User talk:EmilyR34
Welcome!
[edit]Hi EmilyR34! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Polish Basketball All-Star Game
[edit]Hi, sorry to have to decline your first revdel request after installing the script. If you see WP:NONCREATIVE Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible for copyright at all
. Nice to see a relatively new editor actually add the script and file a revdel request, as even many seasoned editors still fail to do so. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying and for pointing me to NONCREATIVE. I am still a learner so i really appreciate the guidance. I only came across the script after seeing a revdel request on another page and then tried using it myself. Installing the script and making a revdel request was straightforward-thanks to the Wikipedia team. I then came back to this page and placed my first request but i now understand that bare facts are not copyrightable. Another reason i removed the score sheets section was because it looked like a direct copy-paste from another site without any changes and it was poorly formatted in a way that did not match our standards. I have not seen other pages using score sheet tables in this manner. I will keep your advice in mind for future edits and will try to be more careful. Thanks again for the guidance and for taking corrective action. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think I would have done the same thing, and I'm not convinced on the value of a scoresheet, but I have zero interest in sports so I've left for WP:NPP to review. Frankly with copyright there is no 100% correct answer as it's very much up to interpretation, so we all have to learn by a bit of trial and error and experience. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your perspective. It is reassuring to know you would have handled it similarly. I agree that the value of a scoresheet is debatable, and I think it is best left for NPP to review as you mentioned. I also appreciate your point about copyright being more about interpretation than a fixed rule; that makes sense and helps me understand why experience plays such an important role. I will keep learning through these trial-and-error moments and hopefully improve with time. Thanks again for taking the time to guide me! EmilyR34 (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think I would have done the same thing, and I'm not convinced on the value of a scoresheet, but I have zero interest in sports so I've left for WP:NPP to review. Frankly with copyright there is no 100% correct answer as it's very much up to interpretation, so we all have to learn by a bit of trial and error and experience. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, the discussion does not fulfill any of the requirements for WP:RELIST so this relisting appears totally out of left field and unnecessary. In my opinion, a consensus was already reached. I would ask you to please reverse the relisting, move it back to the original point in the deletion log and let an actual admin weigh in instead. If the admin relists it anyway, I won't argue. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm I understand where you are coming from, but in my opinion the discussion does not yet show a clear consensus for keeping . There are still at least four editors, including the nominator, opposing retention. The second relist was only meant to give the discussion a bit more time for any remaining input and to help ensure the consensus is well-grounded before closure. It is not about dragging things out or second-guessing existing comments. That said, I have reverted the relist to see how an admin would approach it. It will be a good learning experience for me either way. Thanks again for taking the time to share your concerns. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think the redirect arguments cut the mustard here - if the character is so primary, why is he not even notable enough for his own article? In my opinion it would be incredibly difficult to argue that this DAB page be deleted unless Pepsiman got a full article AND succeeded in a move discussion to make it primary, in which case it would be overwritten in the process anyway.
- So what I mean is that WP:NOTAVOTE should come into play here. To overcome the status quo that has the advantage here, it would need some really stellar arguments that the character is primary, not just a stated belief that it is, and it doesn't seem like such arguments are forthcoming. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
[edit]
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2025 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) 00:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)