User talk:Dovid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Traffic circles as wrong-way concurrencies

FYI, I removed your little essay on this topic from Concurrency (road). Please don't take this personally. The problem is that Wikipedia is not for publication of original thought (see WP:NOT and WP:OR). --Orlady (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

gaza edit

i agree that the notes are not needed, but we should not be having such notes within the article naming a user. i am replacing with 'notes removed by consensus', cool? Nableezy (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

thats why i like my job, 4 monitors 1 can always be on wiki with the other 3 real work. but then again, i havent really been doing that much at work since i started getting into this. hmm, i wonder if my priorities are messed up :) Nableezy (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

looks like it is back to the notes, i aint reverting, too close to 3rr, but yall should work it out or bring it up in talk. Nableezy (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

you should stay away from words like vandalism, this isnt vandalism. I left him a note as well, but I think the two of you should talk it out instead of going back and forth with the reverts. I have already said I dont think the notes are needed, and I really am not one to pontificate on civility and not edit-warring, but I think this case can be worked out quite quickly and painlessly if we just talk about it. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

belligerents in Gaza conflict

Hi Dovid, Tundrabuggy suggested I ask you why you made the change from the list of armed groups fighting to say Gaza (principally Hamas). I already know the answer to that, but if you could explain it to him here you might be able to answer some questions. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Otheruses templates

Has the idea behind Template:OtherusesSubtopic, Template:OtherusesAlias and Template:OtherusesSubtopicAlias been discussed somewhere? It seems to fall outside what hatnotes are usually used for, and the potential number of new hatnotes for systematic usage of these templates would be huge.

If X redirects to Y then {{Redirect}} can be used on Y. If X is mentioned on Y but has its own article or disambiguation page then I think a Wikipedia search of X will list X as the first result, and most users probably click enter or Go and go directly to X. By the way, my website has a page at http://users.cybercity.dk/~dsl522332/math/meaning.htm which may interest you. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No discussion, just seemed useful. Certainly in the case of OtherusesAlias is a reasonable alternative to Otheruses1...Otheruses8, all of which assume that the linked article's title is self-explanatory in the context of the hatnote.

CPAP-respiratory is what led me to create the other two. There is no CPAP-respiratory article, just a section in PAP, but most people hitting the PPA article are apparently looking up CPAP. Hence, there was a hatnote about CPAP. But for someone who was looking for more generalized PAP info, or who were unaware of the abbreviation, the CPAP ref in the hatnote was puzzling, because "wtf is CPAP?" -- the CPAP section is way further down, and the abbreviation is only much mentioned later. I had to decide whether to "fix" the hatnote manually, or create an alternate hatnote template, or to increase the functionality of an existing hatnote template.Dovid (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Such hatnotes are unnecessary, per WP:NAMB. I've nominated this template for deletion: you're welcome to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Daylight saving time

I followed up in Talk:Daylight saving time #Old-time "unequal" hours. Are you watching that page? If so, I won't bother you further here. Eubulides (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Union

Hi, Dovid! I looked at the diffs, and almost exactly the same material appears on both versions (I can see I gave a quick definition of "davening" and of "Kashrut"); on the previous version it appears further down on the screen, but the material survived pretty much intact. I think the weirdness occurs if extra blank lines are deleted, though I can't say for sure. I have seen this happen before, but I can't remember which article. If you have some knowledge of the subject matter I would appreciate letting me know of any mistakes I made in interpreting the data. Regards --Diannaa (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hatzalah

Dovid, Since you were involved with editing the Hatzalah article I'd like to draw your attention to two discussion that I've opened on the talk page. One, regarding external links and region information and the other regarding using the list of chapters instead of a list in the article. Thank you, Joe407 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Owning

I don't really care about that page so much and I don't want to get into an editor war, but it is you who acts like they own the page. You come every so often with an axe to grind, and remove the content. The consensus you speak of is not really there. It is only you and Afoprof who have removed the content in the past year, and more editors who have restored the content, so please refrain from hyporbole that there is a long-standing consensus. You can't assume good faith, and I can't of your actions either. Jeff3000 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Chaverim

