User talk:Goatchurch

This user may have left Wikipedia. Goatchurch has not edited Wikipedia since 27 August 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Great job of finding and adding all the sources to Wood Green ricin plot thats exactly what wikipedia needs. Hypnosadist 23:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random passer by says: thank you for the Talbot_Street_bomb-making_haul page.

Please see Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon ("Unexplained" deletions). It explains why I have merged Serious Fraud Office investigation into the Al Yamamah corruption allegations into Al Yamamah.

Also please use edit summaries. You made major changes to articles (including removing valid information) on a controversial subject. Letting other users know what you are doing is important. Thanks for your time -- Mark83 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comments. Given our discussion is centred around Al Yamamah, I've transferred the discussion to Talk:Al Yamamah. Better I think not only for relevancy but also for other users to contribute if they wish. Mark83 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... for the kind words regarding the Steven Milloy article. You should take a look at Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming... reads kind of like an uncritical book report on what looks to me like Exxon-funded denialism. (Was that too strong)? Brought to you by the George Marshall Institute. MastCell 18:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with our policy on the biographies of living person, your article on Daniel Johnson has been severely trimmed. DS 16:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) . I guess that's what we need http://www.sourcewatch.org/ for, because in the wikipedia world bad journalism does not exist, even though you cannot move for it. Goatchurch 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Mr Johnson wrote in to complain about how Unbalanced and Unfair the article was. While I may not agree with the majority of Mr Johnson's statements as represented in his writings, he was correct in that it was not strictly balanced or fair. DS 17:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really helps to know it was a tip-off and who it was by. It's interesting that he appealed to your authority to wipe out the content, rather than editing the article himself to add "balance" with reference to writings he feels are more representative of his talent. You pointed out that he could do this, I hope. Is it okay to include selected sourced excerpts without comment? Setting aside the issue of being able to destroy evidence, I'd leave out the one that got deleted from the web, although I know someone who has a hard copy.

I'm really counting on the hope that somewhere deep in the bowels of wikipedia is a list of these incidents (Be nice if it was published). Word gets around these people, for sure. Pretty soon the entire history of the neocon movement will be rewritten by our own fair hands. And then we will be doomed to repeat it. Goatchurch 09:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the Infobox Cave to Goatchurch Cavern (wouldn't be related to your username?) & Swildon's Hole. I had looked for this Infobox & not found it - Ive just realised you created this in the last few days. Can you tell me if the diffculty grade are listed &/or explained anywhere? Would you be able to add this box to the others in Caves of the Mendip Hills as I don't have all the data for the Infoboxes ( although I have got the Barrington & Stanton book "Mendip: The complete caves & a view of the hills" from the library this morning).— Rod ^talk 13:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm no caving expert & only got into doing these caves because I've been doing other stuff about Mendip Hills (as I live next door in the Chew Valley). There are lots of other topic areas which are just as "far behind" as caving. I'm not sure of the best way to use infoboxes when more than one applies - I've had this with Lakes/reserviors which are also SSSI's etc & not found/created a good solution. NB in the Mendips cave/SSSI also applied to Banwell Caves, Banwell Ochre Caves, Compton Martin Ochre Mine and Lamb Leer as well as Thrupe Lane Swallet.— Rod ^talk 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put your suggestion about Template:Geobox Protected Area particularly for areas which are SSSis + caves, lakes etc to User:Suicidalhamster who has been working on Template:Infobox SSSI Map & started a discussion on the talk page. The transition looks a bit complicated though. For Lamb Leer I'd prefer a single page with sections rather than 2 seperate pages for the same place.— Rod ^talk 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Geobox Rivers on River Chew - see what you think? Re access restrictions - do you know where that data is available & how it is kept up to date?— Rod ^talk 09:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new link on Fat Worm Blows a Sparky. If you're Julian Todd, then I doff my cap to you sir. The gameplay may well have been fustrating, but the thing still had atmosphere. Marasmusine 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion is to modify it to indicate a cave system vs. a single cave Carlsbad Caverns vs. Tom Sawyer Cave. You are also welcome to add the template to my article, Spring Valley Caverns, and see also Cold Water Spring State Preserve, which touches on an important cave system. My current magnum opus, which gets into caves, karst topography actually, is Driftless Area.--Ace Telephone 23:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my personal opinion that CUCC's expo website should be the definitive source of information on those caves. We seem to have a very hard time keeping it up to date. I feel that time spent duplicating and re-formatting this information for Wikipedia is better spent maintaining the website. I understand your point that the media likes to use Wikipedia, but would rather they went to the source. If our website isn't user-friendly enough perhaps we should make it more accessible.

