User talk:M.J.E.

The article David Alexander Smith has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published^[1] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,^[2] and independent of the subject.^[3]

• If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.^[4]
• Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

You article contained nothing of the sort above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Should be as far as WP:MOS is concerned much less spaced out and prominent in the article - and really should be in blockquote - ie smaller text etc - cheers - SatuSuro 01:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC) sincerest apologies - i seem to have buggered the format trying for small - i dunno but your use of blockquote didnt look right, and my use of small is even worse - hope we get it in the end. SatuSuro 01:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

History section begs for more detail otherwise the controversy section overshadows the importance of all the factors that developed RN over the decades SatuSuro 01:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on GeoCities.ws 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 web content, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Raziman T V (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Over two weeks later, the article still does not indicate notability, so I have tagged it for speedy deletion again. This does not mean that the site will never be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, only that at this point in time, the notability criteria for websites do not seem to be met. --bonadea contributions talk 12:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know, discussion of Trevor's WP article is currently going on during his program - that's why there's so much activity. Probably not much you can do about it at present - but keep on eye out for any potentially serious problems if you like. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I understand that you may disagree with my input on the Trevor Chappell page and that's fine. However, when removing something because you believe it is a trivial statement - I would appreciate that you not use a pointless, trivial and redundant question back in your description. I quote, with the particular area bolded, "(Removed trivial statement (so what? - someone is sick quite often and someone else fills in for them)". I'm new to this, and learning as I go. I believe their would have been a more polite and appropriate way to deal with this correction. Thanks, Rowlex.

The article Graphire Music Press has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article does not meet the general notability guideline. This article does not cite any references or sources.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Koolabsol (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello M.J.E.! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 0 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Roger Hicks (author) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The article Igor Engraver has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. I found only one source for borderline notability, and that's not enough. There's no valid merge target.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. wumbolo ^^^ 15:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

roomette: "... a diagram rather than a description..." Would you draw a floor plan on paper, then upload a photo ? Someone else could make an .svg.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there,

It seems that someone using the same IP address as you has received warnings regarding their editing behaviour.

This could happen because they are someone using the same router or computer as you. However, I can assure you these warnings are not applied to your registered account but to the IP address.

See WP:BLOCKIP for more details. If you are affected by any IP block it would often only be temporary.

Cheers,

AussieWikiDan (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hallo. Thanks for your reply.

I don't understand it. No-one shares my computer - not sure what a router is; if it's in my computer, then no-one shares that either. I'm not quite sure what an IP address is - does sharing it effectively mean sharing the same computer? - or could it be something broader where several different people share an IP address - different people in the same district, for instance, or using the same Internet provider?

If there is someone else doing things that can possibly be attributed to me, that is something I find rather concerning. M.J.E. (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, WP:BLOCKIP is a good page to understand more about the process. Sometimes an IP address can be shared amongst larger groups than just a household. Wikipedia does limited blocks on IP addresses because it may affect innocent parties.

Hope that helps. You can also ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you have any more questions.

Cheers, AussieWikiDan (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Australian Contemporary Music Ensemble, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hallo.

It is true I created and wrote this article; but I was doing it at the request of a friend who wanted this article put up and gave me the information to base it on.

I don't know why he asked me to do it instead of doing it himself, because he knows far more about the topic than I do. Perhaps, because he has connections with people who were associated with A.C.M.E. (Australian Contemporary Music Ensemble, a once-prominent chamber group performing recent music), he thought it would avoid conflict of interest for me to do it instead of him - I have no connection myself with the subject of the article.

Anyway, I told him the article had been removed and put into draft form because of insufficient sources, and that he had to provide more information and sources; but it is up to him to supply those, and he hasn't done so yet. If he is too slow on this and it has to be deleted altogether, so be it.M.J.E. (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, M.J.E.. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Australian Contemporary Music Ensemble".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I actually started the article on behalf of someone else who wanted an article on the topic, and earlier I reminded them time was ticking by for this, and they needed to come up with references - but they didn't. I don't know enough about the topic to work on it myself without their input.

M.J.E. (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hiya, MJE.

Just dropped by to say thank you for:

• your ongoing, good, well-intended and well-worded editing
• your consistent use of edit summaries
• your readiness to collaborate with other editors, on their, your or articles' talk pages
• your never having deleted any discussions from your own talk page

These are fine attributes; would that all editors followed suit :)

I guess you had thought of creating your own User page?

Plus that would give you a blue user name, & prejudiced editors like me assume blue suggests greater trustworthiness.

It's always pleasant to see what editors stand for :)

Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit of a surprise; thank you for your kind words. I didn't know there was anyone who reviewed editors' work to assess its quality.

I never created a user page for myself because, to be honest, I don't know what I would put on it. I'm not sure I have much to say on the site beyond the edits I do, which are just any time I think I can add something to either an article or its discussion page which I think might improve the article.

I'm curious to know how having a user page might make me look more trustworthy to some editors. I would have thought one would judge someone's work on its own merits, not on what they choose to say about themselves.M.J.E. (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I usually only check a list of a user's contributions if I suspect poor editing, but I'm not sure what drew me to yours. I have no oversight rights or anything special, but I do like to correct spelling, grammar, fight vandalism and give tips on occasions.

So, why do some users create their own user page ... vanity, pride, to focus their efforts ... I don't know. But I've often felt the editing world is enhanced by attempts at user pages. One gains a sense of what an editor stands for, somehow.

My user page is poor cf many but, if I might be so bold, here's a reasonable selection of user pages, which you might (or indeed not!) care to browse if interested.

Anyway, just a passing thought. Happy editing. Trafford09 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh - I forgot to address some of your points, so here goes. Having a user page arguably means that an editor goes the extra mile. Vandals, for instance may well eschew user pages. Hence the leaning towards trustworthiness for editors with user pages.

Absolutely, I agree one would judge someone's work on its own merits, not on what they choose to say about themselves. It's just first impressions.

Obviously, having a user page is a personal choice, and AFAIK not even a guideline.

Trafford09 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If there's a problem, it's with "disinterested" as an adjective, not with "disinterest" as a noun. Entry https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disinterested has a usage note, while https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disinterest has no usage note... AnonMoos (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I've been working on adding new info to this entry and I took your comments to heart - I have edited Mr. Ladd's early history to eliminate the claim that he introduced small reel-to-reel tape recorders and more accurately state he was one of the first to import Japanese recorders - thank you for your comments and I look forward to hearing what you think! WmArbaugh (talk) WmArbaugh (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)