I have nominated Chaverim, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaverim. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joe407 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Avianca727.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Avianca727.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Removed

Just to let you know, I have removed the speedy deletion tag on your article. Thank you for adding the context. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 16:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Powers Accounting Machine Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Powers (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) 11:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Methylphenidate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WOR (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) 10:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Letting the cat out of the bag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reveal (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) 10:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reveal (arts and showbusiness)

The article Reveal (arts and showbusiness) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOT, not a dictionary

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. --IShadowed 04:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. When you recently edited Van, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page E-Series (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) 12:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Mulbury Project

The article The Mulbury Project has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

While all constructive 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. Uberaccount (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Mulbury Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Brennan (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) 11:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paterson (NJT station) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Glass-Steagall and the UK and Europe -- cleanup?

Thanks for your suggestion. I think when I expanded the article in 2011 I probably tried to do too much with that section and it's gotten worse. I'll try to clean it up and also update it. Much more has happened. Thanks again for taking the time to contact me. EAFAAT (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Glass Steagall disambig category removal?

I found the Category "Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation" twice time in Glass–Steagall (disambiguation), and I'm only remove the duplicate Category. --Zaher ^(talk) 20:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Homewrecker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Golddigger

Towing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wrecker

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Homewrecker

I have reverted your additions to Homewrecker again. The existing page is not an article but a disambiguation page listing the multiple articles that already exist on Wikipedia with the title Homewrecker. If you wish to create a new article please do so. I suggest a title like Homewrecker (person). Regards. Tassedethe (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your reversion violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you wish to discuss, go ahead, but don't revert again without prior talk page discussion. Note carefully the set of pages involved: There is a Homewrecker (disambiguation) that you have not touched, while Homewrecker is a primary topic. I would also like to point out the overwhelming thinness of the set of disambig links; they would be better served by a pair of list pages than by a DAB, or a pair of category pages. However, I kept things simple by including those references in the main article, seeing that the whole result is digestible at a glance.

TL;DR my edits match WP policy, your reverts don't; if you disagree, the proper place to voice that is the talk page. There are also better ways to deal with all those songs. Dovid (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2011 St. Louis tornado may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{DEFAULTSORT:2011-04-22 St. Louis tornado

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Homewrecker". Thank you. Tassedethe (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Homewrecker a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. Indeed, the target page existed, as a redirect to the source page from which the content was switched. The content was just DAB content, I don't think there's any legality in that, at least in the US, where the courts have ruled that indexes and other compilations of informations cannot be copyrighted. However, I'm not against using the move request mechanism, but there is a consesnus-building activity on the move rightnow, s I will wait for that to complete. Dovid (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

bossy

	rock
	no Kasidith1 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sara Hurwitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Certificate (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) 11:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Temple Beth-El (Corsicana, Texas) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• College, 1898. Rabbi at Allen- town, Pa., 1892-1894; Reading, Pa., 1894-1896; and Ligonier, Ind., ]896-1900. Editor of the Jewish Home Journal, 1896-1900. Publications: "From Pulpit and Platform;" "

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jewish Theological Seminary of America may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• for teaching careers. This branch is now part of the [[Albert A. List College of Jewish Studies]].)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to BMT Brighton Line may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (Willinks) For Brighton Beach as follows: ... stopping both ways at Flatbush ''<nowiki>[Church Ave]], Parkville [Newkirk], South Greenfield [Avenue M], Gravesend [Avenue U],</nowiki>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:WPAFC!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Files for upload pages.

A few tips that you might find helpful:

• Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions.
• The reviewers' talk page is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.
• Article submissions that need reviewing can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is also a useful list which is maintained by a bot.
• You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
• Several of our members monitor the #wikipedia-en-help ^connect IRC channel, and you are welcome to join in to ask Wikipedia-related questions.
• The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect is used occasionally for internal discussion regarding the Articles for Creation process, and also serves as a recent changes feed, displaying all edits made in the Articles for Creation namespace.
• The help desk is the place where new editors can ask questions about their submissions. You are welcome to help in answering their questions.

