User talk:PCN02WPS

Archives: Archive 1

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, PCN02WPS. 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)

United States presidential election articles[edit]

Hi, thanks for writing these articles! Just to warn you in case you didn't know, while I understand that the new format of articles of this type is "YYYY United States presidential election in [state]", a lot of links were set up in the past on the assumption that an article would be created in future in the old format. So without a redirect page, those links will stay red even though there's an article on the topic. I've been setting up relevant redirects but just warning you in case I've missed any! Blythwood (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Blythwood: If you're referring to the links in the navboxes, normally I just change them as I create them, though I may miss a few. I'll pay close attention to change those, or I can just create the "United States presidential election in [state], YYYY" redirects at the same time I create the properly named articles if that would work better. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I wondered about that but I thought it was quickest to create redirects because there seem to be quite a lot of these redlinks. For instance for the Oregon 1936 article there's four links to the old-format article title, one from quite an obscure-looking article that might easily get missed (List of third party performances in United States presidential elections). And of course someone who doesn't know or forgot about the new format could easily create another link to an old-format title at some point in future. Blythwood (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Blythwood: I think it's easiest for me to create the old-style redirects at the same time that I create the new-style pages. That way, the links in the massive state-by-state results tables (1936 United States presidential election#Results by state, for example) won't stay red; otherwise they'd have to be changed by hand and that would take way too much time and effort to do. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Blythwood: Though I will also thank you for bringing this to my attention, and for all the redirects you've already made - I'm sure it's rather tedious work that's not extremely fun to do, so thank you for being the one to do it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Incidentally, I was just looking at related pages-if/when you get onto 1932, someone's categorised Wikimedia Commons images on that election by state, so there's a lot of categories e.g. here and here that could be linked to articles. Blythwood (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flag of the City of Clinton, South Carolina.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Flag of the City of Clinton, South Carolina.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) 03:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Alabama–Clemson football rivalry for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alabama–Clemson football rivalry 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/Alabama–Clemson football rivalry 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. Cobyan02069 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

An invitation to discussion[edit]

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2019 Arlington mayoral election[edit]

The article 2019 Arlington mayoral election has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Suburban mayoral elections are unlikely to pass GNG

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. SounderBruce 05:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 2019 Arlington mayoral election for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Arlington mayoral election 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/2019 Arlington mayoral election 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. SounderBruce 01:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship[edit]

On 10 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alabama's 28-point loss against Clemson in the 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship was their worst-ever defeat under head coach Nick Saban? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2019 College Football Playoff National Championship. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can you check if my page has been reviewed?[edit]

Hello, I created the page Kharagpur Raj and I was wondering if you could take the time to review it? I would appreciate it. Thank you.BanaBahadir (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@BanaBahadir: Hi, and thank you for your article. While I have applied for New Page Patrol, I have not been granted that right yet, so as of now I am unable to review pages. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my conversion therapy edit[edit]

I need help, as the user JzG keeps erasing it.2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D: I am not going to become further involved in the conflict so as to avoid getting involved in an WP:EDITWAR. JzG does bring up a good point, however: you need to try to find a secondary source to support your claims (WP:PRIMARY) and make sure they are presented without any bias (WP:NPOV). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you accept it? Here is at least another source noting it among other UK bills.[1].2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought you had also accepted directly from the UK Parliament too.[2]

@2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D: I accepted it because I saw it listed at Special:PendingChanges and I assumed the edit was in good faith. I was unaware that there was an edit war going on between you and JzG. I do not have any knowledge regarding the ins-and-outs of the particular bill itself, so that is between you and JzG. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It should be reverted, there is ongoing discussion on Talk and the edit is not compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: As someone wishing to remain neutral, I am unfamiliar with the ins-and-outs of the topic and the structure of British government and legislation. Would this be considered a reliable secondary source in your eyes? In other words, what about the edit does not satisfy the NPOV, V, and RS? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Just read on the article's talk page where you said that this was not reliable. Above question has been marked out. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: One of my fellow-admins has rolled back and fully protected the article, so we're all good. No criticism attaches to you. Our IP friend is being tiresome, but will hopefully find out how all this works on the Talk page. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: sounds good, thank you for all your help! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Gangs[edit]

How can I get my list added to namespace?

