous blond characters from mythology (or indeed fiction) mentioned on the page, if it's relevant; whether or not it is 10130: 614: 5344: 9034: 5219: 2762:) which means it shouldn't even be in the Asia section to begin with. Also, if you take a look at the blond section of Europe, Africa, Oceanic, it makes no mention of any unconfirmed mysterious ethnic groups or mythical figures like in the Asia section. All the edits of Hunan201p is in the blond section of Asia, and they all appears to be mythical figures and historical ethnic groups that can't be trace back to modern day ethnic groups. So I believe we should remove Huangdi and other unconfirmed figures. 10031: 4612:, hmm. This is a case where I'm going to have to do some reading before I'd be willing to take administrative action. I can see that making such widespread changes, if there is not a strong consensus to do so; I'd need to look around to see whether such a consensus exists though. I'm making dinner just now, and am not going to be in a position to look into this properly until tomorrow. Can I suggest that you engage with the editor, tell them that these changes are contested, and discuss it with them? 2005: 1983: 10119: 10041: 5711: 5677: 1953: 14166: 10336: 5854: 127: 31: 5326: 10020: 5648: 1942: 8980:

claim - I realise that all the sources mention that, but they're probably just getting it from the owner's description of their own hotel. If I were to guess, I'd say it's been built on the site where there used to be an older coaching in (and I note that there is an older, ruined building listed on Canmore a short distance away, also called the 'Coylet Hotel'), and that the current building is 19th C with substantial mid-20th C additions - but I'm totally guessing there, of course.

10077: 10059: 10141: 5659: 11149: 11104: 10801: 10640: 10421: 6642: 6597: 6154: 5939: 798: 753: 427: 212: 12999: 12750:(which is given in a next section of the article) provides a meaning that has nothing to do with the political view that is promoted by this article. The etymology of the word is also the "reliable" source that indicates the failed connection between the article and the word. Where's the reliable sources that indicate the connection between them, aside from subjective views and political attestations? As such, again, where do you base your decision to revert the changes? 4301:

tries to use it in all those just to check the claimed number) or when it shows the interviewee's viewpoint (that's where the comparison of statements made in early interviews with the later reality comes in). If we throw most of those out, the relevance of the interviews in the article will fall sharply, and most likely, some of the remaining references can be replaced by strict news pieces (which, alas, won't be in English - yet another bone to pick for some).

14005: 12946: 12482: 12433: 12384: 12335: 9959: 10217: 5762: 8705: 8652: 8599: 8546: 8493: 8440: 8387: 8334: 4035: 5335: 13899: 8748:, hi, thanks for enquiring about the course. I'm sorry for the delay in responding - this is an incredibly busy time for me in real life, I don't have a huge amount of time for Wiki stuff over the next few days, but I've had a quick look through your contributions and what I see looks quite promising. Can I provisionally say that I'll do this, but it might be a few days before I get around to setting up the course - would that be OK for you? Cheers 11188: 10840: 10827: 10775: 6681: 6445: 6419: 6380: 6354: 6341: 6263: 837: 575: 562: 536: 12257: 7694: 1850: 7962:, hi. I'm not aware of ever having reverted anything on that page (or indeed ever editing it at all) - I'm not sure why I'm getting pinged about it in the edit summaries of other people. I've commented on the talk page, and will look into it properly soon, but I agree that the article should only reflect what can be supported by reliable, secondary sources. (At the moment, from a very quick skim, I'm not 100% confident that the subject is 11038: 6531: 687: 4983: 3878:, in potential preparation for a GA nomination. I was wondering if you could take just a quick glance at it and let me know what I need to especially focus on before a nomination. I've put it up for a peer review, but I don't know how long that will take to be picked up. I don't want to encroach to much on your time; just a quick look would be great. Thanks a lot. By the way, CVUA training has been going great, I do love doing it. -- 2365: 10190: 2079: 13767:- just mulling this over a bit more. Yours is a voice I've always had a lot of respect for. I didn't have the benefit of your direct knowledge of the editor, and I don't know whether you've reviewed the version of the article that I draftified, or reviewed my discussion with the editor, but I'm aware that I'm way less experienced than you are - if you think I took a wrong step at any point, your feedback would be appreciated. Cheers 6406: 2122: 4247:

the amount of details, rephrasing and perhaps slight restructuring, and about some I'm not sure everyone would see them your way - maybe yes, maybe no. If you look at your own criticism, doesn't it look a bit like saying the article should be deleted because there is too much data for proving notability, yet if it wasn't there, it could be nominated for lack of proof for notability? Kind of a Scylla and Charybdis situation. --

2811: 549: 10905: 10892: 10853: 10788: 6328: 6289: 1994: 10944: 10931: 10918: 10879: 10866: 10814: 10762: 10749: 10736: 6458: 6432: 6393: 6367: 6315: 6302: 6276: 6250: 588: 523: 10108: 5700: 1972: 13796:

Knowledge about various shared interests. He was actually planning a visit to my home town until extended overseas business travel followed by the pandemic put that plan on ice. This person knows the author personally, and vouched that they are a productive, long term editor in other languages and have no direct COI. Their motivation is to improve coverage of notable Estonian businesses that operate internationally.