Once again, welcome to the project. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Homewrecker

Songs that go to #2 on a major chart are usually considered notable. Also, reviews of the song are usually the kind of material that make for a notable song article. Just sayin'. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you're taking issue with. DId I claim non-notability for something that is notable? Please elucidate. 14:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Reviews of a song are usually an indication of notability, as is "making her the first female artist to send her first four singles into the country Top Ten since Deana Carter did so between 1996 and 1997." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this something to do with the Gretchen WIlson song, Homewrecker? I don't recall making comments about her song or its notability. Please provide a link to the edit you are referring to, or at least a page link and quote. Otherwise, I'm drawing a blank. Dovid (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't realizing that you had no recollection of editing the article. Anyway, I'm talking about this edit, where you put a {{notability}} tag on it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, got it. I vaguely recall that now. I think I looked at a bunch of reviews, and they were of the one-paragraph, "new release" type without any critical content, but if you've found something else, sure, of course. Dovid (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edits and talk page archives

Hello, thanks for your edits to Tow truck. It would be helpful if you could cite sources for the text you added. I've hopefully fixed the auto-archiving code on your talk page; hope you don't mind. Graham87 08:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Graham87 03:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site

Please reconsider your decision on the Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site entry. This entry is to be linked to Rfam as a new RNA family. Every Rfam entry has a corresponding wikipage. This article describes a novel influenza RNA family and is in-line with other influenza Rfam/Wikipedia pages: e.g. Influenza virus pseudoknot. This addition (for Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site), once linked to Rfam, will be valuable to both Rfam and Wikipedia. Once approved, I will also edit the main influenza article to link to this and the other influenza RNA families, to integrate it into the larger body of knowledge on influenza. Walternmoss (Walternmoss|talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walternmoss (talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandy Goodhandy

Anything in the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation" space, or any other space beginning with "Wikipedia:", goes to miscellany for deletion, not articles for deletion. I have moved it for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Roger J. Cheng

Hello Dovid. You rejected my piece on Roger J. Cheng citing it needed reilable sources? The sources used are published encycopedias and scientific journals. I am not sure how those are not reliable? Don74.70.103.68 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:74.70.103.68 Dovid (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Women's Murder Club

It's a good idea to discuss before a move. Please see a discussion at Jane Doe (TV film series). Also, notice the changes I made at the dab page (according to MOS). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you want to un-dab, you might want to be more careful. In this case you obviously chose the wrong link, and you made the same mistake in other articles as well. Richard 09:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site

Sorry for the previous note in the wrong spot (I'm not very experienced with wikipedia). Let me re-iterate that this entry is to be linked to Rfam as a new RNA family entry. There is a partnership between Rfam and Wikipedia to have short wiki entries for every family of RNAs in the database. There are hundreds of wiki articles on various RNAs. For more on the collaboration between Rfam and wikipedia see here: RNA journal submits articles to Wikipedia. I wrote this entry to be understandable to college undergrads (and up) and expect it to be useful to students and researchers. I've made made special pains to link to other wiki articles that explain the basic science behind the described work. As for "notability", this page describes an RNA family that been reported in three peer-reviewed journal articles (cited in the page). If you are still having problems with this entry, maybe you could check with the people at the Wikipedia:WikiProject RNA for additional information?

