User talk:Meclee/Archive 1

Hi Meclee. You've (indirectly) created Category:Sociologist and added over 200 articles to it. However, I don't see the point since we already have Category:Sociologists and since all articles you placed in Category:Sociologist were all, as far as I can tell, already part of some national category in Category:Sociologists by nationality. I'm guessing this is just a mistake on your part. If so, can you please undo it all? If not, I'll submit the category for deletion following the usual process. Best, Pichpich (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meclee and thanks for the cookie. I see that you've moved everyone from Category:Sociologist to Category:Sociologists which is progress but I'm still not sure why you're adding all these individual pages to the category. Individual sociologists are not meant to be included in Category:Sociologists except temporarily until a more precise category is found. Like all other large occupation categories, it is broken down by nationality so Harriet Zuckerman who is already correctly placed in Category:American sociologists should not be categorized redundantly as a sociologist. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this seems like a very odd and ill-considered series of actions. This should probably all be reverted back to how it was before Meclee began fiddling with it. I'm kinda curious as to what has been Meclee's actual intent with all of this. __meco (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Originally, I was working on finding sociologists who had not been categorized as such. I suppose the categorization may be redundant, but it seems to me that one might want to browse sociologists and not know the nationality. I can 'undo' this, but it will be mid-May before I have much time to work on it.Meclee (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. As I see it you made a bit of a mess. But I doubt anyone else will do it so mid-May is a lot better than piecemeal over the next several years. Your point about being able to see all sociologists in one category is valid per se, however, it is established practice not to do it, so that wouldn't be tolerated. __meco (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A number of these changes can still be rollbacked. I'll try to handle these at least. Pichpich (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Structuration, an article you have previously edited or reviewed, has been nominated for Good article reassessment. SpinningSpark 09:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been comments that the GA review was procedurally problematic; however, we only discourage reviews by significant contributors, and you were not a contributor. That the review was not up to normal GA standards is, I think, simply the result of your inexperience with the GA criteria, rather than any attempt to gain prestige for your student or college. However, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, it might be good practise as a supervisor of a significant article contributor to allow GA reviews to be done by an independent reviewer. As regards grading the student, it would be up to you as the supervisor to judge the finished work by your university's standards, not by ours. A supervisor wanting to award a grade purely on a GA listing would need to be advised that listings can be somewhat random depending on the experience and views of the reviewer. If you have any questions about or assistance with the GA process, let me know on my talkpage page, and I'll do what I can. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did not intend to be the GA reviewer. My inexperience locked me into it; I only intended to leave comments for the reviewer. Now I know. However, I only knew that this was a student, but it was not one of my students and not my college. Once into it, my only intention was to encourage students, in general, to become editors. Meclee (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool. If you need any assistance in future, just let me know. You can leave a talkback template if that is your choice, though I prefer text. If you wish a copy on your own talkpage (as I often do) then doing a copy and paste requires less effort than typing out the template. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Your category edits have confused me. I can see that in some cases you are removing the category sociologist and adding a subcategory, but in others, eg Eric Anderson (sociologist) you are simply removing the category sociologist. Why is this? Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Because Eric Anderson (sociologist) already has category: American sociologist; I was asked to remove the parent category: Sociologist. Meclee (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I assume that's the case for the rest, I should have checked the article itself. This was brought to my attention by another editor - could you use edit summaries for this sort of thing in the future? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case for the rest. I was doing a large number of pages, so was using HotCat to save time. Thank you. Meclee (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meclee! Thank you so much for your support of the Globalization Project Proposal. Cheers! LizFlash (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meclee, Nice work on the globalization categories! Thanks also for your interest and efforts on this important topic, more generally. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meclee, Well done with the huge effort in restructuring the Globalization article! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to check if these edits contain info that is worth saving? I had to revert them because the user copypasted the rendered article in the editbox. Thanks in advance, Arcandam (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The added material was copyrighted, so you made a good call. Regards - Meclee (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again and keep up the good work! Arcandam (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
How's it going with WikiProject Globalisation? Need a hand with anything? bobrayner (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, bobrayner! Thanks for dropping by and the question. I've been waiting for the original proposer, User:Lizflash, to make a comment about whether or not we are ready to create the project. I have some preliminary stuff in sandboxes (User:Meclee/proj1-sandbox, User:Meclee/proj3-sandbox) that I've been working on, but will probably need help with further work on the project page if we go ahead. Perhaps you could make a comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Globalization#Next_steps.3F to move along! Meclee (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lizflash seems not to be editing actively at the moment; personally, I feel it's ready to go. bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Although it might be possible to improve the colours on User:Meclee/proj3-sandbox! (Hardly a showstopper though) bobrayner (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can create soon, but am getting ready to move after mid-July, so will have to put off many tasks until later. On the colours, I was trying for earth tones, but agree they can use improvement! Meclee (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for all your efforts! Will be good to get it rolling... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Waahoo! Well done! :-) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mec for the help.