List of Gangs in the Cayman Islands (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@List of Gangs in the Cayman Islands: Hi, and thank you for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Before editing any further, please make sure you know the difference between an article and a user page; the page you added to List of gangs was your user page (it contained one link, which was to another user page (User:Watercourse Clique)). Please make sure that you are not creating accounts and userpages rather than articles. Based on the fact that both User:List of Gangs in the Cayman Islands and User:Watercourse Clique were created today and have a combined six edits, I am going to go out on a limb and say that you were the creator of both pages. If you have any questions as to how to create and improve mainspace articles, please do not hesitate to message me further. Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I got my team to do the work[edit]

66.97.20.206 (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Wish[edit]

Hello. Help expand for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Uuithy (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Uuithy: Hi, is there anything in specific you need help improving? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No title[edit]

I've been asked by PCN02WPS to leave message on this page about sourcing for the edit that I did on the Jesse Owens page. Please do read this carefully--it's important. The statement is circulating widely that Roosevelt invited the 1936 Olympic team to the White House but Owens and other black athletes were not invited. As I believe I indicated in the edit, I did a Proquest newspaper search--a superb database including not only major mainstream newspapers but leading black ones--for the whole period of 1936 after the team returned. There was no indication that any of them had ever visited the White House. The story is made up. I read many stories about what Owens was doing this fall and some explicit discussion of his claim that FDR never sent him a telegram, but there was nothing in any story about an event at the White House. I don't know how to "source" a non-event, although I believe I did refer to the Proquest source in my edit. We could refer readers to the blog post I did myself on the subject if you want. Please share your reaction to this in any event. The false story is circulating by the tens of thousands because of Black History Month--that's how I saw it--and I would really like to knock it down. Thanks.

David Kaiser KaiserD2 (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@KaiserD2: Hi, maybe I should have been more clear in the message I left on your user page. I found no problem with your edit to the Jesse Owens article except that it fails WP:V as it was not sourced. The edit will more than likely be approved if you include with it a reliable source (WP:RS); a self-published blog would not qualify as such. Rather, a secondary source (such as one of the aforementioned newspapers that you searched through, if they mention that none of the team was invited) would be perfect as a reliable, neutral (WP:NPOV), secondary source. On a separate note, please put all new messages at the bottom of my talk page (you can reply to me right under this message). Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@KaiserD2: For additional information on self-published sourcing, please see WP:SPS and WP:RSSELF. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Hi PCN02WPS. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, so do check back at WP:PERM/NPR in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Atlantic306. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, UdayShankar, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Atlantic306 (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Thanks for the heads-up, still getting used to the page curation toolbar. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Rivalries results table settings[edit]

I checked that discussion page a little bit and didn't see related discussion. Did you talk with other users about this? 七战功成 01:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@七战功成: here's the link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 21; see the "Rivalry results table settings" header listed at No. 39 in the table of contents. As you'll see in the discussion, I was against universal adoption of the extended format but I support for instances where both teams are often ranked. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the argument there is not quite well-reasoned, Alabama and Clemson were not ranked quite often when they played until recently. That style actually makes the content looks a little copious. 七战功成 03:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@七战功成: IMO, because the two teams have both been ranked in each of their last five meetings, the series qualifies for an expanded table. I don't want this to become a WP:EDITWAR, so I propose we compromise and open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football if necessary. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@七战功成: Can you stop reverting so we can talk about this please? Should I ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I opened the discussion in there and notified you, you didn't know? 七战功成 00:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@七战功成: Didn't show up in my notifications nor my watchlist. Weird. My apologies, I've responded. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

seriously?[edit]