Walternmoss (Walternmoss|talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walternmoss (talk • contribs) 21:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 

I understand. I've opened a discussion about this sort of thing at the reviewer's discussion page. Basically, if I understand you correctly, you need a special case for articles notable because of their implied association with a project or a scientific database or a unique association with the Wikipedia project. Those are not explicitly covered in the notability guidelines, so I'm trying to see if there's a way it can be shoehorned in, or perhaps I've missed something, or perhaps we need a policy change. I'll keep you posted. A few further side notes to help you get more comfortable on Wiki: 1) Signing comments: whenever you put something on a talk/discussion page like this one or the one for an article, you should sign it by typing four tildes (~~~~). Otherwise, you get what you see above, which is the bot noticing that you did this and attempting to correct it by pulling article history, finding that it is your edit, and signing for you, which is awkward. 2) Signature format Your default signature has an error. It has [[User|Waltermoss]], which means "link to page 'User', but display the link as 'Waltermoss' instead." (The alias is what follows the bar in a wiki link.) So when I click your name, I get the wrong page, on a wiki article named User. I think you were just trying to rmeove the link from your signature to your un-created user page. In that case, your signature should be: Waltermoss ([[User talk:Walternmoss|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Walternmoss|contribs]]). You canmake this change in your preferences. Dovid (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and your work on this. Also, thank you very much for your instructions! Sorry for being such a "noob". Walternmoss (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Classification Tree Method

Hi, I'm a little bit puzzled about the invalid ISBNs. All references with such also list a DOI link. If you follow that, you'll reach IEEE, Springer, ACM and other reknown scientific journals listing the articles and supply the given ISBN Numbers. Can you indicate, which reference's ISBNs are are missing/problematic? Kind Regards OMPwiki (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

responded at your talk page as per below. If you resubmit the AfC for review, and notify me, I will approve it right away. Per the note below, please consider just merging the CTE content into CTM, but make sure it doesn't get WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the merged article. CTM should be primarily about CTM independent of CTE, but there can still be a substantial CTE section within it. Here's the note:

I was able to check the referenced symposia articles. It was a little hard to put some of them together with the subject, and one of the ISBN's is wrong (duplicate of the another). It is also difficult to tell whether these sources should be considered independent, as all of them see to be developers and promoters of the methodology, not "qualified bystanders" who are discussing it. Nevertheless, 'll give it a "pass" and approve it. You will probably have more difficulty with the editor. Even though it is in common use for CTM practitioners, it isn't really separately notable. I suggest just merging its content in.

- Dovid (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the confusion. I did two things:

* Added external references for the Method from Testing Books by different authors (that is, authors independent from the development of the method)

* Reviewed that duplicate ISBN thing to realize that - it is indeed correct, the two references with different article topics/titels are from the same book, a conference proceedings.

For the suggested merger CTM/CTE, I'll give the CTE article a second try with more external/independent references. If that again fails, I'll follow your advice as given above on merging.

→ AfC is again on review - OMPwiki (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ethics & Compliance Officer Association

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Ethics & Compliance Officer Association, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, and take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
• It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Dovid (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter Smith Photographer

HI and thanks for your comments.

I had made number of improvements and deleted a lot of information about the gallery etc. The awards section is verifiable on the web and I had listed them as well as a public comment on the quality of the Australian awards. Are you able to give some guidance on how I could improve this. I thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F2cphotography (talk • contribs) 03:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@F2cphotography: I'm a different reviewer than the last one. You did include a link that states that the APAA's are among the toughest awards, but that link is to a blog post. We need something a little better than that. It is a sort of third-hand notability -- blog claims APAA's are notable, APAA is awarded to Smith, so Smith is notable. But the blog isn't a very reliable source of info (anyone can write anything on a blog), and that's only to establish third-hand, for a single shot at notability. If there were lots of blog posts, and there were many forms of notability, that might wash.

I would focus more on Better Photography, or on both. You can probably show that Better Photography is a respected magazine, and the fact that they publish an article by Peter gives some notability, especially if that article is cited in books, other journals, or on the blogs of established experts.

Notability is very subjective, so it is hard to give you perfect rules, I'm just pointing out the issues, and what you can do to improve them. Perhaps another reviewer would find things fine as is, or might actually say that the improvements I suggest don't go far enough. Don't get discouraged. If you think Smith is notable, you have a reason, and all you need to do is find significance to others who think the same.

