If you have something to say to me, say it here. Phil 05:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for creating the article cp index and related. Note that I moved it to this name from Cp Index, as on Wikipedia the style calls for capitals to be used sparingly, only at the beginning of sentence and in proper names. I also did some minor formatting on that and cpk index and Process capability. Looking at what I did (by checking the history of those articles) may give you a few more hints about style. :) Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for keeping a play by play. I couldn't do so. John wesley 00:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very ambitious... I'm looking forward to seeing it completed. Be mindful of the need to disambiguate, btw; I noticed a link to "John Adams." Postdlf 22:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, a very interesting article. I'm more into the statistical type of article, but am looking forward to more articles of all types in this area. NoSeptember 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm responding to your question at the Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.

Yes it is possible to add a table element to the TOC. Basically you just start the heading on a new line in the table (not after the usual "|"). I have set up some examples in my sandpit, feel free to play about there.

What I am confused about is using ((SCOTUS clerk)) in the list rather than just putting in the data normally. Perhaps there is a reason I'm not aware of?--Commander Keane 08:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are comfortable with the template stick with it.--Commander Keane 12:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - I see the work you've done to improve this article. As it stands right now, this is really still just a definition. As you may know, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so you may want to consider adding more to it in terms of encyclopedic content. i.e. - where are they used (optometry tests?) why are they important, who invented them, etc...    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   03:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to Brigham Young University articles and thought you might want to become a member of the BYU WikiProject. We're reviving the project and would love your help!

GreenwoodKL (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pmaccabe, thanks for the review and comment on Muisca bitaeniata. It cost me a lot of work for such a short article as I searched the original old French source of 1844 and French is only my 5th or 6th language... but the result is there I think. :-) Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello I am Nirethur can you explain it to me properly on how I can improve my first article I wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirethur (talk • contribs) 07:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Pmaccabe. This is user "Adron Ung" thanks for posting the taxonomy of my Pterygodermatites peromysci parasite. I was intending to do that, but I wasn't sure how to write it out. I would like to upload a few figures to the page, but I am not sure how to do that since this is my first article. It's somewhat difficult to compare knowledge of this parasite to others because the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has not posted anything about it. I saw the species description was vacant so I filled it up with some content. I hope to edit the heading, thought it's somewhat hard to describe the scientific community's knowledge of this parasitic nematode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adron Ung (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the heads up regarding this page. This is my first foray into page creation territory. In my ignorance I published this rather than developing the full page first-- something I've been gathering is probably the best practice. I'm creating this page for a friend's company I often collaborate with... the website went live this month and I've been interested in becoming more active in the wiki world so thought I'd create an entry. As of now I'm trying to delete/hide the page I created so I can finish putting it together. As far as I've gathered, I shouldn't be in 'promotional' territory as there is nothing for sale nor is there any revenue going to anyone for use of the site (it is a free, open-source development project) plus it is my plan to have this page be a child to a future page for the developers company (Datawheel, LLC). Let me know if I'm not on the right track. Definitely would welcome any advice or feedback. Thanks!Mattrdini (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Pmaccabe, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Www.themchub.com, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. - MrX 20:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments on the Henry Campbell article ... yes, he was notable...probably one of a handful of men who designed the early American steam locomotives (Reference the 4-4-0 article and patent litigation ... Herman Haupt resigned form West point to study under the man. He was also part of the early Pennsylvania railroad effort to cross the Alleghenies ... I will continue to work on the article ...

Risk Engineer (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, that is why I wanted to comment, I don't see any reason to think that it wouldn't be true, but there is no verifiability to any of the sources, which for Wikipedia is a problem. The best thing would be to find some coverage or articles about those more notable contributions. This reference^[1] from the 4-4-0 article might be wise to include on his article, you could even add an additional reference to this which seems to be an online copy of it. http://himedo.net/TheHopkinThomasProject/TimeLine/IndustrialRevAmerica/SteamEngines/JohnWhite.htm. It has some additional details in there like a supposed patent date of Feb 5, 1836. I'd say referencing the patent itself if you can find it along with this information would pretty clearly establish reliable sources. Phil (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Gold is Real Money was put up for informational purposes. It is also a work in progress - not a "finished work" and should not be a "speedy deletion". I thank you for looking into new pages, but bear in mind that not everything put up is just "promotional" - goldbug1933 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldbug1933 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Pmaccabe.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Pmaccabe, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulisses Soares--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When adding a disambiguation parameter to a hatnote, as you did here, please remember to include the "(disambiguation)" term in the part of the parameter before the divider, per WP:INTDABLINK, so that this does not create an error for disambiguators to repair. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 6 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tammie Jo Shults, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tammie Jo Shults (pictured), captain of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, was one of the first female tactical fighter pilots in the US Navy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tammie Jo Shults. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article StartEngine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StartEngine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Miller-Boyett Productions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Production (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shelflife Records is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelflife Records until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pharos (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Guillaume Verdon. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources, it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. scope_creep^Talk 20:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you don't copy this to mainspace until its completly rewritten to fix the myriad problems on the artile. If you copy it out of Draft without fixing it, I will take you an WP:ANI. The thing is a mess. scope_creep^Talk 20:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Scope creep. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Draft:Guillaume Verdon have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 20:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 20:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ldm1954 was:

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:

This is an example of a classic Wikipedia feature. While Effective_accelerationism might be notable (it has a page), that does not mean that the originator is. There has to be significant coverage of him, and what he has done as against just being outed by Forbes. Note that none of the rest of his career would satisfy any of the notability criteria.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Guillaume Verdon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Ldm1954 (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Pmaccabe! Having an article draft 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! Ldm1954 (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]