However, I think a cave wikiproject is a good idea, because there are certainly caves which merit Wikipedia articles. I will assist when I have the time, and try and keep the information which is posted on CUCC caves correct and well-organized. However, I think our first priority should be the website, and am disturbed by the idea of diverting web traffic from it to an inferior duplicate, posted on a site which is supposed to be an encyclopedia, when we haven't even gotten it right in the first place. -Halidecyphon 15:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not supposed to duplicate or reflect the CUCC expo site. No uncited original information should be there. Think of it as a very very brief executive summary that gives pointers to the definitive information and acts like the text in an index card catalogue filed under the category "Caving expeditions".

The WP page can be an interface between the info on the definitive CUCC expo website to a place where other caves and caving expeditions might be cited which has the potential to evolve into something structured. Perhaps it will help to show the obvious shortcomings with the real website when seen in the context to what other expeditions state. Ideally there should be some level of consistency and compatibility between all the expedition websites to the extent that in the distant future we'll all use the same CMS. Once that happens, stating things about caves and caving clubs in WP will become redundant, but it will have served its purpose by being part of the process of initially gathering the basic structured information together in a place we are all more likely to put it.

Also, WP is a place we can outsource some of the information in the website, such as on surveying, drawing up, SRT, prospecting, and a rescue guide that's easier to read (ie reading it first makes the big definitive one easier to swallow). All articles would include links to alternative diatribes on these subjects. This means you'll find them, eg the Guide to cave Rescue from OUCC. Maybe a person in each club might suddenly have the same bright idea to get together and combine them! This tool opens up a process for getting there, since such collaboration has not yet blossomed in fifty years, and shows no signs of doing so. There's a process for putting the basic principles into context in WP, such as at Hypothermia#First_aid which can then migrate to wikibooks once it's recognized that it doesn't fit: [Transwiki:Wilderness_first_aid#Exposure]. In the process one might even learn about new stuff, such as Paradoxical undressing or Terminal burrowing.Goatchurch 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Hope you're right. Care to join the WikiProject? -Halidecyphon 12:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have an interest in UN democracy. Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I spotted this new article because I'd got Gragareth on my watchlist - I'm a walker rather than a caver. I've added location info to internationalise the article, but I wonder if you could expand on "LUSS". I suspect it's Lancaster University Speleological Society, but I'm not sure... and there's nothing in Wikipedia (Luss = Scottish village only, not so much as a disambiguation link). I wonder whether the Cave Infobox template ought to be expanded, or at least annotated, so that "location" includes county and country - especially when the location is a redlink like Leck Fell. I've also added location context to Lost John's Cave. Both articles read very much like extracts from a guide for cavers, rather than items in a general encyclopedia... perhaps you could add some sort of an introductory sentence about them being of interest to cavers, to lead into the "four major vertical routes" bit etc? Cheers, PamD (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, You might like to have a look at Rowton cave and Rowten Pot. From OS map and the linked database, Rowten with an E seems to be the right spelling - but I'm not clear whether there's a distinction between R Cave and R Pot (the R Cave article has redlinks to Rowton Pot...). I wondered about just Moving the Rowton Cave article to Rowten Cave, but thought you might like to have a go at making sense of it all instead! Lots of redirects needed, to pick up the pieces and prevent any future confusion. (Spotted this pair while wandering through Category:Caves of Yorkshire) PamD (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying these up! I've added a couple more redirects, from Rowten Cave and Rowton Pot, to deter anyone from accidentally re-creating the confusion. PamD (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Located map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, no, no I am not. At this point (in the low hundreds) a lot of issues are still being dealt with for the same time, the only thing that keeps getting renewed is when the Council re-ups the peacekeepers in Cyprus every 6 months, and I suppose there could just be one page for accepted/rejected applications to the UN. When things start to get redundant I'll follow your example on UNSC 1267. I expect that at least a few resolutions will be combined later anyway, if you see anything that strikes you feel free to merge it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrandit (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that someone noticed and found my (modest) addition to that page useful. The person you really should thank is wikisource:User:Physchim62. Regarding your question, I've added some more details about the process I went though to verify what I said in the history comment, on the talk page. Let me know if you have further questions. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much for your help! That is so nice of you to take the time to help out a new editor like me, and I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate it. I'll work on changing the links on my temporary sources page. Do you mind if I include your info about making the links so any editors who use my sources page can take advantage of that helpful information, too?

