User talk:PearlyGigs

PearlyGigs is out of town from 10 July 2024 and may not respond to queries.

Hello, PearlyGigs!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and thank you. This will be very useful as I am still trying to find my way around. Editing is no problem but the site's big picture can be elusive. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, stumbled upon your creation and edit summary for your common.js page. I would give this page a read for some examples of what you can do with them. They're mainly used for customization, but are also used for WP:User scripts which can enhance the way that Wikipedia functions. Hope this helps! - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's great, AquilaFasciata. Having the common.css has helped me resolve the issue I'd found. I'll study the page and I'm sure it will help. Much appreciated. PearlyGigs (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to your point, I would also point out we have people like Jakub Bart-Ćišinski who lived in the German Empire and who were nationals of it, but who are not described as having been German writers. Bart-Cisinski was Sorbian. I am sure we could also find a few who were Polish, and maybe a few of other ethnicities who would not have self-described as Germans, but who had lived all their lives as either subjects of the German Empire, or in some cases subjects of the Kingdom of Prussia and then the German Empire. I believe we have Category:Writers from the Kingdom of Prussia but it also probably could use some expansion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johnpacklambert. Thanks for your message. I certainly think many more writers will qualify. As you say, the empire had numerous nationalities. I'll be very surprised if the category is deleted. Regards. PearlyGigs (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really have not even begun to try to add people. I only created it when I was back to maybe 1857 births, and have only since gotten to 1855. I was not sure if it would survive when it first got nominated, and so may have reviewed a few articles that I could have placed in it, but did not. I will see what I can do about adding a few more people. It is at 13, but I would guess we could easily put in a few hundred, maybe over 1000.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the subject, especially the career of Bismarck, so I'll bear this in mind if and when I come across writers or other artists. As the empire survived for nearly half a century, I'd guess there must be hundreds. Thanks again. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to PearlyGigs for copy edits totaling over 20,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2023 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I enjoyed working on the articles. PearlyGigs (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		This barnstar is awarded to PearlyGigs for copy edits totaling over 40,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice design. Thank you, Dhtwiki. I enjoyed the blitz but I thought I'd bitten off more than I could chew with one of them! Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copy Editor's 10K Star
		This barnstar is awarded to PearlyGigs for copy-editing at least one individual article of more than 10,000 words during the most recent Guild of Copy Editors' Drive or Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, thank you very much. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Norman Hunter (footballer) 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Norman Hunter (footballer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Norman Hunter (footballer) for comments about the article, and Talk:Norman Hunter (footballer)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad this passed. By the way, I thought I'd mention that one reason I picked this to review is that I saw you'd gone ahead and done some GA reviews already. GA is always short of reviewers, so I like to try to review articles by people who are jumping in to help. Congratulations again, and I hope to see more of your articles at GAN. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Mike. I saw the two-for-one suggestion and it appealed to me because we should all try and help each other in a project of this scale. I intend to do more reviews but there is also a GOCE drive this month, so I need to plan the best use of my time. By the way, I'll have a look at Did You Know? (sounds like Michael Caine!) and see if I can post something about Norman Hunter on that. All the best. PearlyGigs (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PearlyGigs, just dropping by having read Talk:Taj Mahal/GA1. You are correct that Wikipedia is unique compared to the "real world", but transferable skills are still applicable (amid a general air of wikispirited collegiality). I hope you are not discouraged; it may not be obvious that we in practice often WP:AGF on inaccessible articles when accessible article verification checks out, so it's not usually raised at such an early stage in the review. Of course, you identified issues with the accessible sources as well, so it's really a matter of process and emphasis than substance. In general, it's really great that you went into the spot-checking as you did with clear explanations, which allowed Thebiguglyalien to follow up as they did. I hope you don't veer too much towards short articles, the long ones need a competent source reviewer as well. Best, CMD (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CMD. No, I'm not discouraged (and I understand what you mean about wikispirited collegiality!). With this article, I used six statements for the spot-check sample and four of them failed outright while another was only partially okay and the last needed confirmation. I thought about it and decided that it was a meaningful sample which indicated a lot of work would be needed to bring sourcing up to an acceptable level, meaning the article is a long way short of meeting WP:V which, as policy, must be the most important of the GA criteria. I considered putting it on hold but then chose GAFAIL because of the verification issue. I am still drafting a reply to the nominator but I'm afraid it's one of those days and I keep getting sidetracked.

I was thinking I'll do a few short articles next and then start picking up the bigger ones again. My next is a footballer so I'll be well within my comfort zone there! Thanks for your encouraging words. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- just wanted to add that a good way to handle inaccessible sources is to simply ask the nominator to quote the supporting text. Of course you're assuming they'll quote it in good faith, but I've done this many times and the nominators have always been happy to quote it and then correct any problems that show up as a result. I don't think we can say a verification fails until that's been tried -- in some cases I've had a nominator email me a PDF of the source, which is perfect, but even when they just quote it for you I think that's acceptable. Glad to see you're picking up more reviews! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Mike. That is a good idea, and I'll do that if I'm unsure about a confirmation only.

I joined the GAN backlog drive for July, as well as the GOCE one, so I've plenty to be getting on with this month. Thanks again for reviewing Norman Hunter, by the way. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]