10159: 5722: 2016: 601: 10360: 5878: 151: 11002: 6495: 651: 12241: 7678: 1834: 4063: 13418:, thanks for reaching out, but I'm not sure what grounds I would have for unblocking the account. The block isn't about verifying that the individual in control of the account actually represents that organisation in question; as block notice says, the account is blocked because it violates the username policy by unambiguously representing the name of an organisation - this is covered at 10100: 5640: 1934: 13744:, thanks for letting me know. I do remember the background - I was satisfied that the issues with regards to promotional language had been addressed by the author when I last spoke to then, I just wasn't comfortable with accepting it myself because I was unfamiliar with the sources/subject matter/language. No worries from me about accepting it if you're satisfied that it checks out. 13189:, hi - I'm afraid that, with three students on the go at the moment, I'm not taking on any more at present. I see that another one of the trainers has a couple of slots open - I'd suggest that you contact them. The time zone thing isn't crucially important - the tasks can be done in your own time, and your trainer will be able to respond to them when they're online. Cheers 12869:, just realised that I hadn't actually blocked them! Done it now - the username was totally unambiguous, it clearly represented the company they said they were working for. I've used a softblock, which will allow them to create a new account, since they hadn't actually created an advert as such or spammed article space, but they can't edit from an account with that name. 5595:, thanks! That reminds me... I'm working on an article with Gog at the moment, but do you think you might be up for a bash at FAC for St Rufus in the summer? Or, if you fancy carving something new out rather than pouring over the exact wording of existing stuff, I've got a mental list of target buildings that deserve an article. My term ends in six weeks, just saying... 7944:, 1 user is continuously adding blogs and unverified info on the page and there's no evidence that Santrex is/was HostSailor, his stubbornness is clear and I think he is Brian Kerbs himself. As per my knowledge no one can add unsourced info and his all claims are based on blogs and/or unsourced. Need your valuable insight here it will help me learn as well, thank you. 8956:, thanks. I'll take a look at some point today. By the way, do you happen to have access to the relevant Pevsner architectural guide for the region? Along with the Historic Environment Scotland and Cranmore sites, they're my go-to resource for historic buildings, but I don't have the one for that region. An inclusion there would be a string indicator of notability. 13362:, hi again. A tablet would certainly be better than a mobile phone, although I confess that the idea of doing CV work without a keyboard makes me shudder! As I said before though, I'm too busy at the moment to take on another student. When some of my current students finish their courses, I might have a bit more bandwidth, but I can't tell you when that will be. 2490:, hi, thanks for reaching out. So, I'm not seeing a discussion about that specific verbiage on the talk page, but I am seeing various forms of it being added and removed, which isn't ideal. Start a section on the talk page saying 'We should insert "blah blah blah" into such and such a paragraph, based on these sources', and discuss it with other editors there. 13477:, hi - I've had a look, thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the account, partly because of the dubious page creations, but also because they had been posting block notices on other editors' talk pages, which they have absolutely no business doing. I'll discuss this with you further on the training page, but could you take a few moments to look over 4534:, well, just so long as you know that AfC is optional for established accounts. As for the 'Encyclopedia no one can edit' stuff, you know that I see things like that differently, but I accept that people's experience of the site will likely differ depending on the subject they are writing about; our spam filters, both automated and human, are sensitive. 4376:

comparison of an API to another as promotional or technical. I haven't gotten rid of all the soft sources entirely but reduced the reliance on them, and those references should mostly concern technical details now. In your eyes, is it any better? I wouldn't want to start any kind of official review yet but some feedback would be greatly appreciated. --

2237:, hi - sorry for the delay in responding, it's a busy time. I think I'll be able to make time for this, although I should say that I'm a bit busy at the moment, so there may be a bit of a time lag between you posting responses and me giving you feedback. If you're OK with that, I'll set up the training page at the weekend. In the meantime, give 8188:

a lot to you, so I don't want to go too hard on you, but lets be clear: you cheated and lied on your own CVUA course, and you have attempted to change the record of the course afterwards without telling me. To be very blunt, I cannot trust someone who would do that - I do not think you have the maturity to train other editors at this point.

9161:, hi - thanks for letting me know. I'd be tne first to admit that images are not my area of expertise, so happy to bow to your judgement on this; I'll note though that it wasn't me who made the change to the image, I'd have to dig through the history to find out whose idea that was. Entirely happy to allow image experts to make the call. 8175:

final exam was a bit of a yellow flag for me - I have never experienced anything like that before, since of course the score doesn't really matter provided you have learned something during the process; again, it wouldn't be a show-stopper, but then today I looked at your contributions and found that you have retrospectively edited

3077:, no, no, no, no, no. Don't listen to Dylan Thomas reading his own work, that way madness lies. He's like Yeats or T S Elliott - read it, or listen to an actor reading it, but never listen to a poet of that era reading their own stuff. No, you want to listen to the BBC Radio version, with Richard Burton voicing the narrator. Bliss. 4155:, thanks for reaching out. The subject might well be notable, but to my eye, the content in that article looks unambiguously promotional. Your suggestion that we aim to delete practically everything is hyperbolic - but we do delete marketing material, which is what that looks like to me. Do you have any connection to the subject? 3824:

if they're not deleted. I'm not sure if the displayed index will work properly with both numbered and dated archives, if not, the old ones could alternatively be moved under another prefix if admins refuse to delete them. If small archive pages are not a problem, you can simply move them to numbered archives. —