Did you not read the edit summary when I created the page Political positions of Amy Klobuchar? it is a copy paste. it was spunoff from the article. see the talk page. Hydromania (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hydromania: Apologies, oversight on my part. Thanks for your work. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries. WP:SLOWDOWN only covers stress, not going too fast :) Hydromania (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hydromania: I'll give it a read regardless. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17[edit]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Found Userboxes for You[edit]

2019 AAF standings[edit]

Hi - I'll update SOS & SOV after the Birmingham game wraps up; I was out yesterday and missed the games. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dmoore5556: no problem, I made myself a spreadsheet and did SOS/SOV for yesterday's games, and I'll be here to do them should you be unable in the future. Thanks for your help. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

No title[edit]

Hello, I'm PCN02WPS. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2019 AAF season, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Sources were provided https://aaf.com/news/apollos-beat-express-in-wild-game-34-31-clinch-home Someone else does not know what they are doing and changed my edit and removed my comment and sourcing. Please in the future check the facts before making assumptions about what I have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonash1974 (talk • contribs)

@Dragonash1974: This comment does not make much sense, care to clarify what your concern is? Additionally, please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your messages. Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Accepting pending changes...[edit]

....just a heads-up: if you accept changes to date of the year pages, please keep in mind that all additions have to be reliably sourced in the linked article ("each addition now requires a direct citation from a reliable source on this page supporting it. Simply providing a wikilink is not sufficient and additions without direct sources will be removed"). Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Does the citation need to be on the date of the year page (November 12) or just on the subject's page (Andrzej Majewski)? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Both would be ok, but sourcing in the article would be better imho. Explanations pop up when you try to edit a date of the year page Lectonar (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted one on April 21 (diff). Thanks for the heads up! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You deserve a brownie![edit]

Get well soon, PCN! Mpprogram6771 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mpprogram6771: Thank you! If you have any questions regarding Wikipedia, I'd be glad to help. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

St Burgundofara[edit]

you deleted my addition of St Burgundofara to the Holidays and Observances section of Apr. 3. The page for Burgundofara clearly states she is celebrated on April 3. What other "source" do you need? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Richardson mcphillips: Hi, the only reason I reverted your edit was because I was following the guidelines that are listed at the top of the edit window after you click "edit" on that page (or, for that matter, any "day of the year page"); one such guideline reads as follows: Each addition now requires a direct citation from a reliable source on this page supporting it. Simply providing a wikilink is not sufficient and additions without direct sources will be removed. Per an above conversation with another user (User talk:PCN02WPS#Accepting pending changes...), all that is needed is a reliable source on the target page (in this case, Burgundofara) supporting the date, rather than just a wikilink to Burgundofara on the April 3 article. If you need any assistance, don't hesitate to leave a message here. Thanks for your contributions! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

this is not clear to me. Every entry in Holidays and Observances is a wikilink to an article that contains the date. I can't figure out how the policy you mention is evidently followed in every other case. What does "a direct citation from a reliable source on this page supporting it" mean? What is "this page"? the edit page? Could you give an example? The linked article on 'reliable source' is about sources used in writing Wiki articles, but this policy seems to be about something else, since the Wiki article does not seem adequate.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC) ps I read the above conversation, and it seems to me from that, that as long as the original article is correctly-sourced, that is fine.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Richardson mcphillips: I think this policy was set forth to be a from this point forward type thing; all you need to do to add it to the list is find a reliable source for the date and add it to the Burgundofara page; at that point it will be supported by a reliable source and will be fit for addition to the April 3 article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a reference on the Burgundofara page for the date. Is that adequate? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Richardson mcphillips: It appears so, and I have added another just in case. Thanks for your cooperation! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. It seems to me that the statement on the top of the "edit" page is unclear by itself.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game[edit]

On 9 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)