I have tried editing the article for 'Core energetics' here and updated the same with some citations. Please check and let me know.

Lunchloopview 12:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Mec

Lunchloopview 04:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunchloopview (talk • contribs)

BTW thanks for informing me it was up and running (have added myself :-) benzband (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am getting way too tired. [1]   benzband (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Meclee, Related to your earlier request, a number of Globalization-related indices now identified and cataloged. Many of these tend to be nation-based, however there are also interesting regional maps & one could derive global as well as regional and national indices from them. There's also a related article, List of international rankings, and a couple of different navigation templates. Hope this is helpful. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

		WikiProject Globalization Barnstar
		For the spark & lots of effort that made it happen!
this WikiAward was presented to User:Meclee

Well done! DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Globalization aspects of, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. KarlB (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Meclee. Thank you for restructuring the Keystone Pipeline article. However, after latest changes the information of existing Keystone pipeline and planned/under construction Keystone XL are mixed and may be even confusing (particularly concerning technical description but also ownership structure which is related to the original Keystone pipeline). I think that that some cleanup and clarification is needed what is what. Beagel (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I originally just wanted to add the new (July 2012) lawsuit info, but found the article to be very dis-jointed and difficult to follow. I've now re-structured the "technical" information, removing a dead link and adding a new ref. However, much of the article is based in another dead link for which I have not found a replacement. I'm noting this on the article talk page. Meclee (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading File:Keystone-pipeline-route-map.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading File:Keystone-pipeline-route-map.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Meclee, and thanks for adding the WikiProject Globalization banners to some of the World Bank Group articles. As for the Globalization navigation template you added to International Finance Corporation, I am hesitant about adding it to that article because the article itself does not really discuss things in a globalization context. I had planned to instead provide globalization context in the broader topics that draw on articles like IFC (which are more narrowly focused), such as Bretton Woods system and International financial system. I am trying to avoid overcategorizing and putting navigation templates where they may only be peripherally related (due to a given article's focus). For example, some of these World Bank Group articles had the Central banks navigation template, and I promptly removed it because they have absolutely nothing to do with Central banks or Central banking. Those are my thoughts, but I'd be interested to hear other perspectives. What do you think? John Shandy` • talk 21:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm placing the 'WikiProject Globalization tag]] on talk pages of your article list on the Project talk page as that template is how the various Project-related bots know to associate the articles with WikiProject Globalization. I was just thinking that we need to add some 'International Finance' links to the Globalization navigation template. In general, International finance-related articles should be there. But, if you think the nav box detracts from the article(s), I can remove them. I've not added any of the articles to any of the Globalization categories, per se, as several top-level categories have already been added to a Category:Globalization sub-category. Thus, WP:OVERCAT is not an issue, but I want to be sensitive to your thoughts on the nav box. Meclee (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't considered that we could also improve the template itself and add to it. Silly me. As you said, they're not categorized as such, it's just a navigation template. So, after all I think we should have that template on the institutional articles, but that we should probably add a link to International finance (perhaps after International development and before Neoliberalism) in the Key concepts section of the template. I suppose we could discuss other topical links to add to the template. One that immediately comes to mind (for the related issues section) is Development aid. And again, thanks for adding the WikiProject Globalization banners, I was perfectly happy with those and actually had that on my to-do list. John Shandy` • talk 22:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions on the template; I've made the changes. I added the WikiProject Globalization banner to International finance. Previously, I had added one to Global financial system; thought about proposing a merger of the two, but both need work, Global financial system needs the most if it is kept. Also, added the WikiProject Globalization banner to Development aid. My movers are coming tomorrow, after which I will really drop offline for awhile, so I'll get with the group later for any further discussion on the nav box. Meclee (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, best wishes with the move. John Shandy` • talk 00:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meclee, I hope all is well... Might you be interested and willing to help pilot a survey by a colleague at Syracuse University on the motivation of contributors to Wikipedia? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, Articles for Deletion is a process of consensus. It contributes nothing to the discussion to copy and paste another's comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, and present them as your own. Please don't do that again. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 19:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I could not have put the words better myself. I did not intend to present as "my own". Meclee (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sociology category tree 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/Sociology category tree 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. Izno (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines. To join, simply add your user talk page link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines#Participants.