8057:, thanks for drawing my attention to the edit summary they made with their first edit - I hadn't actually noticed that. Yes, I think that adding a UPE tag to their articles would be appropriate in this case. I'll give them a bit of time and see if they respond to my message before doing anything further myself. 12645:, hi - I've just read through their recent contribs, and their user page, and every time they refer to themselves in the first person, they use the plural. I also note that they are saying the account is 'used by a company', which sounds far too much like a role account for comfort - I'll soft block. Thanks 4239:, you'll find plenty.) Presence in rankings is a relevant indicator for tech (or really, any sort of) companies, and I thought it made sense to keep them under one heading. Do you think they should be placed elsewhere, or have a different heading, or do you suggest such things shouldn't be mentioned at all? 3580:, hi - I didn't get the ping actually. I can't see an obvious reason why not from looking at the diffs, you seem to have correctly typed the template and signed the post, so not sure what happened. Thanks for letting me know anyway, I'll take a look as soon as I have time (making dinner just now). Cheers 12720:

The reason that "patriarchy" does not refer to the social system that the page describes, is that in patriarchy it is explicit that the authority comes from the father, not from the males of the family (i.e. any sons). So the social system does not correspond to the very meaning of the word. The word

12234:

Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to

8193:

I don't imagine that this is easy for you to hear, and I sympathise with you for that, but it's the truth. Drop the idea of becoming a trainer for now, carry on with your editing, and your real life studies which are of course much more important, and then reconsider whether you still want to do this

8187:

congratulatory notice on your user talk page, again to reflect a higher score than you were actually awarded. This is a level of duplicity that I have never experienced before from a trainee, and I simply can't understand why you would do it. I am guessing that you are young, and that the score means

7671:

5511:

Richly deserved. My actual words were: "An extremely hearty second from me. GS is the epitome of a Wikipedian and the sort of editor who causes me to retain some faith in Admins. Hard working, generous, patient and forgiving, without in any way being a pushover. An exceedingly worthy recipient." Rock

4300:

As for interviews, a lot of articles use those as sources. I'm used to considering them acceptable in two cases: when there is really just data included which won't be better in other sources (if a company states it provides service in X languages for Y types of documents, I'm yet to see a journalist

4082:

was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with

3506:

Hi Girth, Thanks for your email and feedback. Please could you advise why the World Ski Awards article appears to have a conflict of interest so I can address accordingly. No problem to update, however I am new to Knowledge so any pointers would be most helpful. Kind regards, Travel Industry Insights

3311:

for reference. That page has been deleted 3 times in the past few days. I don't know about the first time, but for the second time I submitted the CSD and the article that went live this morning that you deleted were identical. Unfortunately I forgot about salting until Dps04 reminded me. Not sure if

2539:

I did start a section saying we should include the quote, there was some disagreement. I suggested Trump's words should be given priority, nobody disagreed and two people agreed. I took into account the previous concerns (re: length) in keeping with the recommendations and someone just reverted it.

2493:

With regard to the POV tag, I would strongly advise you to self-revert before your account is blocked from editing. That page is under 1RR restriction - your reinstatement of the tag, earlier today, was a revert of someone else who removed it yesterday. In reinstating it again, you have reverted me -

2189:

Wanted to thank you for your time on the Weng Weng article. It's a gong show that never got resolved. Once I said yes, I avoided the article for two days. On day three, I noticed mistakes I had done, WP Weasel, tone, etc.. I started trimming the text, not adding anything. The user eventually returned

1827:

13269:, hope you are fine. The user you suggested me didn't accept me as a pupil. I already knew that he wouldn't accept me, therefore, I requested you for admission before him. And now again, can you accept me as your pupil? I'm sure that I wouldn't take much of your time. Consider my request. Thank you. 12728:

An article's lead section is there to summarise the content of the article - you can't change the lead section to make it say something that the article doesn't discuss. If you think that the article ought to cover the subject in a different way, you should propose some changes on its talk page - go

12530:

Hi Girth, it's WikiMacaroons. I am interested in starting reverting vandalism more seriously. I have been undoing edits with Lupin's tool for a little while now, and I was wondering if you could take me on for the CVUA, as you're the only active trainer in my time zone. Looking forward to a response

9134:

Took the liberty of reverting to the original colours for the image: On the one hand, we shouldn't present a modified image as the original, which an unmentioned colour change tends to do, and secondly, I think the changes emphasised the damage on the photo, whereas the unmodified image, due to the

8979:

is the book I'm talking about above - great sources to work with for this type of thing, but as you can see, rather pricey! If the building's 17th C, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't in there - but then, I'd also be surprised that it wasn't listed, and it's not. I'm pretty dubious about the 17th C

3903:

There are a few words in their that are leaning too heavily towards subjective judgements made in Knowledge's voice. Things like 'his courageous deeds' - obviously his deeds were courageous, but it's not the kind of thing we normally say. This could be tweaked by slightly rewording, saying that they

