User talk:Marincyclist

California Supreme Court Historical Society

Hi Marincyclist, I have moved the article you created to Draft:California Supreme Court Historical Society. I have moved it to draftspace to allow you to add sufficient sources to meet our notability requirements for organisations. Thanks! AusLondonder (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder Thanks for letting me know, I added some more sources to the article. Let me know what you think. Best, Marincyclist (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts

Hello Marincyclist, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Miminity}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Mount Rose Ski Tahoe

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mount Rose Ski Tahoe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Mount Rose Ski Tahoe

The article Mount Rose Ski Tahoe you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Mount Rose Ski Tahoe for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi Gabbard

Your edits to Tulsi Gabbard have been, virtually without exception, problematic, violating policy and guidelines. Given that you are a newbie, I WP:AGF on your part.

Your argument here grossly conflated the points made in the interview. A close reading would not lead down this path.

Beyond that, your first edit, among other things, changed Gabbard met various political and religious leaders from Syria and Lebanon to Gabbard claims she met various political and religious leaders from Syria and Lebanon. For this you cited this ABC article. In your 4th edit, your edit summary said gabbard claims the meetings with assad were unplanned, but we don't know if this is true. changed to reflect this.

If you're going to doubt what Gabbard says, then you would have to also doubt she met Assad, as the aforementioned cite is entitled Tulsi Gabbard Claims to Have Met With Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

After your 1st large edit on Syria, I made a series of corrections and restorations of informative material you had deleted.

You then made large revision on Syria, which I reverted with edit summary Reverting edits w unsourced or misrepresented claims about Gabbard per WP:BLP. Please discuss on Talk. I also opened a section on the Talk page and repeated my request there that you Please bring your proposed edits here so we can discuss rather than edit war.

You did not comply with my request, but rather did another large revision.

Then after it was again reverted, you did another large revision.

I reverted with ES Your first sentence is not supported by cited source. Much else problematic after that, Discuss on Talk, one small edit or isolated issue at a time. I posted on Talk As I wrote in the undo, discuss here, one small edit or isolated issue at a time w ES Pls stop with the wholesale revisions.

Muboshgu (who is an admin) followed shortly thereafter with a request to try telling us what you want to change and why, with sourcing, here.

But rather than comply, you presumptively went straight to editing the lead §.

Your editing is WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:DISRUPTIVE, and can lead to a WP:BLOCK.

Humanengr (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanengr, I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot, so apologies. My edits were sourced with reliable sources, and I tried my best to use neutral language. You may have a point with some of your reversions, I probably made a few mistakes, but I think you should've just tweaked the wording rather than revert everything I added, as my edits had merit.

Your comment isn't accurate, as I did reply to you on the talk page after you made your reversions, and you didn't reply to me. Any edits I made after that were, to my knowledge, different to the ones you questioned. I have stopped editing the Assad section now.

"But rather than comply, you presumptively went straight to editing the lead §."

This is an improper criticism, I did comply. Your talk page post was about the section on Assad, I stopped editing that section so it can be discussed on the talk page. That does not mean I cannot edit the lead. The lead is now being discussed on the talk page, which I am participating in. Editors are within their rights to make edits, as I did. If someone disagrees, I'm happy to discuss on the talk page. The article isn't set in stone, nor should it be.

Marincyclist (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re your Your comment isn't accurate, as I did reply to you on the talk page after you made your reversions, and you didn't reply to me:

You posted a lengthy reply [I thank you for that] at 19:43, 10 December 2024; Muboshgu raised additional issues in a reply to you at 20:39; you replied to Muboshgu saying I agree at 21:42. Then less than 2 hrs later, at 23:26 made another large edit.

That does not seem to me (nor do I think would it to an objective observer) to allow sufficient time for a considered reply to the issues you and Muboshgu raised. It seemed to merely affirm that you were continuing on the same path. That is why I didn't respond. Humanengr (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanengr, I apologize, that is a mistake on my part then. I thought I was okay to make the edit after my reply to your talk page message, as I considered that edit to be of different content to the edit you were disputing. I can see now that this was rude and wrong of me to do, which is why I have stopped editing that section for the time being. If you look on the talk page, I have now responded to all of the messages that have been addressed to me, so we can work collaboratively to improve the article. Thanks, Marincyclist (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I look forward to making progress in line with P&G Humanengr (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, me too! Marincyclist (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 00:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]