User talk:Netmouse

Hello Netmouse and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple rules and signing your talk comments with ~~~~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules.

If you want to learn more, Wikipedia:Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style

Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English as well as the cleanup, welcoming, and counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 23:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to explain my edits to Science fiction convention. Since all kinds of similar conventions have fan guests of honour, specifying either kind of "SF" (Speculative ficion/Science fiction) was unwise. Also it is a good idea to define an abreviation the first time one uses it in an article. Keep on Smofing. -Dr Haggis - Talk 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a link to Speculative fiction would improve the "Science fiction convention" article. See my latest changes and let me know what you think. -Dr Haggis - Talk 22:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just thought you'd like to know I've completed the move. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up. I have requested that the Mildred Loving article be renamed to Mildred and Richard Loving. The discussion is here: Talk:Mildred Loving#Requested Move

Geez, Netmouse, you didn't have to get so huffy about the engineering branches and become threatening.

FWIW, most of that whole article is basically WP:OR as none of it is cited. I really don't care one way or the other, but I do believe there is a difference between surveying and survey engineering. And no one has really indicated how GIS is an engineering discipline vice being some computer science, drafting, etc., type of discipline

If you want to have OR called an Engineering discipline, well, then fine. Do you have a cite? Just because an engineer might use a particular skill doesn't make it an engineering discipline. One would think that the OR types would find a way to add the word "engineering" to the title of their discipline if this were the case. Now ... don't get me wrong; OR is an important field that truly provides benefits to Engineers and the rest of society. But hey, if it makes you happy....

Everyone wants to have the prestige of claiming to be engineers; otherwise, we wouldn't have sanitary engineers, domestic engineers, etc. Basically, the only reason I've made edits to the article is to keep down some of the random attempts at everyone trying to be inclusive. I wasn't trying to exert my personal belief. However, I'd tell you that some of those self-same claims to engineering as listed in the article aren't supported (though I have no idea whether or not yours are or not). You indicate these are engineering disciplines; fine, list the citations within the article (and not just list the names of journals as "proof").

If you really want my personal opinion (which I know you don't ... :) ), then I'd tell you that Engineering is not a career, it is not a profession, and it is not a degree. IMNSHO (LOL), it is a thought process, and one that stems from the basic process that we learned in 8th grade earth science: problem, givens, facts, assumptions, formulae, application and analysis, answer. Some of the best engineers I know do not have a degree (engineering or otherwise); and some of the worst ones I know have that PE stamp that they might as well use as a target (and I can say that having several!).

BTW, the only threat/complaint that I had on my talk page was concerning some edits I made to the Hardy Boys by an individual who did, in fact, commit a 3R even as he cautioned me against the same. If you look at that article's history, you will see that same individual was bombastically fighting any and all edits to the Hardy Boys because s/he had too much pride of ownership to believe that others had differing opinions about various undue emphases s/he had made. I dropped out because s/he wasn't worth my time and effort; but in that article, truthiness won out.

One last question: with your eminent masters degree in Systems Design Engineering, why didn't you think it necessary to include that as an Engineering discipline? Methinks that, being able to get a degree is something with Engineering in its title would qualify it as a separate discipline. Food for thought ... aw hell, nope ... I'm just being bitchy. ROFL Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was overly quick to be threatening. I had just happened to link on your editing history and saw what seemed to be an active intent to delete content you disagreed with without consideration to the fact that it's better to flag uncited content as uncited than to assume that it's wrong and just delete it. I can see what you mean about the different ways you can interpret the word "engineering" but I guess every article has to have a purpose, and I took the purpose of the original authors to be to list the branches of the different disciplines of engineering in a way to provide an overview of the organization and variation within the field. I didn't have time to add in a bunch of references (or my own subfield - you're right, I might want to add that later) but I wanted to correct your eliding of perfectly valid categories. To support the idea that Operations research (also Operations Management) is also listed in the Industrial Engineering article. Possibly a circular argument, I know. Netmouse (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Home on the Strange (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page with no links to what it is disambiguating

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Disambiguation page with no links to what it is disambiguating" is not even true - the article was created with a link to the page that prompted me to create the article - the Wynonna Earp page that mentions the comic series by that name. The comic series clearly does not deserve its own page. I don't believe the song deserves its own page, either. But having "Home on the Strange" redirect to this obscure 2003 comic when the webcomic has a much higher google rating seems inappropriate.

Someone else had clearly created a disambig page before me, and linked to it. They probably thought it was useful too. I was repopulating that link. Netmouse (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for signing up for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members I mentioned the page: Strategic Task Force on increasing reader contributions at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users‎ WT:ARS and on the talk page of three very prominent and influential editors.

Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Netmouse, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

