User talk:Jmcgnh/Archives/2017/02

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jmcgnh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Milford granite, treasury building

The weekly paper in Milford, NH, has this article this week, about the granite for the columns on the treasury building shown on the $10 bill: http://www.cabinet.com/cabinet/cabinetnews/1089846-308/not-carved-in-stone.html ... just as we were debating the issue in wikipedia.

Coincidence? (spooky music) You decide! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@DavidWBrooks: I believe in coincidence. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Advert tag

Hi You reverted a change I made on the SIX_Financial_Information page removing an "advertising tag" Can you explain to me which part is written like an advert? The company is operational but the wording truly describes only its functions. I would really appreciate help in figuring out why it reads like an advert. qhb (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Moved here from the talk page of one of my subpages. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rgnewbury: I'd be happy to discuss my reasoning, but at the moment it looks like you've referred me to the wrong page. More likely, you are referring to SIX Group.

It's a judgement call whether to apply the advertising flag or a bunch of unreferenced section tags. Since it had already had the advertising tag applied to it before, I thought it best to restore it. When a page about a company is basically a business directory entry, as this one mostly seems to be, this tag can be appropriately applied. It does not call for the page to be deleted, it just signals that it needs to be expanded with additional sourced material to round out the article. I don't doubt that the company can be qualified as notable, but the references given in the article don't do it well for Wikipedia definitions of notable.

I'm not a new page reviewer, but if I were (perhaps they'd disqualify me from the position for holding this view), I'd insist that all unreferenced material have proper sources or be deleted before the article could be accepted. There are already far too many low-quality WP pages and the best leverage we have is to get the initial authors to do their work properly. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or [email protected]. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

and/or is prohibited per WP's Manual of Style

and/or is prohibited by Wikipedia:Manual of Style which says that it should be replaced with "or" or "and". Μπάμπης Κανδής (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. My apologies posted already to your talk page. I was misreading the before/after status. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)