Don't forget to do some copyedits to make the whole article tone fit better, to, please. Good luck! Dovid (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marrano may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (Portuguese), which mean [[New Christian]]s; ''[[converso]]s'' (the converted); or ''[[anusim]]'' (Hebrew for "forced"; this is the preferred term among their descendants.
• *[http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryid=445&rsid=478 Resources > Medieval Jewish History > "Expulsion from Spain and The Anusim"], The Jewish History Resource Center, Dinur Center for

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Passaic River may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• url=http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofpassaic01scot/historyofpassaic01scot_djvu.txt}}</ref> }}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Srinivas Young Mens' Association may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {Orphan|date=October 2013}}{{Cleanup|date=October 2013|reason=many issues, including: it doesn't read like an encyclopedia

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

hi dovid

how are you doing today i hope you are well i look forwad to your response

ooso i forgt to sign !!!! 171.159.64.10 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 171.159.64.10 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 171.159.64.10 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 171.159.64.10 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC: Dele Jegede

Hi Dovid, I noticed your AfC decline of the article for Dele Jegede here and I was hoping I respectfully might ask you to take a second look. The article was first uploaded as a PDF by user Bolekaja, and it had some glaring problems, which I noted via cleanup tags. I converted the PDF to a bare-bones article, but since then I think some of the issues have been smoothed out, and (while Bolekaja may have jumped the gun, submitting the article prematurely for evaluation when we still need to reformat some references, etc.), I think it is in significantly better shape than a lot of stubs, and I think that the subject Jegede is notable for a number of reasons, especially for the numerous times he is used as a resource for other articles. Anyhow, I'm just asking that you give it a second pass. If it's not ready, it's not ready, and I can understand that, and you'll still be a friend to me! :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, @Cyphoidbomb: for WP:BLP, the rules are pretty strict. There must be inline references for any material that might be reasonably contested, and it is really preferable to overcite throughout the article. That's the main problem I had with the article. In addition, the "multiple prolems" template was already there, and mostly matches AfC policies for articles to be declined. For example, the resume comment, while not exact, seemed apprpriate. The article is not relaly resume style, but is clearly promotional. It needs some balance. You might also want to read WP:ACADEMIC. Do you think the criteria for notability are met? If so, please point them out. While technically, an AfC reviewer is supposed to approve the subject if it is notable despite that notability not being demonstrated in the article, in practicem reviewers can't really be expected to hunt down notability. Make the case for notability in the article, accordingto either standard WP:NOTABILITY or according to ACADEMIC. And remember, I'm unlikely to be the next reviewer, so make it dead obvious to whoevere might review it next that these problems have been fixed. FYI, if you think the article no longer deserves some of the "multiple problems" tagging, don't be shy about editing the template references. Dovid (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Glass-Steagall

I finally made the edit to the Glass-Steagall article you requested. Sorry for the long delay. I'm sure you thought I'd forgotten about it.

Along with creating a sub-article on Glass-Steagall in financial reform proposals, I added summary descriptions of that and of the sub-article on “aftermath of repeal.” A problem with summaries is people seem to edit the summaries without changing the sub-articles that are summarized. I suppose if we eliminated the summaries and just had links to the sub-articles, people would do the same by editing the article’s introduction.

I retained your linking of the “aftermath” sub-article even though I added a summary. You may want to replace the links with a list of the headings as in the other sections that contain summaries. I thought your sub-articles approach worked very well. I see a few things in the text I’ll try correct. The only somewhat significant thing is I’ll try explain why one could consider Sections 20 and 32 “the most important” part of Glass-Steagall.

