User talk:Eruditess

Hello Eruditess! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User Eruditess, and thank you for the barnstar! I'm quite flattered, I have never received one, yours is the first! I see you and I both enjoy conservative articles, I just joined this wikiproject, (Wikiprojects are cool special interest groups designed to bring editors towards certain articles in need of attention on a particular subject): --MaximusEditor (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
MaximusEditor (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Flynn Coleman (September 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DGG were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

To show a book significant, you need substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads

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:Flynn Coleman 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:Flynn Coleman, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eruditess! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. IMDb is not an acceptable or reliable source. USAstrong is not an independent or reliable source, neither is Townhall.com.

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 User:Eruditess/sandbox 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 User:Eruditess/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Flynn Coleman

Hello, Eruditess. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Flynn Coleman, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the approval on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

Looking at your edit history, I get the impression you're also interested in ensuring 2ary sources and WP in turn accurately portray the 1ary.

On a related matter, of the 11 candidates in the 2020 Dem primary with a separate page that details their political positions, only 4 (Buttigieg, Harris, Sanders, Gabbard) have corresponding sub-§§ on their bio pages. Of those, Gabbard's is the one that most severely under-represents the full suite of what appears on those separate political positions pages. Buttigieg has almost as many sub-§§ on his bio page as on his political positions page — 12 vs 15, whereas Gabbard has only 6 out of 44. Harris and Sanders have on the order of 20 position §§ spread over their tenures in different elected offices.

One way to address this would be to bring over a reduced version of the material from Gabbard's pol pos page.

I was hoping you could take a look at that page. Any feedback you could provide on how that might best be done would be appreciated. Humanengr (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork of the monastic community of Mount Athos

Hi, I saw your edits on TPUSA and visited your user page, only to discover you have overlapping interests in Christianity and art. Which reminds me, I’ve been meaning to find someone like you for some time to ask a question. You may be familiar with the monastic community of Mount Athos. I watched a unique documentary about them many years ago, and there was a moment in the film where the monks revealed a treasure trove of Christian art that few people had ever seen. It was frankly amazing, but it’s been difficult to impossible to find anything else about this. I’ve always been interested in creating an article about this artwork "gallery" of sorts, so I was wondering if you had any other sources to work from to create an article. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Viriditas , I would definitely like to collaborate on something pertaining to this particular subject. Let me do some research and ask my family and friends where I might find some good source on this topic. Also happen to remember the name of the documentary? Eruditess (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it’s been so long since I watched the documentary that I don’t recall the name, however it should be easy to find. Again, thanks for looking into this. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: looks like the article in question cites Graham Speake, Mount Athos: Renewal in Paradise, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2002, and links to at least one documentary on the subject. There’s a YouTube account by the name of "C14radioactiv" that links to two documentaries, an English and French one. If you speak French, you’re in luck, as it documents many of the artworks. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi Eruditess, to begin, thank you for your contributions to the project. I was going to email you but noticed your email is not available, so if you don't have any objections would you be so kind as to email me from my user talk page? Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 12:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You've been notified of discretionary sanctions in certain topic areas--it's still on the top of this page, a notification placed there by Doug Weller. This is an edit that might be invoked to topic-ban you from editing articles within the American Politics area. I am a bit baffled. It's nice that you add sources, but "In a statement from the University, witnesses reported Antifa contributed to the fighting as well as pepper spraying" is not OK. First of all the grammar is just absolutely tortured (no witness was likely to report something inside some statement, and the relationship between "pepper spraying" and "fighting" is unclear), and while it is true that ONE of the sources says that the university report said "Some witnesses reported antifa contributed to the fighting and pepper spraying", it is also true that BOTH sources said that among the fighters were people who reportedly were Proud Boys outfits. So, you include Antifa, mentioned in only one source, but not the Proud Boys, mentioned in both: that's the kind of thing that these discretionary sanctions were designed to prevent. Please be more careful. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Drmies for clarifying that. As always I appreciate constructive criticism and will strive to uphold Wikipedia standards. I will be honest, The discretionary sanctions post Doug Weller posted isn't very clear. It is a generic notification that explicitly states that:

"... This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date ...".

With no actual specific reference included in these "discretionary sanctions" notifications, how is an editor suppose to know when/how they committed an infraction? I couldn't honestly tell you what edit Doug Weller was referring to.

Upon reviewing of the WP:RS that was cited, both Proud boys and Antifa should be mentioned in the edit. That I agree upon 100%. This was an error on my part. Now if you would have come on to my talk page and politely and civilly asked me to self revert or amend my edit to include "Proud Boys".( Which is what the 4th pillar of Wikipedia encourages - WP:5P4) I happily would have abided. Or via WP:PRESERVE, perhaps add/insert "Proud Boys" into the edit and fix the grammar rather than remove it entirely. I do believe that collaboration is the key to making great articles and appreciate you drawing my attention to ways I can improve my own editing. Eruditess (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kathy Wakile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bravo. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Jeopardy!

Jeopardy! has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]