User talk:SelfieCity

Hello, SelfieCity, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! South Nashua (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Drover's Wife was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tri-Valley Jazz Trio and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tri-Valley Jazz Trio, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SelfieCity! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta help me! Why am I blocked on Wikivoyage? Who even is LibMod? I just got on here! I haven't even done anything wrong! You saw how I edited the Ada page and you thanked me personally! American Ride (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, what is going on? I was having so much fun editing today! Now I'm blocked for life, and I haven't even done anything wrong! @SelfieCity: American Ride (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted comment] --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SelfieCity, please see voy:pub#What the hell? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AndreCarrotflower: Got it. It has dawned on me that only one user puts the {{ping}} at the end of the comment instead of the beginning: Libmod. While part of me doesn't want to see a genuine new user (e.g. someone who's not LM) get blocked by mistake, at the same time we can't let LM succeed in using a doppelganger again, so if this is LM then we need to deal with the issue quickly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikivoyage, you may know me as Libertarianmoderate. Hopefully you can eventually see by my edits here that I've given up vandalism. Grimm324 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to return to Wikivoyage, I can tell you that the editors there are in no mood to let you back. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, in about a year they will be. Grimm324 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they won't be. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack on Wikipedia! And whether you and Andre like it or not, I'll be back on Wikivoyage soon. Even if I have to do it under an assumed name. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this after I gave you the notice below. I'd given this editor a good faith unblock and then they did this. I blocked them again. Funny coincidence. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SelfieCity. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 16:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed the problems. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: So basically, a Christian work is more biased than an Athiest one? I don’t understand. I’m not saying Daniel was right, written in 400 BC, etc, just that it seems that many Christians believe it was written at a specific time. According to the religion section of npov, stating religious views on a matter is fine. BTW, I’m a nondenominational Christian who’s very questioning about a lot of religious views, and I strongly oppose a lot of the views and methods of traditional, fundamentalist Christianity. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not a WP:BATTLEGROUND of atheism vs. Christianity. Christians have various opinions upon when it was written, most Christians having no opinion upon that. As a matter of fact, most Christians have never read the Bible. An Eastern Orthodox even told me that I had to ask permission from a priest in order to read the Bible. Asking them to have an opinion upon when that book was written is more or less like:

A: I am a fan of WW2 movies.
B: So, tell me: which hair color did Hitler have? Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B was dark brown or black, right? Anyway, I see your point, but the text could simply be changed from "Christians tend to believe" to "some Christians believe." Remember, Catholics don't traditionally put emphasis on the Bible anyway, so they wouldn't have such an interest in when it was written. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be precise: which Christians believe that? Are those URLs WP:RS? Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem with source #2, but BibleStudyTools.com has an Alexa rank of less than 4,000, so I think it's worth mentioning if it says, as it does, that the Book of Daniel was written in the 500s BC and gives evidence to support that view. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't got by Alexa rank, we go by WP:IRS. Besides, how can be there "evidence" that it were written in 500s BC? AFAIK such evidence cannot exist. It is true that it includes older text, this point wasn't in doubt. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read [1]. That's the source. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!

— Bart Ehrman

I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Second Temple: Founded c. 537–516 BCE (construction). Meaning 485 BCE is a bogus date. If you mean Cyrus's decree from 559 BCE (which is otherwise not historically attested and considered mythical), then the Messiah arrived in 76 BCE. If you mean 516 BCE, then Jesus was about 65 years old when crucified. In fact, the Bible clearly states that Cyrus is the Messiah of the Jewish people. Tgeorgescu (talk)

• I don't see whether prophecies were right or wrong as relevant to this discussion. The point is, we should include the statements, as sourced, from BibleStudyTools.com about this topic to help better show npov. Plus, keep in mind that any historians in the 17th century, or earlier in Christendom would have believed that Daniel was written much earlier than what modern historians now say. Also, keep in mind that the Book of Daniel isn't written, "This will happen. Then this will happen, etc." Through much of the book, its prophecies could mean basically anything. So saying that its prophecies are clearly accurate to a certain date, and then inaccurate, does not stress that the Book of Daniel is often completely unclear in its meaning. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have explained our view at WP:ABIAS. Or to quote somebody else:

Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zero^talk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So, at least you should quote academic-level WP:RS, not WP:BLOGS vaguely based upon NIV. Tgeorgescu (talk)

BibleStudyTools.com is not a blog, and honestly I don't see why it's no less academic than any other individual like an archaeologist. And there are, of course, archaeologists who believe the Bible and do their work to prove that the Bible is accurate. Is your definition of academia someone who doesn't believe the Bible? Why can't an academic person believe the Bible? Is the concept of God only for idiots? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, though, I'm tired of this discussion. If that's what you guys want, go ahead and keep the current material. But I think we ought to keep in mind that whether you're a Christian or not, the Bible has a lot of valid points, is well-written, and shouldn't just be trashed and called a bunch of lies. My interest on WP is to contribute, not to get into religious debates, so again I'd rather just contribute in places where this doesn't happen. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: speaking of prophecies going right or wrong, Daniel 8:14 is a good example of one that I think was accurate despite being about an event far in the future. "After 2,300 days (years) the sanctuary shall be cleansed." 500 BC - AD 1800. AD 1800 marked the most important Christian reform and revival since the Protestant reformation. It was also approximately when Mormonism and Millerism were founded. But again, I'm not really interested. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what is academic learning (WP:CHOPSY). If we would consider the Bible a WP:RS, then somebody else would want the Koran to be a WP:RS, somebody else the Book of Mormon or the writings of Rudolf Steiner or Aleister Crowley. As a religiously neutral encyclopedia we cannot discriminate against cults/religions. Christianity is not more objectively true than Wicca and Santeria. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But therefore we should respect Christianity like we should respect all other religions. We shouldn't be writing about it in an offensive, exclusive manner, for those reasons. On relevant issues we should state the views of Bible-believing Christians as we would for Koran-believing Muslim, and Book of Mormon-believing Mormons, etc. I think throughout the Bible you see many things be accurate but I see many valid points on the other side(s) as well; I think all should be stated. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word". About rendering subjective beliefs as subjective beliefs, i.e. attributed to those who hold such beliefs, see above. Your theology ain't fact, it is just a bunch of subjective beliefs. We don't offend any religion by telling them their beliefs are subjective, since holding subjective beliefs is not something to be ashamed of. We do not treat subjective belief as if objectively true. We call a spade, a spade. Archaeology and the Book of Mormon does not pander to piety. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How’s that relevant to my statement above? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, not to be blunt but doesn’t your user page statement about “not wanting to be associated with the absurdities of the Bible” show POV pushing? Thanks for any answer, not trying to be mean, just making a debate point. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When facts accepted by mainstream historians and archaeologists contradict the Bible, facts win and we do not hide it from our readers. We are biased for mainstream history and mainstream archaeology. We do not start from the assumption that the Bible would be true. We are biased for the Bible scholarship taught at Ivy Plus and state universities, but not for the Bible scholarship taught at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton. For Wikipedia biblical inerrancy is a WP:FRINGE belief, and fideist scholars are rejected out of hand. Wikipedia renders evolution as true science and Young Earth Creationism as pseudoscience. For us what Ivy Plus teach as fact, it is a fact. What Young Earth creationists teach is by default suspect. We are dedicated to mainstream science, not to fideism. Yes. We are biased. About my page: I have my own subjective beliefs as every other person has. Attacking historical criticism is futile: it is taught at Ivy Plus, so it wins inside Wikipedia by default. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not trying to be some “Bible warrior”. Let me be clear, and you can check this, that I am a cross wiki contributor. Therefore, nowadays I’m not a single purpose account or interested in debates unless it’s a must. I’m more interested in doing administrative work at Wikivoyage, rather than this. I have combated vandals and finished deletion requests. That is what I know and prefer. On Wikipedia I see npov as reason to state all sides of an argument. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE, WP:RNPOV and WP:NOTNEUTRAL never said that subjective opinion would be presented as equal to objective fact. We are biased for evolution and against creationism, because this is the way science is (see [2]). We are merely a mirror of mainstream science, mainstream scholarship and mainstream press. Neutral descriptions of Christian dogmas are welcome, but we never conflate religious dogma with scientific fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, it's good now to be on a better device. My point is this: your version of academic bias is taken too far and therefore does not mix well with npov. I'm just a (sort-of, ha ha) normal wiki contributor/administrator (though not an admin on Wikipedia) who has a set of views that don't always match that of others. I'm not a new account; I participate in page move votes, Meta-Wiki stuff, Wikivoyage policy discussions, etc. Unfortunately, I find that I have too many of my own views, which go against at least some of those put forth by Fundamentalists and Athiests, the American right-wing or left-wing, and on the list goes, to clearly identify with a group. It's often not to my advantage. For example, I think Darwin made some great pioneering discoveries, but his views were applied to far. I think Fundamentalist Christianity had good roots but over time has largely become too cut off from the real world (that is, the physical). But, that's enough of my own opinions.

(ec) The point I'm trying to make is that, as I understand it, your main goal at this wiki is to stop individuals from changing articles they see as biased, but you (and probably most of Wikipedia) sees as good standard. Generally, I've got nothing against that. But I think a weighting of 70% Atheist academics and 30% religious academics is a better balance than leaning towards 100% Atheist (as in, Ivy Plus) academics. The point is, it's not all of Wikipedia against me. We're all working together to make a good encyclopedia, and I'm fully in support of the goal. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your latest comment, I don't think subjective opinion should be considered equal to objective fact. I never said that was my view. The debate here is not over evolution; it's about Daniel. I think we ought to include that some individuals believe Daniel was written before the 4rd century BC because that is, well, what they think. I'm not saying we should endorse that view, because we're neutral. I'm saying we should include that view. There's a difference. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this source: [3]. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong that they're atheists. Bible scholarship is dominated by Christians, a low percentage are Jews and only a handful of Bible scholars are agnostics or atheists. Which is a source of endless bickering at Talk:Christ myth theory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but without sources from both sides, I can’t believe that. But anyway, getting back on topic more, hope you don’t mind discussing this, just want to make clear (not to boast) that I’m an experienced wiki user and not a Bible fanatic. What do think of the source though? With it could the new content be added to the article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A viewpoint which is controversial needs high quality sources. I suggest citing Daniel B. Wallace or someone like him. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he’s a scholar of the New Testament, then he’s not really going to be of much help. The Bible.org source was by a theologian, David Malick, and his details are found on that website. So does that work? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Bible.org, “Malick received a Masters of Theology in Bible Exposition, with honors, from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1984. In 2003, he earned his Juris Doctorate, magna cum laude, from Capital University Law School, where he received the Order of the Curia. He has engaged in post-graduate studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, Chicago Theological Seminary, and McMaster Divinity College.” So for clarity the source is https://bible.org/article/introduction-book-daniel. Acceptable? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Self-published sources (WP:SPS) are in low regard, with the possible exception of the blog posts of full professors, but even those don't beat print-published research (peer-reviewed or from reputable academic presses). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s his website, though; I speculate that it’s a website that hires several individuals to write for them. I’ll check. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a quick research of the website looks like it has multiple (as in, at least 5, probably a lot more) individuals involved in the project. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you something: here I am not concerned with small nuances. My wiki-specialism are gross violations (i.e. what does appear gross to Wikipedia insiders and which admins usually admit it's gross). So, if you do not grossly violate our norms and values, I will let others nitpick about your edits. I repeat my advice: use high-quality sources. Sources which editors cannot easily claim that they come from WP:RANDY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Calidum 18:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<small>--Comment by </small> '''[[User:SelfieCity|<font color="#14866d">Selfie City</font>]]''' ([[User_talk:SelfieCity|<font color="#14866d">talk</font>]] about my [[Special:Contributions/SelfieCity|<font color="#14866d">contributions</font>]]) : --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions)

to

<small>--Comment by </small> [[User:SelfieCity|<b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b>]] ([[User_talk:SelfieCity|<span style="color:#14866d">talk</span>]] about my [[Special:Contribs/SelfieCity|<span style="color:#14866d">contributions</span>]]) : --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I've copied in the new text; thanks for letting me know. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SelfieCity! You created a thread called Draft:Rasmus Jensen — anything more I need to do? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for telling me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus Jensen (speedway rider), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

97198 (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Ayres, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

- MrX 🖋 12:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Okay, thanks for letting me know. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Joe Biden. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Talk pages are not for complaining about Wikipedia or its editors. Please limit your comments to specific article improvements. - MrX 🖋 21:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify (in your own words) what I did wrong? Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Ah, I see, I wasn’t ranting. I can see that “arbitrarily” could come across the wrong way, but my point is that there isn’t a rationale not to include the information. It’s a strong opinion, but nevertheless it shouldn’t be deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I think I deserve a more personalized response after I have both explained the edit and remove words that could be considered troubling. Please pardon the fact that I’m somewhat disappointed the way Sanders has been unfairly excluded from this nomination, and the lack of action taken to address the genuine allegations (whether true or not). --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not referring to other editors as POV pushers, or characterizing them as arbitrary. Stick to comments about how to improve article content by proposing material, with sources, or suggesting rewording, restructuring, better templates, etc. I happen to be huge Sanders fan myself, and I have been long before he ran for president. I'm not crazy about Biden, but I want to make sure that we don't overload his biography with recent controversy. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions, but the IP you responded to will likely never stick around to improve the article, so feeding their discord is of no real value. - MrX 🖋 00:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I understand the point but probably will focus on other WMF projects tor a bit. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_dog2#NEED_CLARIFICATION_FOR_THE_BAN_FOR_EDITING_ONE%27S_OWN_USER_TALK_PAGE sent due to your semi-lock over my user talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prompri (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected because you raised concerns of possible abuse from others. If you want it to not be semi-protected I can undo my semi-protection. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. The information indexed in search engine, had my wikipedia username appeared there.

I din't know that the welcome message was the default user talk page state, but I dont see why blanking my user talk page would violate any civility, your message didn't appeared to be any warning as the_dog2 said, rather it seemed like friendly advice, not something as 'order or prohibition' 'talk page edits were weird' there's guidelines that I can blank my page, which I cited in the main post. 'why not keep a message' which appeared as 'optional' opinion to me, you may prefer. I just blanked the page, and didn't trigger any deletion syntax related admin summoning. I dint see any reason for my ban for theses issues.

sorry, for my misunderstading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prompri (talk • contribs) 13:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prompri: We have slightly different rules from Wikipedia on Wikivoyage because it's a different community. Generally, we don't delete other editors' comments unless it is vandalism. If your user talk page gets too long, you can create archives instead. Next time, please respond to people's comments on your talk page instead of just deleting it and saying "I have the right to do whatever I want on my talk page." or something along that line. Deleting other users' comments without responding is a red flag because it suggests that you are not willing to work collaboratively and address other users' concerns.

I will unblock you and give you the benefit of the doubt that it was just a misunderstanding. The dog2 (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did replied to selfiecity's message in a short and quick reply, after that I blanked my user talk page. also didnt know the welcome page shouldnt be deleted, there are should have been autobot set up for the task.

anw, thanks, selfiecity, please keep the user talk page semi-locked like before, as long as auto-confirmed user included me.

sorry, for wasting your time on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prompri (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool. I think it must have just been a misunderstanding. I can unblock your account if that hasn't already been done, then. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye out on Australian national park articles on Wikivoyage. Seems like GRP's target today (based on edit warring by him today) SHB2000 (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited René McLean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page African jazz. 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) 06:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Straight-ahead jazz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 16 July 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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SelfieCity. Thank you for your work on Curtis Peagler. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{re|SunDawn}} Thank you! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SelfieCity (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 167.71.174.65. Impacted by 167.71.0.0/16. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not directly blocked, meaning you can edit from a different IP not on the range, and so I must consider this procedurally declined. Blocks like the one on that range are as a practical matter very difficult to lift. I would instead advise that you follow the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY to request IP block exemption, which would be the best of both worlds for you and us. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Noro Morales, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages San Juan and Mambo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 25 September 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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cia SelfieCity; Thanks for your help in the Semi-Protected Edit Request for the article Jazz to include a reference to Shep Fields. When you have some extra time, you might also enjoy taking a look at the Semi-Protected Edit Request for Jazz to include a link for Guy Lombardo. His "sweet jazz" concerts and Big band remote broadcasts from the Roosevelt Hotel (New York) Waldorf Astoria Hotel spanned over five decades and remained popular with audiences both in the USA and internationally for decades while promoting peace and understanding which transcended racial boundaries. His band was even one of Louis Armstrong's favorites. See the talk page on Jazz for additional details and reference citations. Enjoy & Happy New Year! 160.72.80.178 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)NHPL[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sonny Red Kyner.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. I uploaded it by mistake. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Dantus21 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Dantus21 (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Same to you! Working on the biographies and albums of Fats Navarro and Bud Powell today. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Good luck with those! Dantus21 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SelfieCity. Thank you for your work on One Night in Birdland. ARandomName123, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work on this page. Happy holidays!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ARandomName123}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SelfieCity. Thank you for your work on Francis Paudras. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SelfieCity. Thank you for your work on South of the Border (Charlie Parker album). Lightburst, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article. I see books that can be used to expand the article

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lightburst}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lightburst (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Ups 'n Downs (album). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 00:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry about this. I was going to do the full article like the others I've done, and then I got busy with other things and didn't have time to finish it off. However, I'll get to work on it as soon as I can and make it a decent article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additions from old editions of DownBeat. It's better to use Cite magazine than Cite news for it. I've updated this in a couple of places (Glass Enclosure and Jutta Hipp). EddieHugh (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EddieHugh: Thanks for letting me know. I didn't realize the magazine template existed. Do I need to be in source mode to add these citations? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. Thanks again for the help. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythic Sound Records has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. If this category is unnecessary, I have no concerns with its deletion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Queen Talk Live at the Left Bank.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned this article into a redirect to the relevant section at Bud Powell discography. Unfortunately, I could not find any source besides the Penguin Guide covering this album in my search, so it fails WP:NALBUM. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these recordings are discussed in the book Dance of the Infidels. Could we restore the article and add information from that source? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert my redirection and add the source whenever you want to (go to Special:History/Return to Birdland, 64 to avoid the redirect) Mach61 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've added the source and another paragraph. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bud Powell you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bud Powell you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bud Powell for comments about the article, and Talk:Bud Powell/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esculenta: Wonderful! Thank you for reviewing this article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For bringing the article of the most important jazz pianist since Duke Ellington to GA status. Thank you! Mach61 21:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mach61: Thank you! I've really enjoyed focusing on an article and bringing it to this level. I'm glad to see someone writing an article about Joel Ross, by the way. Great vibe player. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, as a new page patroller, I've been seeing short articles for Powell compositions written by you pop up. I've approved these, and have no intention of nominating them for deletion or whatnot. However, I think it may be ideal to place most of Category:Compositions by Bud Powell in a list article. This is based off what happened at List of compositions by Thelonious Monk, where a bunch of short articles about compositions were redirected to entries in the list, as described at the talk page. No actual information loss should occur, just the text being relocated to a new place. What do you think? Mach61 15:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for the suggestion. I am not opposed to this, but I would note that we don't do it for many other jazz composers and some of these articles could possibly be expanded in longer standalone articles. For example John Coltrane's compositions such as Mr. P.C. are all described separately, as are the compositions of Charlie Parker, even though the articles for some of his own compositions are short. Also, a lot of wikilink would need to be redirect to the title.

I actually have one question. There is a sheet music book published by Hal Leonard, titled The Bud Powell Real Book. Could I cite this when discussing song form? It is a very reliable source on the issue of chord changes, etc. which I have used often myself when learning tunes on the piano. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do cite that. Actually, I would like to try out a new table format, seen at User:Mach61/monk, for which a fake book would be an ideal source (supplementing text sources, of course). Will create a draft soon and share it with you Mach61 04:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I think a good compromise here would be to have a list article with very basic information about each song, with links to articles for those compositions that need them. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marty Morell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Astoria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]