I look forward to working with you. The Transhumanist 06:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You've done a fantastic job so far creating the outline of globalization.

Keep up the excellent work. It's a damn nice addition to the outline collection: you're filling in a gap that badly needs filling. I look forward to reading the outline as you develop it to completion.

For an example of the progression of development of an outline, view the edit history of Outline of cell biology, and look at every 10th version, starting with the first version.

If you need my help with anything concerning outlines, or if you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 06:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, kudos, and advice. I will look at the history you recommended. My next step will be to invite related WikiProjects to comment on and make additions to the outline. Kind regards, Meclee (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 

Hello, Meclee. You have new messages at Michaelzeng7's talk page.
Message added 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 

A tag has been placed on Global Philanthropy Forum 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 an organization or company, 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 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Karl 334 ^{Talk--Contribs} 20:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed on the talk page for Global Philanthropy Forum that you wanted more time to work on the article. It doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time, but I don't see the harm in letting an interested user work on it in their userspace. You can find a copy of it at User:Meclee/Global Philanthropy Forum. I will have to warn you about what is and isn't usable as a reliable source, though. Google searches aren't usable as a reliable source, nor are searches of any kind. Reliable sources are things such as coverage in reliable news sources (CNN, New York Times, etc), books, or peer reviewed journals. There are a lot of different kinds of reliable sources, so if you're unsure of anything then the best place to go is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I do have some other things about reliable sources and other things as far as notability goes, which you can check out here.

Other than that, you do have some issues with neutrality as far as the writing goes. It reads like you're trying to promote the forum rather than write neutrally about it. You've got to be careful about that or it could be seen as an advertisement. A good rule of thumb when trying to decide how to write about something is to compare it to some of the other articles out there. You might also want to look to see if you can get someone from one of the various WikiProjects to look over it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations would be a good start. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Globalization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acumen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry I've taken so long to respond, it's exam time at university so I've been kept busy.

Speedy Deletion (WP:SPEEDY) is itself a very controversial procedure. It exists because there are times when an article obviously doesn't belong here, and should only be used in those cases. If the new article is nominated for Speedy Deletion, the obvious reason is A3 - No Content. As noted on the list of criteria, a 10-minute grace period is usually allowed after article creation, with the suggestion that if it will take longer than that to type up your new article, either save a rough draft part-way through, or create the article first in a sandbox (I see you have your own). If your article is nominated when it's only a new creation, then saying something to that effect should halt the deletion process, at least long enough for it to be improved.

If you still want to try to change this, you would be best off asking for input over at the Village Pump (WP:PUMP) - it's the place to propose things like this and everyone there is super-helpful.

weebiloobil (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Global Philanthropy Forum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to World Affairs Council

Reid Hoffman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to World Affairs Council

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you be interested to help out? Here is the project homepage: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

Mcnabber091 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a great project for housing at Wikidata. I'm not sure how I could help or if I would have time, but I'd be interested in learning more. What is the source of your data? Regards, Meclee (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

 

Hello, Meclee. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 03:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC).

  Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC).

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Global commons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Good (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peace education, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Culture of peace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Women sociologists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether you're pursuing for featured portals. If you are, each section requires a minimum of 20 items (so using the CURRENTMONTH won't satisfy the featured portal criteria). If you really want to go down this road, you will transclude the subpage in your main portal page something like this: {{Portal:Globalization/Featured Articles/CURRENTMONTH}}. You will also need to create 12 pages, each page should be named like this: Portal:Globalization/Featured Articles/January (replace January with the remaining months and replace Featured Articles with other items like pictures). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. We are not going for featured status. Here is the current code for the "selected" components on the main page:

<div style="text-align:center; margin:0.25em auto 0.75em">{{purge|'''View new selections below''' (purge)}}</div> <div style="float:left; width:49%;"> <!-- This width added to the the margin below to equal 99%--> {{Random portal component|max=12|header=Selected person|subpage=Selected person}} {{Random portal component|max=12|header=Selected picture|subpage=Selected picture}} </div> <div style="float:right; width:49%;"> <!-- This width added to the the margin below to equal 99%--> {{Random portal component|max=12|header=Selected article|subpage=Selected article}}

Where would the CURRENTMONTH var be inserted? Thanks again, Meclee (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Replace {{Random portal component|max=12|header=Selected picture|subpage=Selected picture}} with {{Portal:Globalization/Featured Picture/CURRENTMONTH}} and similarly for other components. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your copyedits to Global financial system. I have mostly been editing-while-exhausted with my eyes glazed over, so it is nice to have a second set of eyes around. I'm quite astonished actually, that I have left this number of typos and awkward phrasing. I'm usually a hawk with such details. Might have to push myself toward an earlier bedtime. :) John Shandy` • talk 14:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. There weren't that many. It's always easier to find edits in someone else's work. ;) Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

my name is Marco Ristuccia, photographer and owner of the blog "The light beam" (www.marcoristuccia.com/blog). My blog received the following trackback:

A new trackback on the post "iPhone photography and Photojournalism" is waiting for your approval http://www.marcoristuccia.com/blog/2013/08/iphone-photography/

Website : blog network (IP: 23.19.132.199 , 23.19.132.199.rdns.ubiquityservers.com) URL  : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog Trackback excerpt: Weblogs ou should really be reading

Listed here can be described as Outstanding Blogging site You may Discover Exciting that we Really encourage You

Before accepting this trackback I tried to verify the real presence on the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog" page, but didn't find it. I'm contacting you since you're the last reviewer. Was the trackback sent to me by error? Or it's part of a new revision not yet published? Should I cancel it?

Thanks in advance. Best regards, Marco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.5.228.33 (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

i only corrected an internal link in the article. I'd delete the trackback; looks like a spam faking the wikipedia DNS. Regards, Meclee (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Sociology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Do you mind if the redirect is deleted? There are two incoming links which will need to be updated. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)   Done. Thank you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Globalization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urban (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Medical ethicists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Greg Bard (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Globalization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imperial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Global sports, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. NickSt (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)   Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give World Federalist Movement-Canada a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's always been written as 'World Federalist Movement – Canada' with whatever that slightly longer dash is called. I do ALT 0150. Anyway 'World Federalist Movement (Canada)' seems more clear, but maybe the best thing to do is 'World Federalist Movement Canada' with no hyphen or parentheses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicbaird (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. #Re you comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Is there a replacement for Dispenser's transcludedchanges tool?, I could help if you have a specific project in mind. This is an example that I'd done for WikiProject Thailand, which gives this related changes page. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The pages are now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Globalization/Watchlist and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Watchlist. You might want to update the Project pages to link to them. I've included pages from all namespaces, since that was the behaviour of the transcluded changes tool. (The sociology page is rather large and might need to be spilt, though.)

The pages will have to be manually updated for now. I'd like to wait and see if Dispenser's tools come back online. (He seems to be working on some.) If not, I'll probably ask for a bot to help update these pages. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Social inequality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norms. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Social inequality, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Continuum and Quantitative. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Social mobility, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Benchmark and Occupation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the book with me to verify the ISBN, but it's that cover. Why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

 

Hey, Meclee... Hope all is well. Happy October!

Kind regards,

DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Meclee. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

• "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
• "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
• "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

• Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
• WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

• A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
• An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Sociology index, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 19:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military globalization, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Lucas, Chung Kuo and Talas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2015 (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) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 

 

Happy New Year!

Meclee,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Hi Meclee. I'm not sure if you saw my edit summary (not the best way to communicate, I concede), but the issue with that sentence wasn't just that there was no source. I don't think we should be stating in Wikipedia's voice that something is a good example of something; rather, we need to attribute that opinion to its author (e.g. "According to author X, A is a good example of B". I would do this myself, but I don't have ready access to the source you've cited. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Cordless Larry. I saw it after I made that one change. Someone else wrote that section originally. The book cited actually is all about transportation, communication and world trade with a section on the Silk Road, so, it provides a good example. However, I have no need for contention, especially over one word, so the "good" has now been removed. Thanks for your edits. Meclee (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Meclee. I still think that it's an opinion that needs attribution, even without the "good". It's not a fact that it's an example, but rather an opinion, no? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless we want to get deep into phenomenology, I would not say the statement is an opinion. There is some contemporary linguistic shorthand in the sentence; if you would prefer that we use a more syntactically correct "the history of the Silk Road is an example". That book, or any book, contains one account of that history. There are many accounts of that history but those are discussed and cited in the History section. Could you please give an example of how you think it should be worded or make more clear your actual objection to the usage of the Silk Road as an example? Thanks, Meclee (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, perhaps an interpretation rather than an opinion. I gave an example in my first post above. "Author X argues that the Silk Road is an example..." would also work. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see, Cordless Larry. Well, I am used to a different referencing style (ASA or APA). My own opinion is the style of referencing you give makes it less readable to the typical user, especially in this case where there are multiple authors (3, for the cited edition). There is a full citation at the end of the sentence, which gives anyone who cares to look the details. In this instance, I don't think of it as making a judgement call in "Wikipedia's voice" so much as providing facts in the most readable manner. It is a fact that the history of the silk road provides an example of cross-cultural interaction and trade. Unfortunately, so many editors have worked on this article there is not one consistent referencing style. If you insist, I will add the three author's names to the sentence. Cheers, Meclee (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we can leave it to the reference for the attribution. For example, without seeing the source, I don't know whether it's the authors that are saying that the Silk Road is a good example, or whether they are characterising the interpretation of others, for instance. Attribution in the text is standard practice on Wikipedia, even though footnote references are the norm. See WP:INTEXT on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Attribution is different from reference, citation, or source. Since you insist that the word "example" be attributed, I am removing the sentence. Meclee (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we agree on that. Attribution belongs in the text, and the source in the footnote. This seems like a good solution, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Racism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Segregation and National. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 

Category:Global environmental organizations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic IMF - WTF is POV? Why do you deleted Professor Graeber's Quotes? Are you a capitalist bastard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.203.192 (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you created Category:Philosophy of economics but you reverted adding a parent category from the tree of Category:Economics. Which should be the proper economics parent category according to you? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

 

Category:Sociocultural globalization, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope you are not regretting pinging me :> I did remove a bunch of content from globalization, but do see my justification on talk. Some could be restored, but IMHO only after rewriting that ties it to the main topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 

Category:Social problems, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 

Category:Methods in sociology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 

Category:Community action, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 

Category:Applied sociology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 

Category:Deviance and social control, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 

Category:Economic globalization indices, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)