Several editors of former Yugoslavia articles have been trying to find out if there is a template for citing ICTY documents. I have asked for help at Talk:International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law but no answers have been forthcoming as of yet. Thank you again for your kind help. Civilaffairs (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

My instructions are to be used by everyone. I wish I had time to look for ICTY documents, but sadly I have too many other projects and must refrain from getting sucked into any more. Often reports are delivered to the Security Council, and they'll have all the document ids within them-- once you have those, that's most of the way there. Please let me know of any SC or GA documents you're having difficulty finding; I'm quite on top of that problem and it won't take me long.Goatchurch (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of UNIPSIL, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sierra/2008/0804uniosil.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hypermobility (travel), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 86.10.14.145 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sure, I'll put a few on my list. jamescp 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International Day for Natural Disaster Reduction, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.gdrc.org/doyourbit/10_10-disasters.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your deletion of the paragraph in Kayak diving because, although I understand your reason in the edit summary, I don't think removal actually improves the article (which is small enough as it is). If you feel strongly about it, please feel free to discuss it at Talk:Kayak diving#Safety cover. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Materialise NV has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page does not have any particular assertion of notability. Also smells of an advert. Could not find evidence this meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP

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. Triplestop x3 15:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Young Britons' Foundation, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

was there a problem with my edits or something? say, maybe you should get the default value on that silly checkbox changed. Goatchurch 14:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Ybfhung2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed a note about your interest in organizing caving information. I am interested in getting involved. Have a number of pictures of caves around my area in Canada.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

unreferenced software article with no indication of notability

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dialectric (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DSCF0427.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 05:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ukcave has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bob Re-born (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You (and some colleagues) seem to be doing some great work on the Caves of the Mendip Hills, but could I request that you don't remove the context information eg that it is a cave, that it is in the Mendip Hills, that it is in Somerset, England etc (as you did with this edit). This sort of information is useful to those which do not have an intimate knowledge and, to my mind, is more important in the lead than the date it was "first entered by University of Bristol Spelæological Society" as the cave existed for thousands of years before that.— Rod ^talk 12:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Andy Mabbett here because I did not want to further clutter the TFD but I now wish I hhad involved you too. Do you want to comment? Thincat (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Base page of Therion (software) created

Martin Sluka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.41.201 (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Sluka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msluka (talk • contribs) 08:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent efforts adding infoboxes to articles. When adding an infobox that contains coordinates, please check to make sure it will not interfere with any existing title coordinates in the article. For instance, your edits to Lost John's Cave caused such a conflict. If this is unclear, please let me know. Keep up the good work. —Stepheng3 (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks It is first shot. I'll add more infos soon.