3823:

stresses that it's not for talk pages (maybe acceptable for redundant talk archive pages, but I can't confirm that). As GirthSummit suggested, merging all dated archive pages back to the main talk page and letting the bot then rearchive them would also work, other than leaving dangling old archives

3716:

archive my talk page and at first I set the format as Y/F which means it will set the the archives in a date format and I already have two archives on my talk page. But now, I wanted to change my format to a a numbered format so I replaced the Y/F with %%I but still its showing the date format, can

2604:

Hi Girth, In your review you mentioned forum discussions such as Reddit can not be used for references. However, I have seen article(D-MER) that cited Reddit as references. Since the topic does not have many published resources, such discussions are important references for this case. Please let me

12749:

Reply: I understood that, it was exactly the same justification you gave when you reverted my changes. However you don't justify why you did it. The lead may has to summarize the content of the article, however the whole article has nothing to do with the word it is under. The etymology of the word

12716:

Hi, I recently made changes on the page refering to the word "patriarchy". My changes got constantly reverted, however the reason behind it seems to be based on political views rather than scientific justification. It seems that by not clarifying that the meaning of the word is not what the article

9857:

When a number of first-time Linehan editors arrived eager to post the news that he was suspended by Twitter in the last few hours, they repeatedly used a source that is not allowed because it has been deemed unreliable (Metro UK). I reverted an edit for this reason, and Bastun immediately reverted

9002:

Just wanted to reiterate the offer of discussing what an NPP reviewer looks for when they come across an article, and (if you're interested) how I select buildings to write about. You're contributions are right up my street, in terms of subject-matter, and I don't want you to get discouraged by the

8732:

Hello Girth, I am Get a smart idea, I wanted to request if you could train me in the CVU academy. I have been reverting vandalism for a while and I have rollback rights on the English Knowledge. I want to be more experienced in the field of counter- vandalism and maybe you may also be able to adapt

8213:

But pls explain this, yellow tick means that answer is partly correct so why did you cut the full Mark's for that answer, it seems to me that both yellow ticks and cross means the same. You might have noticed that my last change to the CVUA page was about a month ago since then I've learnt more and

8024:

While the articles are not completely obnoxious or promotional, and some of the subjects are notable, user Kyda6468 appears to work for U Colorado, and be creating blp pages on U Colorado subjects with minimal disclosure (their first edit summary, only). I left a message on their talk page telling

7986:

Oh ok thanks, so this is more clear now and kinda fishy. I'll try to guide that person on editing but please have a look. I think its vandalism as that user is trying to label the page with a different company with no evidence, even using logo some other company. And yes I also think its not enough

4714:

So, unless there is other stuff I haven't looked at, I see no consensus to support these changes. Having said that, there is no consensus in favour of alternative forms either, and Enos733 is permitted to make bold changes to articles. So, my advice to Enos733 would be as follows: make such changes

4246:

Okay, looking back, it probably would have been better if this discussion would have been on the article's talk page so if anyone might be interested, it'd be easier for them to participate. Still, all in all, I'd say most of the weaknesses you pointed out are relatively easy to mend by diminishing

4242:

As for sources in general, well, the softer stories are in English. I could have relied on small news stories in Estonian only, there's a wealth of coverage, but I've seen articles attacked for the sole reason of having not enough sources in English, so I put the stress there. I'm rather scrupulous

4136:

I just put up. I'm certain the article can be improved but I'm also quite sure the enterprise is notable. I've been a Wikipedian since 2004, have written thousands of articles and hence I think I might perhaps have some idea of the notability, although my work has been mostly in other projects, not

2549:

As far as the 1RR rule goes, I don't think I'm in breach because it's a point of fact that the POV is disputed. Even if I am in breach, I'm not sure what difference it makes. What's the difference between being blocked from editing it and people constantly reverting any edits I make and requiring

2468:

Hi pal, I saw you reverted my edit on the Trump page. You asked me to gain consensus, how am I supposed to do that? I posted a comment on 3 April 2020 saying that if length was a concern priority should be given to Trump's words, two people agreed with me, nobody disagreed with me for a month. I

13795:

I see that I wrote a little unclearly above. I have no direct relationship with the author. It is a "friend of a friend" situation. I was approached by a prominent and respected Wikipedian/Wikimedian mostly active on another language Knowledge. I know him personally and often interact with him off

9288:

Hi, I just had a quick question - is there a template you use for the completion notice you hand out to CVUA graduates? I've been just going into my archives, copy-pasting the message you gave me and changing the fields to reflect the different student and score, which takes a bit more time then I

9051:

can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the

8167:

Your edit count is still rather light to be a trainer. At the point I started training, I think I had something around 10,000 edits, most of which (90%ish) were counter-vandalism work. I still thought of myself as fairly inexperienced to be a trainer at that point, and I'm still learning now after

8140:

Ok Girth, I'll use the U5 criteria for userpages if I'm not sure. As a side note, do you think I'm ready to become a CVUA trainer as I've been counter vandalism work ever since joining wikipedia and secondly there is no trainer in the Indian time zone so I was thinking of adding myself to the list

4296:

I didn't consider Scylla and Charybdis to be the same person. You may not think a company (or person) from a small country needs a lot of proof from English sources to demonstrate its notability but I've seen people who do. So, I can try to run a makeover tomorrow and see whether you'd consider it

