User talk:JustAnotherCompanion
Welcome!
[edit]Hi JustAnotherCompanion! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
ABC News link
[edit]Hello, Just dropping a line regarding Special:Diff/1232488936. The pipe was basically in preparation for a pending move where the baseline ABC News would be moved and converted to a disambiguation page (differentiating ABC News (Australia) among others (Talk:ABC_News#Requested_move_18_June_2024). Anyway, it looks like this might get reversed (User_talk:BilledMammal#ABC_News_move), making this moot, but I just wanted to explain. -2pou (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @2pou: Oof. I've spent a little bit of time reading up on this situation now. Can open, worms everywhere. Leaving aside the specifics, I'd just like to say that a more descriptive edit summary than 'pipe' would have helped avoid my reverting your edit (and subsequently my revert being reverted by another editor). Something like 'Redirecting following closed move discussion at PAGE', say. Then - regardless of any rights or wrongs - I would at least have seen enough reason to leave until the dust settles, as were. This is only a suggestion; if you look at my edit history you'll see it comes from the basis that I'm a bit fan of clear and descriptive edit summaries. Best regards, JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Doctor Who SDCC Panel
[edit]It appears my edit summary was cut off in the page history so I Just wanted to provide the full edit summary I had written here really fast: WP:ROUTINE is a notability guideline for articles on events, that doesn't fall within the scope of this article as it's not about an event. This is confirmed by the part of WP:N that says "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Note the part of routine that says "events [...] may be better covered as part of another article", this is that other article. ROUTINE would only apply to this if we were perhaps writing an article called "Doctor Who at the 2024 Comic Con". Regardless, it's not routine as the last DW SDCC panel was in 2018.
The relevant notability page for series 14 would be WP:NTV (which albeit, is an essay not a guideline, so WP:N technically). Notability guidelines purely cover whether the article is worthy for a topic, not for the content within said article once notability is established. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024
[edit]The Space-Time Telegraph
Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Okay–ooh. New Hello!
Big Spike in Productivity
Proposals to the WikiProject
If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.
If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your heads'-up, and your kind words. Goodness, you've done a lot of work and checking on it. I would think the advert tag can come off now, if you agree? I'll have another look through it next week, though not sure I can add anything to your very thorough effort. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Warning on a user page
[edit]You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DonQuixote (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Editing others' comments
[edit]WIth regard to this edit, please mind WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. If you have concerns, you may rise them at AN/I (see this thread). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- You posted this message while I was in the process of writing a message on your own talk page. For clarity's sake, I will copy part of my response here that makes it clear that this was not a WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS violation.
OTHERSCOMMENTS gives an example of appropriately editing others' comments saying Removing prohibited material such as libel; legal threats; personal details; content that is illegal under US law; or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies. (emphasis mine).
- JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Claiming that the sentence
If Khelif has DSDs, then writing a Wikipedia article suggesting that she doesn't is not only poor WP editing, but also another way to further victimise her
violates WP:BLP, and therefore should be removed from a talk page discussion, is absurd. Several RSes mention or discuss that possibility, so we should be allowed to deal with it and take it into account, if we want to write an informed and balanced BLP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Claiming that the sentence
WIkiProject Doctor Who: September 2024 Newsletter
[edit]The Space-Time Telegraph
Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who You like Doctor Who? What's his name then? Welcome
Articles for deletion
Notice of Draft Articles
Doctor Who News
Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content
Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject
Contributors
"I'm not appalled by it" - The New New York Times If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.
If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi, this is regarding the Tupac oage
[edit]Hi @JustAnotherCompanion I see that you recently edited the Tupac page but your edits were reverted by some users who are clearly spreading puffery. There seems to be a clear issue of puffery on that page, which I see you have opposed. I would love you to contribute to the TalkPage under the section “Academic views”. I have recently written: “Looking at the history, there was no discussion or consensus about academics being mentioned both in the first paragraph and the fourth. I believe it can be mentioned in the fourth paragraph, but not in the first, because it’s not that notable, and it’s already covered in the second sentence which covers his influence. I’m against puffery. Other users have already shown opposition to this puffery regarding the topic of academics such as @FMSkyand @JustAnotherCompanion”. RapForever863 (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)