User talk:MauriceYMichaud
MauriceYMichaud, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi MauriceYMichaud! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion nomination of David V. Allain
[edit]
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.
A tag has been placed on David V. Allain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mariyaismail (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of David V. Allain
[edit]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.
A tag has been placed on David V. Allain, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mariyaismail (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]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) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing
[edit]Hi there. Please don't change information without changing the associated citations, as you did here - those citations support what was there previously, and they don't support what you changed it to. If there's disagreement between sources that warrants an addition instead. More broadly, generally speaking Find-a-Grave is not considered a reliable source, per WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input, Nikkimaria. I thought I was doing the right thing here because I didn't remove the original reference but instead added the external link to Find-a-Grave. I agree and understand how that site is not considered reliable, except in this case there's actually a photo of the gravestone which clearly shows the year of birth as 1902, and everything else matched. So perhaps this is a case where Find-a-Grave is actually more accurate than the original reference? :) MauriceYMichaud (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's possible it is accurate, it's possible it's not. But if someone comes along later and they see a date with a citation next to it, they should be able to assume that that citation supports that date. External links aren't meant to be citations, and definitely aren't meant to be understood as citations for specific claims. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ah ha! So this tells me I really need to learn how to do citations properly! It's tempting to just plug in the raw URL and hope that someone more wiki knowledge like you would come along and fix it, but I'm sure that must drive you insane, not to mention that if I want to do this, I should do it right or not bother doing it at all. :)
- And what if two citations contradict each other slightly? In this case, the old citation is no longer accessible, or at least it's not to me.
- By the way, I really *do* appreciate that you're taking the time to engage in this discussion. MauriceYMichaud (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's possible it is accurate, it's possible it's not. But if someone comes along later and they see a date with a citation next to it, they should be able to assume that that citation supports that date. External links aren't meant to be citations, and definitely aren't meant to be understood as citations for specific claims. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- If the citations contradict each other, you have two options. You can look around for more citations and see if there seems to be a general consensus - if ten sources say A and only one says B, we probably want to say A. Alternatively if there's really no agreement you can present a range of sources: "Source 1 and 2 say A, but Source 3 and 4 say B". A gravestone can be one of those sources, but we can't assume in the case of contradiction that it's automatically the authoritative source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed! Even if it's engraved in stone, although it's definitely tempting to go with that... It reminds me of a story a friend of mine who's originally from Alberta told me. She's second-generation Ukranian-Canadian, and while visiting a graveyard, one inscription read, "Rest in Piece." I'm certain that was not the intended sentiment.
- Bottom line, though, I'll be a little slower at the trigger going forward. What satisfies my needs for the project I am working on may not meet the standard that we should wish to have for Wikipedia. But I assure you that you have given me some very useful tips and insights.
- Best wishes from a chilly and damp Montreal! MauriceYMichaud (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- If the citations contradict each other, you have two options. You can look around for more citations and see if there seems to be a general consensus - if ten sources say A and only one says B, we probably want to say A. Alternatively if there's really no agreement you can present a range of sources: "Source 1 and 2 say A, but Source 3 and 4 say B". A gravestone can be one of those sources, but we can't assume in the case of contradiction that it's automatically the authoritative source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)