3907:

I haven't read through the sources, but make sure that they directly support assertions like 'Young was one of the shortest men in his company; despite this and the fact that he wore glasses, he was considered a good soldier.' - does the source use the word 'despite' or similar? If it supports the

3480:

Hi IP editor. So, the way the article is worded reflects what the sources say. If you think they are wrong, and have alternative sources we could use that would support your wording, you can suggest them on the article talk page. What we don't do is write prose that we feel to be correct, but that

3226:

I'm sorry if that seemed a bit harsh of me. You are right, I had accidentally skipped that section, and I'm sure you were just trying to be helpful in letting me know. Seriously though, I can't think of a good reason why you should be reading through other people's training pages - please don't in

9830:

article (sorry, I can't figure out how to do a Diff for that - it's near the bottom of ANI Archive 1036), we have been attempting to do an RFC on the Linehan Talk Page to resolve the issue of the subject heading "Anti-transgender activism". As you may have guessed, it isn't going all that well. I

8174:

There was the issue of cheating, and then lying about having done so, on the CVUA course itself. I was prepared to overlook that, given your assurances that nothing like it would happen again, and it wouldn't necessarily have been a show-stopper. The fact that you quibbled about your score on the

4867:

blocked that account as a username/promo violation. I don't know that there's anything more to do at this point other than decline the draft, as you have done - they can't publish an article as an IP without going through AfC, and they won't get an article like that accepted without significantly

4643:

on gender neutral language was supported by nearly 60% of participants, suggesting most editors are supportive of moving toward gender neutral language. I'm ok with rewriting sentences to be more inclusive, but as an interim step, I believe improvements to this community involves removing "his or

4223:

For the "according to the CEO" - well, if a secondary source does an interview with the CEO who claims something, then I could just say it is so, but I'm more skeptical than that, so I'd rather keep the claim and mention that it relies on the CEO's word, letting the reader judge its worth. If you

4195:

I realise that I'm not being very pleasant in writing this, and so I apologise for the tone of this message - I don't want to be offensive, but I really think this article is too promotional in tone to be retained. I haven't clicked through (and Google-translated, where necessary) all the sources

4174:

Haven't even tried their service. I have had an initial contact and asked for the names of the people who could give OTRS permissions for a couple of photos, though. Concerning deletions, well, I've seen quite many times subjects that were clearly notable for me nominated for deletion, and I know

13720:

I was approached by a Wikipedian who I know personally and respect, and asked to comment on a draft. This person has contributed for many years in several languages but is not familiar with English Knowledge standards for business articles. So, I reviewed the draft, copyedited a bit, removed one

2733:

to mention him would be another question of course, but I don't see why they likelihood of him not having existed would be a bar to inclusion, if the sources support the idea that the texts about him say he had blond hair. Would a compromise position be to describe him as the 'legendary king' or

13805:

I did not read the earlier version but I read your earlier conversation with the author, and your give-and-take made it clear to me that there were problems when the article was created. Draftifying seems like the right move. The author then made significant improvements based on your input. He

8004:

well he understood about his editing after your message to him on the talk page. I was writing to him some tips but didn't after seeing that. Still have a look if that deserves a mainspace as sources are not enough better nominate AFD. Also let me know as it will help me as well. Thank you very

4219:

The same, probably, goes about all the facts concerning the spread of their activities - if there was no data about it, I'd see any claims about their international reach as unproven. But maybe there really is too much. I tried to gather everything I could and then left out 9/10 of the sources,

2570:

When I look on the talk page, I see multiple editors discussing the content. I initially overlooked the IP address and the brief comment from JFG, so I concede that it isn't just you arguing in favour of your position - however, two voices amongst half a dozen isn't a consensus. Make a specific

13664:

experienced editor, sysop and bureaucrat - that's not to say that she is infallible, but without any personal knowledge of the lead up to the block, I'm not in a position to second-guess her decision - you need to discuss it with her and see whether she would be amenable to reducing the scope.

12667:

Actually, maybe jumping straight to a block without attempting discussion is too heavy handed, especially since they don't appeared to have edited for a few days. I'll start a new thread on their talk, let me know if you spot that they are still working on that draft without responding. Cheers

4304:

I still consider there to be enough raw material to make a passable article by your criteria. The thing that makes me worry and a bit weary of it all is, I have seen very different views amongst English admins throughout these years, so I'm far from being sure that what pleases you won't be an

2757:

The problem is that the mainstream view is that Huangdi is considered a deity, mythical, god being. There is no mainstream view that he was ever considered blond and indo-european in any history, only a few scholar modern interpreted it that way but the vast majority claims him to be a god and

4268:

discusses this. I wouldn't include anything the CEO said - we're just not interested in what the company, or its executives, say about it, we're only interested in what independent secondary sources say about it. If the information is coming from the company, whether that's via press release,

4553:

Well, having been a minor state and local government official, as well as having once run several NGOs, including a Wikimedia chapter, I appreciate the necessity for formal procedures. I've done legal analysis and edited a statistics journal for a living, so I realize quite well that correct

4375:

Well, I went over the draft several times, tried to trim the language, restructured a bit and changed a lot of references. There are some points where I wasn't sure about your vision, e.g. whether you think than any kind of enterprise prizes etc. are noteworthy or not, or whether you see the

4215:

Well, as for "potential applications", I thought it might be interesting to show the difference between what they initially thought they'd do and where they ended up (as for now). It's a detail, sure, but in my mind, such things say something about a company. Usually, when you write about an

4272:

FWIW, your Scylla and Charybdis analogy doesn't work for me. If I come across a neutral article, with two or three decent independent sources (in any language, provided I can run a translate), I'm happy to mark as reviewed - I don't need companies to be famous or important, just notable per

13806:

decided to use AFC without any pressure from you, and as far as I can see, your participation was positive and useful, and I thank you for it. The draft article languished at AFC for a couple of months until my friend brought it to my attention today. I hope this clarifies things for you.

2779:, I'm afraid this is a subject I have very little knowledge about, and no strong opinion on. You'll need to thrash it out on the talk page - if you have consensus to remove any mention of him, go ahead and do it; if you aren't getting engagement from others, you could consider an RfC? 9616:, hi there. I know All Saints, lovely building. I don't give away personally identifiable information publicly though, so I'm not going to tell you which school I teach at. Suffice it to say that at this specific moment in time, I am not teaching (or I wouldn't be responding to you!) 3250:

which was nominated by Hilelfrei, the subject was clearly notable and Hillelfrei nominated it for afd without providing proper explanation, due to this I checked their controls and found that they were one of your student and then I looked at the training page, it wont happen again.

13554:. Should the article have been draftified? I don't think I'd have done it myself, I'd have considered it more like a disambiguation page myself in its current state, unsourced but leading the reader to other useful and properly sourced articles - I wouldn't have a problem with it. 9861:

telling me to go "look for another source instead of whitewashing" (there was, in fact, no other source yet available - he had only been suspended in the previous two or three hours) and saying "no wonder you're exhausted". Such notes in edit summaries are explicit violations of

13296:

As an aside, I'll give you two pieces of advice that will help you get on with other editors on talk pages. First - don't make assumptions about people's gender. You referred to Cass as a 'he' above - if you don't know, it's usually seen as better form to use the gender neutral

13341:

I've been editing Knowledge for nearly 3 months and have good experience to edit and use Knowledge by mobile. If you accept me as pupil, then I will use desktop site on phone with care and would be careful while clicking on buttons to avoid any type of wrong click. Thank you.

12912:, yep, the user creation logs are useful. You can also monitor recent changes, applying particular filters to it - there's a link on my userpage to Recent Changes filtered according to 351, which flags up self-promotion - that catches quite a lot of stuff like that. Cheers! 4640: 195:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 15,578 last month to 15,672 on 30 April 2020). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 166 is ahead of

10404:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 15,729 last month to 15,795 on 30 June 2020). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 175 is ahead of

5922:

Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 15,672 last month to 15,729 on 30 May 2020). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 172 is ahead of

9659:

I saw your message to Total Eclipse 2017 on their talk page and I see they have been actively editing the Simple English Knowledge under their original account. I think what you could do so they see the message is to go to their talk page on Simple English Knowledge

3457:

I added neutrality to "Crisis Pregnancy Centers", and the neutrality was removed in favor of non-neutrality, and the non-neutrality was claimed to be neutrality. Pursuing the citations indicates making the claim shows that the authors of the works are not neutral.

9088: 4419:, or you can move it into article space and another new page reviewer will look at it in due course. I'll leave it for another person to review, to get a 'second opinion', but certainly my initial concerns about the promotional language have been assuaged. Best 2980:

criteria - they deemed the content to be entirely promotional. I agreed with their assessment, which is why I deleted it. Knowledge isn't a platform for promotion - indeed, as the founder of the company, you should not be writing about it at all. Please review

3182:

Hi Girth, I was just looking at your current student's CVUA training page and saw that you've missed the usernames, dealing with difficult users and sample work section. If it was intentional then it's ok, I was just trying to remind you if you've forgotten.

2946:

I wanted to check on why the page was deleted ? Even if the company has a relationship with me , It doesn't mean that the page can be taken off , There can be edits but deletion of my hours of work just makes me wander if it is injustice that is prevailing

10584: 6102: 375: 4227:

The appointment of executives made headlines repeatedly and at least one case I thought to be relevant because it was connected to the establishment of a foreign office in New York. They can probably be omitted while keeping that statement in a better

3272:, thanks - yes, that AfD was a bit of a rookie error (although I was pleased to see them asking about how to avoid the mistake in future rather than doubling down). Thanks for the explanation, and for confirming that it won't become a habit. Cheers 8161:, there's no easy way for me to say this, but I think it's important that you hear it so I'm going to be frank. I do not think that you have either the experience, or the maturity, to act in that capacity at this point. Let me outline my thinking. 4196:

either, but all the ones I have looked at are soft-soap interviews with company executives - if there are proper secondary sources discussing the company, I'm sure that a neutral article could be written about it. To my mind though, this isn't it.