That conflict was caused by my changes in the ukcave that automatically generates the coord field to save everyone having to type it twice.Goatchurch 10:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi- are you generating your signature by hand, or is it coming out of your preferences? In any case, signatures need to have a link to the user's page, user talk page, or contribs; see WP:SIGLINK. tedder (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ah, like this? Goatchurch (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bueno! tedder (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what the function of the BCRA Grade in the UK Caving infobox is? I'm probably being thick, but the only BCRA Grade I know is the survey grade, and as a cave can have many surveys, that doesn't seem to make sense. Is it intended to reflect the difficulty of the cave? If so, as far as I am aware (although I am very happy to be corrected), this is simply a subjective view of the Guide Book authors, and has no BCRA backing. Also, it obviously depends on where you go in a cave - Bar Pot to GG Main Chamber is a little easier than Bar Pot to Hallucination Aven. The reason why I ask is that I have just provided an infobox for Excalibur Pot, and I got a little confused. Langcliffe (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you have certainly hit upon one of the fundamental flaws to do with grading of caves when there are many routes. As to your questions: that bcra_grade value for difficulty is a total error on my part when I put it in (I don't have time to hack the template right now to correct it. It should be turned back to "difficulty" to be consistent with Infobox cave). It is defined by the guidebook and there is not even a nationally recognized set of definitions for difficulties. (eg in mendip the grade is out of 4, not 5). It is not a completely subjective measure, because some things are harder than others. Maybe one should reference it directly from the guidebook, but dereference the number into the guidebook description. eg don't write "Grade 3", but look at the table where it says Grade 3 equals "moderate with some vertical", and write that instead. Could try this idea and see if it works on a few, and then put it into the guidance if it does.Goatchurch (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I still maintain that the grading is subjective, since there is no absolute standard, but that's a nicety. One problem, of course, is that SRT has totally changed the gradings given by some of the current Guide Books - Nick Pot, for example, is classified as Grade IV-V, but it only has a couple pitches. A big pitch on ladder, however, was a major obstacle but it isn't using SRT. I actually don't think the Grade is very useful in the context of Wikipedia. Langcliffe (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the finer points of grading. I agree. For Wikipedia I think it's worth distinguishing only between (a) walk-in types like Aveline's_Hole or Great Douk, (b) something an average working caver can do, and (c) famously hard, don't go there, like Quaking.Goatchurch (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the links generated by {{UN document}} are to a site that doesn't seem to work anymore, and you seem to have been the major creator of the template. Do you know of another resource that we could point these links to? Anomie⚔ 23:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NZ Parliament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Goatchurch, I noticed your name was under the participants' list of WikiProject United Nations. I wanted to invite you to contribute to the advancement of this project. Here's how you can do so: 1. Select the latest CC BY SA publications for which no articles have been created yet available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_Nations/Open_Access_text/Education_publications 2. Follow the instructions available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Adding_open_license_text_to_Wikipedia 3. Add the text to Wikipedia (either by creating new articles or adding content to existing ones). Since these are available under CC BY SA, you can copy/paste content and/or edit if need be. 4. Attribute the text using the 'Free-content attribution' template in the 'Sources' section. 5. Add your contribution in the table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_Nations/Open_Access_text/Education_publications Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions! Looking forward to working with you on enriching Wikipedia, one article at a time:)! C.recalde — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.recalde (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Goatchurch! I was performing new pages patrol, and I came across your new article on The Under Presents. I'm going to mark the article as reviewed, which means it will be released to be indexed by search engines, but for notability concerns, before I do, more citations should be given where appropriate to reliable, independent sources that give the game significant coverage. This is both because I'm required to make sure an article has at least two references to independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage during my review, but also primarily because it will give the article a firmer footing in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, I'd imagine using more sources could help you expand or otherwise improve the coverage in the article. I've spent a few minutes searching for sources that could improve the subject's standing in terms of notability and which I believe mean the subject meets GNG criteria.

• https://www.engadget.com/the-under-presents-tempest-oculus-rift-view-225750213.html

• https://www.cnet.com/news/with-real-theaters-closed-actors-are-turning-to-virtual-reality/

• https://www.cnet.com/news/oculus-vr-live-actor-theater-time-warping-night-club-game-is-unlike-anything-else-ive-tried-before/

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSQD8DBLODE

• https://www.cnet.com/news/with-real-theaters-closed-actors-are-turning-to-virtual-reality/

I decided not to include an article from BroadwayWorld here, as it appeared to be exclusively promotional and connected with the subject. There's no rush here whatsoever, and if you don't feel like it, just say so, and I can volunteer a few minutes and help out. Also, I would recommend somehow changing the line: "The Tempest was a first of its kind live, scripted, participatory play that you attended using VR", as it's PARAPHRASE|close paraphrasing of the NYT article. I already changed it just a bit for technical reasons, but it still remains CLOP. At any rate, cheers! And I hope these sources can be of use to you. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive response. WP is often quite brutal. I can't see where your comments are supposed to be responded to, so I'll put it here. Also, shouldn't this message have been put into the discussion page of the article in question? I'm trying to mobilize the player community of that game to make contributions themselves, so it's not only me. I did, however, go through the hassle of putting the cover art in by carefully cribbing off what appears to have been done with other video game cover art. Goatchurch (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on ensuring that women who critique and write electronic literature and are notable in the field are represented accurately in wikipedia. Would this be something you are interested in as well? Maybe we could work together on these articles? Thanks! LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Machining STRATEGIST has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No refs in a decade. Nothing obviously independent in google.

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. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

not notable, lack of any significant coverage of the company.

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. Tim Landy (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]