It changed "External Links" to "External links" back in 2008. But there is policy/guidelines on these weird caps for tradenames. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Regarding your comment, "As an aside, I don't think it was out of line for Evangeline to express her impression that the definitions of notability were being applied by a man", if those definitions are derived from Wikipedia policy, what difference does it make who's applying them? You mentioned that editors can discuss the wisdom of those policies on those Talk Pages, and I agree with that as a general principle, but how does that apply here, given that those policies, which merely require reliable sources to be provided in an article to establish notability were adequate to result in the article's inclusion? While some individual publications, like Glamour or Teen Vogue, may be geared toward a particular gender, the policy that requires their inclusion, however, is not. It's entirely gender neutral, since it does not lend itself more easily to male-oriented publications over female-oriented ones. Moreover, many of the sources in the article are not female-oriented: People, The Daily Telegraph, ABC News, Variety, Daily Mail, LA Times Magazine--none of these are gender-specific. Thus, the fact that I pointed out to Evangeline remains: Whether I personally had heard about Lily Collins is completely irrelevant to the AfD discussion, or the policies upon which it was adjudicated, since the article was nominated because sources needed to be added to the article to establish her notability, and not because "I had never heard of her." By encouraging Evangeline's use of a clear and irrelevant ad hominem argument as "reasonable", you legitimized her uncivil behavior. Nightscream (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My response is on Nightscream's talk page. Netmouse (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misconstrued your comment. Your point about the Chanel matter is well-taken, but Evangeline never specified that. She merely referenced my gender in regards my having heard of her. Because neither she nor you specified the Chanel point, it seemed like you were giving credence to her ad hominem remark. For my part, I never challenged Collins' status in the world of fashion per se, as I based my comments entirely on whether sources could be provided to establish that status. Although I did question whether the things she was mentioned for being notable qualified as such collectively, again, Evangeline never made that point about Chanel, or at the very least, she did not articulate that was well as you did. As for my remarks being "derogatory", well, if you mean that I illustrated by I saw less merit in her statements than she did, well, that I did. If, on the other hand, you use that word in the sense of belittling her, that I did not. In any event, thanks for your response, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) Happy Holidays back atcha. To quote the discussion, Evangaline said, "I can tell you're a man. Any woman would think that articles in Vogue and the U.K. Daily Mail, being picked to represent Chanel and wear their clothes for free, appearing in movies and television, and being regularly featured in style blogs and magazines as a very stylish "actress" and "model" ... was enough to at least rate a mention in wikipedia." There's nothing in there about whether or not you had heard of her before. There's a whole clause about Chanel. Regards -- Netmouse (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bar Keepers Friend, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netmouse! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 972 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Kevin Siembieda - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Thank you for your input. Since User:Human.v2.0 raised their objections I have stopped performing these merges. I saw the merges as a transparent and easily revertible way to try and improve the topic area. Content was preserved and anyone looking for information could find it just as easily through the redirects created. I saw the merges as being easier for those who objected to anything I do in topic area to deal with, after all undoing a merge requires two clicks, commenting in a merge or articles for deletion discussion requires a more thought out, composed action and argument from a user. I don't really see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers as effective way to get attention to a merge discussion if none is likely to be forthcoming anyway - although if I did start such a discussion I would obviously list it there. As I said before, I was being bold, if someone reverts because they think the edits were not good ones I can have no objections. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merges can only be undone in two strokes if that correction is the next edit. If other edits have been done in between, a merge is much more difficult to reverse. Since you don't tend to mention your merge behavior on the talk page, it is only through looking at the history that an editor new to the page would know what was going on and might consider reversing the merge instead of making new edits. Netmouse (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on an earlier merge proposal at Talk:List_of_Jericho_episodes, but please note the current discussion at the bottom of the page. Also, I've been trying to get some help to upgrade the articles so that the articles can stand on their own merits, particularly by locating and referencing reviews from "reliable source" media. Barsoomian (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. I think your efforts will only be worthwhile if additional material is added to those articles, providing context or out-of-universe information is per WP:Episodes. I'm not familiar with the show and don't have time to help with that, but if there are references out there, I think it might be a worthy project. Netmouse (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

The article Carol Resnick has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:Notability, not notable on her own, references on husband not primarily her.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netmouse/Wapsi Square, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Netmouse/Wapsi Square and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Netmouse/Wapsi Square during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol Resnick 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/Carol Resnick 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 template from the top of the article. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Carol Resnick. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ellen Klages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pat Murphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2013 (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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netmouse/Wapsi Square, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Netmouse/Wapsi Square (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Netmouse/Wapsi Square during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bar Keepers Friend 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/Bar Keepers Friend (2nd nomination) 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. Jbh ^Talk 02:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Stone (artist) 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/Steve Stone (artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A. E. London 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/A. E. London until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. StarM 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reasons given for the nomination on the discussion page, So I am not sure how to respond. Netmouse (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netmouse -- With the goal of helping to progress the WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) women’s rights-themed GA nomination goal for 2021, I’m proposing that WiG hold a special editathon event in the fall (maybe October/November?). I can assist with logistics, but I need to know how much interest/support there might be from WiG participants first. Please let me know what you think in the talk page conversation! All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netmouse:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2021!

Running from 1 through 31 October 2021, WikiProject Women in Green is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event focused on the topic of women's rights. Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing women's rights-related GA submissions during the event period, with resources and one-on-one support provided by experienced Women in Green GA reviewers. Participants have the opportunity to receive a barnstar.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netmouse:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) & Goldsztajn (talk) 23 September 2022

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lisa Smith-Batchen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

doesn't adhere to Wikipedia WP:Notability

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) 10:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Netmouse,

Thank you for creating George Hunt (artist).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for creating the article on George Robert Hunt. The Career and Recognition sections need additional citations, every claim should be backed up with a reference.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Netherzone (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks you for your review and for your comments, which I found encouraging at the time, even though all the facts on the page were corroborated by the references I gave, I just didn't put a footnote on every line. I did have some other references and was looking forward to getting back to the article to improve it. It was comforting to know it was in a state where another reviewer could remove the tag after it was improved. Four days later, however, someone chose instead to move it "to draftspace," stating that it "is not suitable as written to remain published." That seemed in sharp contrast to what you wrote, though again done by someone who did not appear to have read the sources that were cited. I am trying hard to renew my enthusiasm for building this article, given that someone has judged it less 'suitable for inclusion' than George_Hunt_(American_football). I sigh. Netmouse (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, George Hunt (artist), is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Hunt (artist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Netmouse. Thank you for your work on George Hunt (artist). User:Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article on this important artist.

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

Netherzone (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netmouse:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in June 2023!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – another Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female climate scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning book or film by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netmouse:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]