After I made the change I saw your talk page request that changes not be made without discussion. I think (hope) my change is consistent with what you intended. Sorry if it isn't. In any case, sorry I didn't stick with your approach of using a colon for the sub-articles. I had it that way but made a change for a reason I can't remember. You're definitely right editors are making changes that are inconsistent with limiting the article to the four sections of the '33 Banking Act. EAFAAT (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@EAFAAT: Good work! And no worries about the talk page -- it was only about title format, and I lost that battle, more or less. If you really want to prevent editors from expanding the summaries of the sub-articles, we can turn them into templates. Most editors have no idea how to work on templates, and those that do know about them will leave them alone, understanding that they've been templated to prevent damage. Dovid (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt terrible when I saw your talk page post after making the edit. I can't complain about other people not reading those pages. I like your idea about creating templates to protect the summaries. There is so much inaccurate stuff circulating about Glass-Steagall, and people seem to love putting those things into "convenient" spots in an article even when the rest of the article shows they are false. Again, I like very much what you did to the article. I knew it was ridiculously long when I wrote it, but I figured it was more important to give an accurate account of Glass-Steagall's history. You've made it more manageable. When I get a chance I'll make the minor corrections to the other sub-articles and try spell out better the significance of the affiliation provisions.EAFAAT (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mary Young Cheney Greeley

It is I who should be thanking you for the article rework. It reads much better now. On my second pass through the article, though, I have noticed she was still referred to as Mary Cheney Young in the infobox, so I fixed that. Vycl1994 (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Vycl1994: To be honest, I'm conflicted about the full name. It seems she was primarily known as simply Mary Greeley.Dovid (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Nameless Heroes (Band)

Dear Dovid: Is there a hold up with this article, or has it been forgotten? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I was trying to figure out if they really had charted hits when other priorities (including sleep) came up. At this point, I'm not sure if I can really get back to this one. Dovid (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have several time fallen asleep in the middle of reviewing an article. It's hard to remember your thought process when you wake up the next morning. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess I should unmark it as in review? Would you be willing to take it over instead, in case I have raised false hope with the start of my review? Dovid (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Source For Your Added Info on the Young Israel Movement Page?

Do you have one? If not it ought to be removed.

DemocraticLuntz (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC reminder

On October 25 (two weeks ago tomorrow) you marked Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Nameless Heroes (Band) for reviewing. It has not been edited since. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Your recent editing history at NEMA connector shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. De728631 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@De728631: I'm actually trying to stop an edit war from occurring. Here is what I did:

1. Undid an unexplained content removal
2. When the content was removed again, put a notice on the talk page, requesting that ww avoid edit-warring, and explaining in detail why I am editing this particular text back in
3. Used the long-established practice of retaining the pre-existing version until consensus is built
4. Made sure any other edits I made to the article were not to the disputed content

Please also note that there is a connected discussion going on at AC power plugs and sockets, and that one of the editors has already violated 3RR. I generally prefer delaying ANI or ANE, because that often puts the other editor's back to the wall and prevents compromise. Sso I'm leaving that alone for now, and hoping the contentious editor is willing to sit at the table.

If you still believe that I've followed the wrong course, please let me know how, and offer concrete suggestions about how to handle such situations in the future. Dovid (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dovid, as I am not involved in the dispute which you appear to be engaged in I thought that I might offer some observations. The origins seem to lie in a discussion which took place at Talk:AC power plugs and sockets. Following a consensus there, Mautby added an obsolete devices section to NEMA connector with the edit comment Added obsolete Devices section, this involved moving one image of a non-NEMA receptacle (with refined text and a working link to replace the existing non-working link) from NEMA 10 to the new section, and the addition of three other obsolete NEMA precursors to the new section. Following a couple of minor improvements to that edit by two other editors you chose to reinstate the image and text which had been moved, reverting to the non-working link, with the edit description Restore unnecessarily removed deletion (sourced). It could have MOVED to the obsolete section, but it was instead removed. While not directly on topic, it compares to on-topic info. Had you looked at the diff you would have seen that the image and improved text had been inserted in the new section! It would, perhaps, have been helpful if Mautby had also referenced the discussion in the edit description, but the fact that two other editors were adding refinements should have alerted you to observe that the addition was not unwelcome.

Mautby's subsequent reversion of your edit had the description Undid revision 582161617 by Dovid (talk)No need for this information to appear twice, it IS shown under obsolete devices! You then reverted that with the description: Reverted to revision 582162289 by Dovid (talk): Restores established material that was removed without consensus., again ignoring the fact that the material had not been removed, and that you were reinstating the non-working link in the reference.