12549:, hi there. Just to let you know that I've seen this request - I've got another couple of students on the go at the moment, but I expect it should be possible for me to take you on as well if you don't mind going slow. I'll be in touch shortly. 2989:, which explain why this is problematic. I'm sorry your time has been wasted. If you still wish to get an article published about your company, it will have to be a lot less promotional in nature, you will need to demonstrate that it passes the 2419:

Hi, Thanks for your message. Any editing would have been a mistake. My apologies. I'm a little confused where you say that I have been editing other comments, Do you have any examples? I have only removed a personal attack from another user.

5079:, thanks Doug - I should have thought of that. I could see it was an unsourced autobio by someone non-notable, but I didn't read it that closely - sorry I missed that there were personal details revealed, I'll check for that next time. 3536:, You have created two drafts - World Ski Awards and World Golf Awards - which both look quite promotional - I'm wondering whether you have any connection to the company/ies behind these awards. Please confirm whether that is the case. 14056:

i have included all references and Citation. this page is strictly for information purposes and is based on the biography of Gospel Musician Israel Rocklyn... everything is now intact maybe you may want to please approve it. thanks

12754:

Hello again IP editor (do you have a name by the way - since you haven't registerest an account, I don't know how you'd ilke me to address you). So, I reverted your change for a number of reasons. First, it was out of process - per

5529:, I said in my RfA that I am not affected by insults directed at me by trolls and vandals - abuse from someone you hold in very low esteem is very easy to ignore. The inverse of that statement is also true; I am genuinely touched. 4326:. I think I've got a fairly decent handle on the general standards that are expected. If you were happy for me to draftify the article, as an alternative to deletion, I'd be happy to review a revised version of it at a later date? 2275:

That would be great, thanks. For sure take as much time as you need between replies, there's no particular hurry and I can perform other tasks in the meantime obviously. I've looked at those WP pages before but will review them.

13422:. There are instructions in the block notice that explain how they can request a change of username - if they do that, and make an unblock request, and confirm that only one individual will ever have access to the account (per 9095: 8100:

Hey Girth, while tagging promotional userpage I generally use G11 but ultimately the deleting admin often delete it under U5. Pls clarify the difference between the two, the only thing I know is that U5 is only for userpages.

2654:

enough for us to have an article about. I haven't looked at D-MER before, but thanks for drawing it to my attention - if there are biomedical assertions there sourced to Reddit, they will need to be removed. Please do read

13627:

Hello and good day! Thanks again for your recommendation a few weeks ago. At the moment though, I am not very active in RC patrolling, as I got partially blocked due to a few serious errors with my UAA reports, especially

12888:

Thanks again - I never realised we had so much of this creeping in until I got involved through CVUA, anyway I'll continue to keep a watch on user creation logs a couple of times a day to try and spot them. Best wishes

12717:

suggests we don't respect the greek language (from which, in fact, the word originates from). It also means that we try to redefine the meaning of the word according to political views rather than linguistic evolution.

9202: 4593:

and remind the editor not to make such a series of changes, one after the other, without first getting general approval from the community? What he or she is doing can be mighty disruptive, it seems to me. Thank you.

3809:(without trailing slash). The index shown is automatic and will show the numbered archive pages if they are present. If you then have old redundant archive files left, you could request that they be deleted using 10691: 6205: 478: 9847:. Bastun has made this claim numerous times over the past year when making edits on the Linehan article, but each time that I request a link to any discussion where consensus has been reached as I did again here 2903:

Hey Girth! I finished my CVUA Task and I'd love if you could help me from there. I ping you as well but it must have been buried in your notifications so I thought I should let you know here. Have a lovely day,

5751: 13169:, hope that you will be fine. I'm here to request to you that I want to be your pupil in countering vandalism. Can you accept my request? I'm nearly 3 months old user. Please ping me if you agree. Thank you. 13999: 8168:

40,000 edits. There's more to it than just being able to regurgitate the content of the course, you also need to be able to provide effective guidance for your trainees if they get into difficult situations.

9135:

lower contrast, is a bit more subtle, making it easier to ignore as an overlay. I'd edit it out, but, well, it's hard to coherently edit something that small. Have to get sub-pixel levels of correctness.

3743:

who kindly set up the archiving on this talk page for me. I'll take a look later on when I get a bit of time and see if I can figure it out though, it would be interesting to teach myself how to do it...

9850:, I receive no answer. I have asked a number of times for many months, and the edits and "consensus" claims just keep being made, but no reply to my inquiries is ever given. I believe this constitutes a 8568: 2567:, hi - to be clear, you are in breach of it, whether or not you think you're right. Self-revert immediately. The difference it makes is that your account won't be blocked from editing if you self-revert. 7921:

Okay man. I know you don't wanna try to affect my emotion answer is no . Okay am cool with that. Fails is now a random i get in every wiki thing i try i think one day they are gonna accept me. Thanks,

9779:

Thanks for understanding. In the meantime, the subject isn't getting the message. They continue to attempt to engage in negative ways. Can an administrator drop them a hint, possibly? Thanks again.

5375: 4703:

indicates that gender-neutral language is preferred - fair enough, but it doesn't specificy which form of gender neutral language to use, so it doesn't support a change from 'his or her' to 'their'.

