Davidcpearce

Advice to anyone thinking of being a Wikipedia editor under your own name: don't.--Davidcpearce (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Haha. Good advice. -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

...

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lex Fridman (December 29)

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:  The comment the reviewer left was: Sorry, I just clicked "submit". Lex is clearly now notable. He just shouldn't have committed a youthful faux pas! If accepted, the entry can (presumably) be critically edited and updated by Wikipedia editors better qualified than me??--Davidcpearce (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lex Fridman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lex Fridman, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Davidcpearce! Having an article 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! Theroadislong (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Lex Fridman

It's kind of amazing that Lex doesn't have a page yet, but until a corporate media company makes an article specifically about him, he seemingly won't get a wiki page. You'd think that having Musk on his podcast a third time would do it, but evidently not. There is a barstool sports article on Lex, but I don't know if it's credible enough to get this article passed. In some ways, it's a reflection of the inability of the corporate media to frame him, and wiki's inappropriate dependency on them. SmolBrane (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You've nailed it. Maybe there's some Wikipedia politics going on here; I haven't the energy for a battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:AB8A:6300:E4BE:C261:3DA3:EF29 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that it's political, but the article could use a set of eyes from a more experienced article creator. Without familiarity with the process I cannot establish whether Lex has recieved enough notable coverage and it simply hasn't been added appropriately yet, but I suspect it's the lack of general articles about him. SmolBrane (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Further to this, it may actually be easier to create the Draft:Lex Fridman Podcast article. SmolBrane (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Excellent idea - it will be insanely well-sourced. I could probably do a scissors-and-paste job right now, but let's see if someone better qualified takes on the task. --Davidcpearce (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Lex Fridman

I just wanted to let you know I went ahead and revised the draft of Lex Fridman and published it anyway. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent job, CaffeinAddict. This time it should stand. Thanks!--Davidcpearce (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate some more eyes on the article and some reliable sources if you can find them. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Jeanne Calment, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please see MOS:ALLEGED. Also including claims by sources attempting to repudiate the longevity claims for Jeanne Calment in the lead are simply WP:UNDUE since they are well in the minority of sources. Peaceray (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The term "reputed" [as in "reputed lifespan"] is not pejorative or tendentious. For what it's worth, I think Nikolay Zak and Philip Gibbs make a fairly compelling case in their newly published work that Yvonne usurped her mother's identity. But readers should have the opportunity to make up their own minds when researchers differ; the three volumes should be cited in the Bibliography. I've no axe to grind - I used to believe in the case, but updated my credences in the light of the evidence.