You then, with no edit comment at all, deleted the Obsolete Devices section, does that not constitute edit warring?

I think if you look carefully at Mautby's edits you will find that 3RR has not actually been breached.

In addition to all of this, another editor has noted at Talk:AC power plugs and sockets that "I find it interesting that Dovid is arguing that the connector text and image which Mautby moved from the section on NEMA 10 (which it is not) should be replaced there, and also that it should be removed completely (I would like to see any non-NEMA connectors, including the Aussie and Hubbel, removed.) This is very inconsistent, as is the insistence that a broken link should be used rather than a working one." How can you argue for both inclusion and removal?

I suggest that you thoroughly examine your own behaviour and the accuracy of your edits before accusing others of being contentious. JohnJuliusFeinstein (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@JohnJuliusFeinstein: Are you related to either the senator or the family of rabbis?

Your input is valuable, but I'm not so sure about some of it. I have examined my own behavior, and I'm not 100% proud -- if I had analyzed the situation earlier, I would have seen where it was headed, and delayed my edits -- all in good faith by the way -- until some discussion could get going. I'm not sure why you think there was no 3RR, he made three reverts within 24 hours, and they don't meet the exceptions. I've steped out of eidting these articles for a bit, and enlisted some other editors to actually build a consensus.

Note that I didn't delete obsolete devices in response to Mautby. It was part of an organic set of changes -- when I saw the info had been moved further down, I examined the section, and much of the material seemed out of place. I looked for other articles with similar material, found the more general AC plugs one with its obsolete section, and decided to move the non-NEMA material there. Then I realized it would work better if all of the obsolete types were together, so I moved the remaining two entries at the same time, and added a {{main}} type reference to it. Reasonable, I think, but in the ocntext of the othe rthings that went on, easy to misinterpret, which I regret. Dovid (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of sanctions

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

GoCardless

Hi @Dovid, thanks for your comments on the GoCardless article for creation. I've added a history section and some additional press - can you take another look, or should I wait until it comes around for review again? (It's my first new article on Wikipedia - forgive the noob questions!) Greysteilb (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Greysteilb: You have definitely improved the notability. The tone still needs work. Think like a non-investor, someone outside the industry, who gets interested in the topic. What information are they looking to see about players in the "newfangled financials" sector? Yes, they may want to know about corporate goings-on like renamings, investors in the company, funding, and all that. But that's probably the less interesting part for them. They want to know what you guys do, why you do it, what makes it different, how similar/dissimilar it is to competing payments systems, who uses you, who you think might want to use you. Build a narrative, a story. Then make it a little dry, put a summary of these dry facts up front, break up that interesting narrative into useful chunks, but weave the chunks together in that interesting story, i.e., have there be a flow from chunk to chunk. I'm not saying that's the only way or even best way to write an article for Wikipedia, but it's how I've tried to do it -- it keeps it fact-oriented, but with a comprehensible story from beginning to end, and I think that's what an encyclopedia article should be. Make sure not to get too bogged down in minutiae, keep it readable. I hope that helps.Dovid (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dovid: Thanks - I've re-written the "Service" section to try to give a better impression of what GoCardless does, and I'll keep the advice on building a narrative in mind for my next article. I'd also like to change the headline for the article, but I'm wary of making it read like an advert so have left the info on funding there for now (with a bit less detail). Really appreciate your time helping me get up to speed.