12489: 9064:

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

4078: 9138:

Anyway, one bit of advice: remember to always upload the original before a modification, it's important to document, especially if the orginal goes offline. Cheers! Article itself is fantastic.

2516:- actually, I just noticed that the page is under a 24-hour BRD cycle restriction - see the top of the talk page for more on that. You should self-revert before anyone else notices. (As for 12222: 11029: 9953: 9215: 8674: 7659: 6522: 5447: 1815: 678: 13684:

I'd leave a message on her talk page and see if some negotiation could do. I do not know if a gentle request would come out as rude, as I was blocked just earlier this week, but I'll try.

9308:, hi - if there's a template, I don't know about it. I've always done it the way you describe - copy, paste edit. Let me know if you find a template out there, that would be pretty handy! 8076:

Well, I went ahead and left UPE tags. Since I left the COI message about 2 weeks ago, and since they've done some more recent editing without responding, I think it's reasonable from me.

2196:

I milked a book and a documentary for what it's worth, I have nothing to add to the article. While the legacy version still needs work, and I have to find citations I lost while trimming.

13550:, so, that wasn't a template - that was an article, published in article space. It contains a single, short, unreferenced sentence, followed by the template itself, which still exists at 4137:

English Knowledge, and I've noticed it has become customary here in late years to suggest deletion for practically everything. I'd still prefer arguments over templates, if you please. --

4119: 4415:, I took a look at your draft just now. I think the language is a lot less promotional now, thank you for that. You've got two options at this point - you could submit it for review via 3947:

Thanks for the advice, I really appreciate it! I'm hoping to get the GA review done in time for a July 31 DYK for the anniversary of his death, we'll see how that goes. All the best, --

8621: 5281:

nomination process. In the field of counter-vandalism, Girth Summit has done fantastic work not only reverting and blocking vandals but also training other users to do the same at the

3641:

I asked on VPT and that ping went through. I'm so confused. Hopefully they can figure it out but if not I'll just leave a message here whenever I complete a section. Sorry about this.

2443:

And it's not correct to say that you removed a PA from another user - you've been told by at least six admins, including on serving Arbcom member, that it wasn't a PA. Drop the stick.

13827:, thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it - as a newish admin, I'm always grateful for steers from the old hands - better to correct early on than develop ingrained bad habits. Cheers 5614:

Sounds good to me! Hit me up in six weeks. We can take a fresh eyed look at the St Rufus sources to see if we think there's enough there for a FAC; if not we can pick something else.

5553:

Cheers Girth, I'm so glad you were recognized. Thank you for all you've done, both for me and the project at large, and here's to a long future of continuing helpful productivity! --

4056: 8040:... and I hadn't seen the follow-up you'd already left on the user's talk page. It looks like you have it well in hand. I'll stay out of the way unless you tell me to do otherwise. 3874:

Hello, I hope all is well with you. I was wondering if I could take you up on an offer you made a couple months back - for a while now I've been doing some light work on the article

13388: 3897:, hi, great to hear from you. I took a look at the page just now, it's an interesting article, and I'm sure it could be knocked up into GA shape with a bit of polishing. Thoughts: 2707:

I started a discussion and gave my opinion. Wiki users like Hapa9100 and Shinoshijak than supported me that I should remove Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag from the blond wiki page (

14042: 2758:

mythical being with powers. Also in the blond wiki page there's already cultural perception which mentions all the mythical, gods and historical figures percieved as being blond (

2199:

I did my best on my own. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article, to give me general feedback. Obviously if you have the time or want to take the time. Thank you.

9917:, yes, they are indeed - thank you very much! That will save me shelling out £100 for a reprint of the whole set (or a damn sight more than that for an original copy...). Cheers 3495: 8905:

Aye, no worries. My other such articles survived deletion attempts because I was able to come through with references. Coylet is another matter. I seem to struggle with finding

8616: 5734: 3533: 3514: 2472:

I also added a POV tag which you removed. Could you explain why you did that? There are three recent editors who've disputed the POV of the article. FYI I have re-added it.

12759:, if another editor reverts your change, you are expected to discuss it with them, not just reinstate it, but you made no attempt to do that. Second, it was not compliant with 12005:

There are 26% of project articles tagged for clean-up at the moment. It would be good if members could take a few minutes to clear-up some of the outstanding tags on articles.

13046:, no problem - I'm sure a good article could be written about the subject, just best to keep it in draft space until it's worked up a bit further. I hope you get a good rest. 12585:, hi, and sorry it took me longer than anticipated to get around to setting this up. Hopefully you will have received my ping from your training page - the first task awaits. 9683:, but without wanting to be cryptic, I don't think you've fully considered exactly what I wrote, and the context of where I wrote it. I'm happy with leaving it there. Cheers 4277:. Promotional articles, which seem to latch onto any piece of coverage in an attempt to put across the awesomeness of the company to the reader, are what catch my attention. 12204: 7641: 1797: 10256: 12800: 10233: 4820: 3919:

The legacy section has quite a few unsourced bullet points - I'd suggest going through and looking for sources for all of them, and removing them if they can't be sourced.

3465: 9997: 8722: 2650:, hi, thanks for reaching out. I'm afraid that a lack of published sources is not a reason to use unreliable sources - it's probably an indication that the subject isn't 8695: