I was just curious if you think we can come to some sort of compromise on this page? Voting ends today and I would prefer have your vote on some sort of compromise. I think we both agree there is enough for some sort of article, we are just working on defining what is appropriate. I am happy to compromise. Thx! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up.. I didnt notice the changes you made. I see you restructured the page as well. I appreciate the effort you put into it an applaud your efforts. I actually like the new design. Thx! Hope you change your vote in the AfD too! ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I went ahead and made and sourced changes to the main article. I still don't think his personal life, specifically his ex-wife and her supposed relationship with Taylor Swift, is either relevant or has enough sources, but believe the rest of the article is now well sourced. I'll leave it in your court now. Thanks for the feedback, regardless. FourDoorsOneExit (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is NOT well sourced. LinkedIn, press releases, and the guy's own company web site cannot be used as sources. I strongly suggest reading WP:RELIABLE before doing any more editing. I will remove those sources, and do NOT undo my edits unless you have actual reliable sources for the information that you add. (Also NY Post is not a usable source, see WP:Perennial_sources). Lamona (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I noticed you are working on an article about Peter Brathwaite, and thought you might be interested in this piece which extensively analyzes his portraiture work. Good luck and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind that I poked around in the draft a little bit. I think it looks excellent, honestly, so I think it's just waiting for someone at AfC to have time to accept it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ipigott. Yes, that LaMona is also me and I have no idea how I ended up with both up/low and low versions. I'll try to point everything to the lower case one. I seem to recall that there is a way to do that. Lamona (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well as things stand at the moment, you have two sets of articles. Maybe one of our technical experts such as MarioGom or Earwig will be able to sort things out but in the meantime I think it would be useful to create a user page for Lamona on the EN Wikipedia (in addition to the one now on Meta) and explain that you are the same user as LaMona. Ditto on the LaMona user page. Both Lamona and LaMona give an editing history starting on 23 June 2019, so it might just be a problem with xtools. At the moment, xtools lists 8 articles for Lamona and 23 for LaMona. Let's see if there is any response from the two experts I have mentioned in next couple of days.--Ipigott (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can redirect User:LaMona and User talk:LaMona to User:Lamona and User talk:Lamona, respectively. This will ensure that links to LaMona will point to Lamona. Previous talk page discussions can be copied too. By the way, LaMona was registered 20:39, 29 April 2013 (8 years ago) and has 19,890 edits, while Lamona was registered 05:54, 17 March 2015 (6 years ago) and has 370 edits. Best, MarioGom (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 18 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beverly Russell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Beverly Russell's 1992 book Women of Design: Contemporary American Interiors was the first survey of female interior designers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beverly Russell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Beverly Russell), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Hi Lamona, I'm writing you to let you know that I've reverted your good-faith edit to the David Firth article because you added a source that the community widely deems unreliable. For a list of sources, where consensus has been established in regard to their reliability, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. When in doubt, it's always a good idea to check that list before adding any source to articles. Thank you for considering and happy editing! Throast (talk | contribs) 20:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've never done a DYK so I can't be much help. I also see that you are the one who created the TT article and that the article is still under deletion discussion. First, you have to wait and see if the article is deleted. Then there has to be something interesting about the article that people would not expect - which I kind of doubt because this is a standard business bio. If you have more than an intellectual interest in this article, please make that explicit. The information about how to do that is at WP:COILamona (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barbara Shermund, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Barbara Shermund illustrated two early New Yorker covers (second shown) and, 25 years later, was one of the first women to join the National Cartoonists Society? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Shermund. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Barbara Shermund), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
I see that consensus was reached on the deletion of Chanale. I would like to reinstate the article in AfC so that I may continue to work on improving it, and hopefully have it eventually approved for the mainspace. Would you be able to tell me how to do that?
Hi, GreenEli I haven't actually done this myself, but the information is here. However, you should not move it before the AFD is completed. You should tell the delete discussion that you wish to take it to draft, and then hopefully the closing editor will close it as draft. In case the closing editor closes it as "delete" you should grab a copy of the article for yourself now. A "delete" actually deletes the article and I think you need to ask a moderator to restore a copy. (I usually have a number of drafts in my sandbox, waiting for more information to become available. It's just part of the process.) Best of luck. Lamona (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was completed, based on the discussion being archived, and the notice to not modify the page. The also appeared to have been deleted as of the time that I sent my previous message nearly a week ago. I do have a copy of the article code, but I know that only carries the details to be displayed to the public, and not the edit and talk history as well. My understanding was that edit history is important, especially in terms of giving credit to people who created articles.
Should I just reach out to the editor who set the result, and ask them about restoring the article to draft?
Yes, try that GreenEli, that would be best. And you might reach out to WP:Israel to help you find sources, especially ones in Israeli newspapers and magazines. That's the project on all things related to Israel. Lamona (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[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 Theroadislong 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.
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:Lucy Kayiwa 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.
Love your typo is this AfD discussion... can't read the Telegraph article but if he had actually been shooting peasnts on his great tracts o'land I think I'd argue for likely notability! TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lamona, thanks for your participation in the WP:GOCE! I noticed you're working on the request History of Yahoo!. Could you please note your copy editing at WP:GOCER with * {{Working}} ~~~~ and when you are finished, * {{Done}} ~~~~? This helps us keep track of what's been claimed, what's stale, and how long it takes to get through our backlog. (The full list of codes can be seen on the edit notice here)
You deleted a YouTube documentary by a local museum as legit source. You also added a citation needed template. I used both the video and the other sources, so I don't understand the "citation needed" template. Cats' photos (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, Youtube videos are not considered reliable sources. See WP:RSPYT. In this case the video is from the museum, but there would be no independent editorial process such as there would be with a book or journal article from a known publisher. Since removing it removed the only reference at that point, a "citation needed" takes its place. You've added it back in and I have no interest in removing it again. But I would recommend moving toward more reliable sources. Also, there are statements, such as in the "culture" section, with no references, and therefore those are at risk of being deleted, as un-sourced material is not allowed. See WP:PROOF and WP:NOR both of which give information on sourcing. Lamona (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Video Attribute Terminal Assembler and Recreator. You mentioned that you'd be willing to reconsider your assessment if further sources were found. As reported in the AfD, I turned up a few more last night, totalling several pages' worth of text, and so would be grateful if you might have a look to see if this changes your opinion. If not, I could expand my search, though this might require getting some old manuals out of storage or off archived floppies... —Psychonaut (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lamona, thanks for all you excellent analysis of sources. I'm still a bit on the fence with the Miracle Foundation & related article. I saw the source table that you created, thanks for that! I always find these helpful at AfD's but know how long they take to create. I was wondering if you knew about DannyS712's automated source assessment generator. It's a script that is installed in one's common.js list. It puts a link on your user interface when editing AfDs (I use the old vector skin, so it's on the left side). Basically to use, you import the info on the sources and it will automagically create the table for you which can then be copied and pasted to the AfD. Here is a page that has a link-button to install it if you are interested: User:DannyS712/SATG - it took me a few tries to get the hang of it, but has saved me a lot of time in the long run. I just noticed that RedTailedHawk has also created one for WP:NCORP assessments (link to RTH's tool in the narrative content of DannyS's tool page.) Thanks again for all your thoughtful work! Netherzone (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! Thank you. I poked around for one but ended up just copying the headers from a table of sources that I found. I agree that these really help understand the sources, especially when they get thrown in throughout the discussion. I guess now we need one for Beaudreaux :(. Lamona (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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.
Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet.
Tip of the month:
Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article.
Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women.
Hello, I've just speedy-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Jakob (2nd nomination), in which you participated, because it's seemingly involved in a scam attempt and sockpuppetry; see WP:AN#Report of Scam on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy. If you believe that this article should be deleted, you're welcome to renominate it immediately — WP:SK prohibits making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion, but that doesn't apply here because the closure was procedural. I'm notifying all AFD participants who are longstanding contributors (1+ year of editing or 1000 edits), so if you believe that it should be kept, look out in case someone else renominates it. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wracking talk! 21:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
