User talk:BuzyBody

Archives

1, 2

Yes, only years should appear in succession boxes at the bottom, the full dates are stated in the infoboxes at the top right. If there are full dates in the succession boxes, you can remove them. You can also remove the stub tag (like at Tazewell), if the article is big enough. Kraxler (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--BuzyBody (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the succession boxes at Samuel J. Randall. As they are now, that's how they are supposed to look like. Please note that the years are connected without spaces by an en-dash ( – ), not by a hyphen ( - ). Kraxler (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected for Henry Tazewell. Thank you and I really appreciate your help. :) --BuzyBody (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political Graveyard is not a reliable source. It has some good info for more recent events, especially for info after 1923, when the American copyright law was created. Because of the copyright, it is difficult to read the original sources (like Google books) from after 1923. Anyway, the info on Political Graveyard is copied from somewhere else, mostly without the original source named. And that is why one can not rely on it. It is always better to find the original source. In general, delete the link to Political Graveyard if other sources/references are given (like Congress Bios), in that case the Political Graveyard link is unnecessary. If there is no other source, leave the Political Graveyard in the Sources, References, or External links section, it is not citable (i.e. should not be used as an inline citation). Kraxler (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I edited the article for Samuel J. Randall accordingly. I am keeping notes of everything I am learning from you and studying the Wikipedia guidelines as well. My hope is to be a reviewer at some point. Thanks again! --BuzyBody (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hadn't seen such an "almanac section" before either. (I have seen before "Election results" tables like these, the info mostly copied from unreliable websites.) These "almanac section" tables don't look good, they seem to contain a lot of "fake links" (specific blue links piped to some general words without connection to this subject). I'll check it out as soon as possible... Kraxler (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently somebody added these almanac section at many or all Delaware governors or congressman. To remove them without discussion will possibly start an edit war, so it's not something to be considered. Nevertheless, they look inappropriate to me, under several guidelines, mainly because most of the info seems to be out of scope of the article subject, but I have to check it out and make a case first. Anyway, it'll have to wait for a week or so. I decided to run for WP:ArbCom (see:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates), and I'll have to answer a lot of questions there... Kraxler (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you the best of luck. From working with you, I know you would be a great asset to the committee!--BuzyBody (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I have assigned your account to this user group. Please check out WP:INFOBOXFLAG and WP:LISTPEOPL. These are relatively minor issues and they are ones that would be missed by page patrollers anyway, but please bear them in mind for the future. I have done some for you, but you may need to check out the others and please clean up Dyersburg State Gazette (major formating issues & infobox). Happy editing and keep up the good work! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for approving my request. I cleaned up Dyersburg State Gazette (had no idea I had left the page like that) and am familiarizing myself with WP:INFOBOXFLAG. I am not sure what the other one was I should look at (WP:LISTPEOPL does not link anywhere). Thanks again :)--BuzyBody (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: WP:LISTPEOPLE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander Lloyd (venture capitalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Lloyd (venture capitalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting (I was just trying to unaccept the revision, with a rather terser summary), but "good faith edit"?[1] Do you really think so? Bishonen | talk 15:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I was going with the idea of assuming good faith in the event the new reviewer was a young person. I started not to use "Good faith edit" but decided to just in case. --BuzyBody (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it never hurts, I suppose. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Would you care to comment at this RfC for the article Artpop? It originally started as a proposal to remove an unverifiable statement decided upon by editors in a previous consensus but has moved to a similar proposal titled "Agyle's proposal". If not, feel free to ignore message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you previously contributed to, Joe Williams (jazz singer), had many prior revisions deleted due to copyright issues. For details please see Talk:Joe Williams (jazz singer). Your prior version may be temporarily restored upon request if you need it for reference to re-incorporate constructive edits that do not make use of the copyright infringing material. Please feel free to leave me a talk message if you need this done. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a while ago you made this change, but I wonder why. I don't see much similarities between the phrase and the cited source. Jo Pol (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BuzyBody, I am a student at American University and am currently in a class about Wikipedia. I am interested in contributing to the Wiki project about the U.S. Congress. Do you have any suggestions or tips on how I could be of useful in to this project? best, me3154a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me3154a (talk • contribs) 01:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people from Waxahachie, Texas, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people from Waxahachie, Texas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Centerville City School School District has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

duplicate to Centerville City School District. Improbable typo. No reason to keep as a redirect.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]