1877History

1877History, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 1877History! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert "Judge" Hughes (November 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JC7V7DC5768 was: 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:Robert "Judge" Hughes 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:Robert "Judge" Hughes, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• 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.

JC7V (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Robert "Judge" Hughes has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Robert "Judge" Hughes. Thanks! JC7V (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sonic Boom of the South. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• That list you keep reinserting is not encyclopedic: that the band was "featured" in this or that article or TV program or whatever isn't what we should be writing, and most of the material is not properly verified--in fact, most of it is not verified at all. And then you stick in "social media mentions"? What is that supposed to mean? Fonzworth Bentley mentioned it on his Facebook? That's not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• What on Earth are you talking about? I literally cited every notable moment on the list before you deleted it. The purpose of the article should be to provide information about the marching band. That's the purpose of the list. It's not an advertisement. Those are verifiable, historical facts.

• The Fonzworth Bentley mention and the other social media links are celebrity mentions of the marching band... again this is information. What is your issue with me providing tidbits and facts about this organization?

If you are truly interested in collaborating, leave notes by any information you see that is not verified instead of continuing to delete information I've worked hard to compile. Take that step before attempting to lecture me on what's acceptable. Let's collaborate.

Why did you delete the staff section? Was that not "acceptable"?

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sonic Boom of the South, you may be blocked from editing. No: those templates are legitimate. You can discuss on the talk page--though I note you haven't yet even tried to communicate anything on this collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

1877History: I don't understand. I used an existing reference to start a history section in teh article, and you removed the reference and half the info? Why? Articles in Wikipedia need to be based as far as possible on what reliable sources say about the topic. (Veriability is one of our principles, and thenumber and caliber of the sources are also a primary way we determine whether a topic merits an article.) We don't suppress facts without good reason, and the source needs to be there to say where the information came from as well as to enable the reader to check it, or to find out more. Also, I'd moved information from a quotation in a footnote into the actual article text, so readers can see it. It needs expanding, not cutting. Please, can you use that book that's listed as Further reading and flesh out clearly who the directors were in what years (I found the web page hard to follow), footnoting to particular pages, and hunt us up any sources in the local paper, such as from when the current director was appointed? You're there, I assume, or if not, you may know people who are? Thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:winpct

Please read Template:winpct. It computes the winning percentage for you. For example, rather than converting a W-L record of 3-7 and typing ".300" into the article, you can instead type "{{winpct|3|7|0}}" and get the same result of ".300" automatically. This is MUCH more manageable and accurate. Some of your edits which replaced this template with intline text may be reverted. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

wiki links, links on same term

Please consturct your links without underscores, for example: John Smith (better) vs John_Smith (worse).

MOS:REPEATLINK says you generally link on the first instance of the term, not every instance. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

how to sign your posts on Talk pages (like this one)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)