@Dovid: Took my eye off this for a couple of months (broke my hand so typing fell off my list of extra-curricular activities). It looks like the GoCardless page I created has been completely deleted - did you or someone else decide to decline it? Don't think I got any notification - would love to finish it if the old content is findable and just needs suggested changes implementing. Greysteilb (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Greysteilb: 'twasn't me. Pages in "test space" that are abandoned for a while are subject to deletion. You might be able to go to one of the amdin boards and ask to have it restored. Usually, I think deleted pages still exist in a dank, ugly part of Wikipedia that admins can access. Dovid (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Dovid:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 75th Street – Elderts Lane (BMT Jamaica Line) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (see stairway access below). The New York City GIS portal labels the station as "75th St–Eldert Ln"), with the "s" remove from Elderts.<ref name="ridership"/><ref>{{Cite web|url = http://maps.nyc.gov/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Dovid. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Twistlock

Hi there. Your talk page response in twistlock was staggeringly unhelpful. Presumably you're an expert on the subject of containerisation; I'd love you to answer them properly. If you can communicate this information in such a way it can be simply copied and pasted into the article, that would be great! Otherwise you might want to ask one of the other editors to formulate it in English. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ashley Pomeroy: I haven't been on Twistlock in quite some time, I don't know why you're suddenly trying to catch my attention for a talk page post from long ago. Also, I hope it was unintentional, but your message comes across as very arrogant. "Staggeringly unhlepful," "formulate it in English" - those are fairly insulting phrases.

Allow me to reword your entry:

"Hi there. Your talk page response in twistlock was terse, and I had difficulty understanding it. Perhaps, with your expertise, you could answer with some more detail and make the operation of the device clearer. I know it was a year ago, but the question is still open."

No assumptions, no vitriol, much better. Dovid (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Relax duplicate linking rule (again!)

Hi Dovid,

You might be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albert Lucas (Jewish activist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Settlements. 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) 09:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Striped legless lizard page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Palestinian territories may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2013 in order to refer to the [[Palestinian National Authority]]; it was replaced in UN Secretariat]] communications by the term [[State of Palestine]] starting in 2012,<ref name="Gharib">{{cite web|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Dovid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. 20:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dovid. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite BDE

Template:Cite BDE has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Gedalia Dov Schwartz page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The "includeonly" trick

I've just edited Glass–Steagall legislation to allow the section "Post-financial crisis reform debate" to be able to be edited in the usual way. It's the first time I've see this {{: trick, and I'm not impressed, although I can see from your comment back in 28 October 2013‎ why you thought it might help. No other articles seem to need this. Snori (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snori: I would like to keep things peaceful. ALl efforts to improve content are good efforts. fighting But your note was demeaning and combative, and not in the spirit of WikiPedia. A debate over the merits of the partial transclusion technique would be fine. So would a discussion over whether the content should be trimmed or not, rather than making a unilateral decision to remove the content. Are you taking stewardship for keeping content of the two articles in sync? Dovid (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've no intention of picking a fight, it was simply that both I and the other editor who commented in "Talk" couldn't see what 'magic' was happening. In 10 years here, and with thousands of edits I've never seen this before - to me that makes it a "trick". (I have now read your three year old "Transcluded discussion" section in the Talk page, but I would not have known what that meant had I seen it earlier).

I like to see articles that are clear and readable, and in my opinion this cluster or article in this area is not a good example. Having said that, It sounds like it's been much worse in the past, and you're on the side of good ; while I'm not interested, or knowledgable enough, to take this much further - so feel free to edit and/or revert my contribs as you see fit. Snori (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dovid. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia Library - Newspapers.com.
Message added 17:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Note this email was sent via Meta --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

On Newspaperarchive.com

Hey, I have yet to get a response to my request for you to be added, so they probably haven't got to it. Hope this helps, and sorry for being so bad about responding, been quite inactive. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at United States Seventh Fleet, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Chris troutman: I understand your concern. I thought I did get a reliable source, but must have slipped the edit. I would like to remind you however that WP:NOCITE does not recommend removing the material. There are better ways of handling content sourcing issues. Dovid (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point. NOCITE is a guideline. WP:V which says "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." is a policy. I'm in the habit of reverting anything without an inline cite. I'm honestly not trying to be BITEy, so I apologize if it came off that way. I have to consider marginal utility costs in my editing. I seldom look for sources myself although I will on occasion. The citation you just added is fine and I have no problem with it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dovid. 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)

PARTRANS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PARTRANS. Since you had some involvement with the PARTRANS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dovid. 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)