User talk:Biografer

Hi Biografer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Great Idcactus3535 SFC VGCP (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Idcactus3535 SFC VGCP (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened here? --John (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: What exactly? I archived links which were dead. The article shouldn't have been nominated prior to archiving or replacing dead links, otherwise its not verifiable.--Biografer (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem with that of course. It's just that you also undid a lot of copyedits by me and others in the process. Most likely way this usually happens is you were inadvertently looking at an earlier revision. It's mostly fixed again, I just wanted to let you know what you had done The article was in a hell of a state for a TFA, wan't it? --John (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Yes, my apologies. There was an edit conflict. I started fixing some stuff a day ago, and saved it next day, by that time you already put some info. I saved the old revision because majority of times there is edit wars going on either way. One time I saved an article after someone's revert, that person didn't bothered to vandalize the article again. :) But to be honest, I only saw major revert after my edit, so I came in time. :)--Biografer (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, thanks for the apology. Please try not to do this again as you've created a fair bit of work for others. --John (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't Wikipedia a collaborative project?--Biografer (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is. Here's another thing. Edits like this one are not minor and should not be marked as such. Please see Help:minor edit for details. --John (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @John:, but I thought that because I put them and therefore it was me who removed them, it shouldn't be a big deal.--Biografer (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well that isn't the case. Read the link I sent you. --John (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Biografer, thanks for creating Naoshige Uchida!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please read WP:NACADEMIC and see if you can add to this article sufficient evidence for it to meet those notability guidelines. I'll return in due course and review how you've got on. It may be that this person is not sufficiently notable, in which case the page may be considered for removal from Wikipedia.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I did a small addition, but am wondering if you have any parameters for wcn. I seem not able to find it in cite book. It looks like its similar to isbn and lccn but have different numbers. Can you help? Many thanks in advance.--Biografer (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ignore 'WCN' and revert that last edit. I don't know what it stands for, but 02-200-208 is not unique to that publication. It seems to be some form of copyright statement (a bit like saying 'CC 4.0' for a creative commons licence.) So, no wonder it displays unknown parameter in red. See this example.

I appreciate you responding to my concerns so quickly. Rather than look for more evidence of his scientific researches, what a Wikipedia article needs is evidence that the person is 'notable' above and beyond that research. e.g. how have their results been reported in journals or the media; what national awards have they won? what impact has their work had? etc etc. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Well, one of his students got a Noble Prize, but I don't know where to put it. It definitely fits in description and proves his notability but under which section???--Biografer (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Biografer, thanks for creating Haibao Tang!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please read the notability criteria for academic staff ay WP:NACADEMIC. Can you find evidence that meets any of the criteria to demonstrate that Haibao Tang is anything other than a good researcher? The article does not show me anything, and so may well not be acceptable as a stand-alone article. I'll come back and review it again in a few weeks to see how you've got on with improving it.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biografer,

I'm sorry to be stupid, I am still trying to figure all this out.

I made an edit on a page and it has been rejected apparently, and I don't know why.

It was to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gods_(TV_series)

In the episode synopsis for Episode 5, Lemon Scented You, I added a list of David Bowie songs that are quoted in the speech that Media makes to Shadow. I think this is useful information for people who may not be as fanatical about Bowie as I am and who might not have recognized all of the lyrics that were quoted. However, as you can imagine, I have no "source" for this information as it was based on 1) my watching the TV show and 2) my knowledge of lyrics of Bowie songs.

So, how do I get my edit to not be removed? I am just assuming it was removed for lack of cited source.

Thank you in advance for a newbie question.

Khern0203 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)khern0203[reply]

@Khern0203: Click "View history" and then look at the reason why the person reverted your edit. It said that it was because it was unsourced and trivial. Hope that helps.--Biografer (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thank you for your recent "welcomes" for new editors! You've been very proactive about this and I think you deserve the recognition. Cheers! MX (✉ • ✎) 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like it :)

The Stray Dog Talk Page 23:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheStrayDog: Thanks! Goats are one of my favorites!--Biografer (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CooperMorgan (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Gowtham Siddhaarth (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your welcome too! Jy Houston (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Jy Houston[reply]

Working diligently to be informative, encyclopedic, and adhere to formatting standards, I submit this page for peer review while learning much about all things Wikipedian. This living person is immensely productive, creative, interesting, and has a career of collaborating with many other talented artists in the entertainment industry. This page will grow in perpetuity. Zaltru (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, Biografer. Could you kindly check out my first page (Shanti Celeste? Many thanks! Urbanfel123 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Urbanfe1123: Now it looks good. But still needs more sources.--Biografer (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Hello, dear User:Biografer; hereby this badge is awarded to you just in recognition of your tireless work on welcoming new users. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 19:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanksalot for welcoming :) PoetVeches (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please read and check the dates https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://altleft.com/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157: Well, first of all, the links that you posted here are not verifiable (except for Social Democracy one).--Biografer (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why only the socialdemocracy one? 2001:8003:117E:6D00:4D16:66C5:793E:541E (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157: Actually, I looked again at Social Democracy and its a blogpost. Blogs and social network sites are not a reliable source. Official website could be used as external links but that's about it. You should look for alt-left mentioning in CNN, BBC, New York Times (definitely not Daily Mail, since those just spread gossip, according to our policies).--Biografer (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeseburgers are not healthy Richboy Brooks (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richboy Brooks: That's maybe one reason why I don't eat them in either real or virtual life.--Biografer (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia! Good Wall of the Pyrenees (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, you welcomed this user. Be aware of accounts like this one - particularly with usernames containing food terms and symbols - they're socks of Gabriella~four.3-6. Home Lander (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: So far the user didn't harmed anyone here, but I might know what you mean. By the way, even I will welcome them its still your "job" to see if they are socks or not. I'm not a part of sock puppet investigation unit, so forgive me.--Biografer (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentioned it to you so you're aware of them. Home Lander (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: Wow. Such a quick response. Thanks. By the way, just welcomed this one, but again, her contributions are at null so far. Tell me if you will see any activity from either of the two accounts. Thanks.--Biografer (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I could be wrong but that one doesn't seem her style - they're a little more out there - like the ones at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Gabriella~four.3-6#Naming habits. The first account from yesterday was already blocked as a sock. Home Lander (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: Amazingly just stumbled on her: Look What You Made Me Do (talk · contribs) Seems to be out there in my opinion.--Biografer (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one isn't matching her behavior, though the username is clever at the moment. Home Lander (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: What about this suspicious edit by her?: diff.--Biografer (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to fit her style. A checkuser was just ran on her accounts earlier and no others were found, so we hopefully will be good for today. Home Lander (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biografer & thank you for the warm welcome! I am starting to feel like a real Wikipedian :-)Iha777 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the welcome, I think I have my first page done and I attempted to move it to be an article but maybe I shouldn't have done that? There is a banner at the top of the page to merge edit contents from the draft page to the article page. I may have done the wrong thing but don't want to move it back and cause more issues! You can see the page here and the banners at the top, if there is something I should do please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpauley (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpauley: Great job! There is nothing to worry about. You can counter the merge by simply discuss it on the article's talkpage, but I don't think it will be merged since its already over 15 thousand bytes which is more then enough for a stand alone "level C" article.--Biografer (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny sport you have, putting a new-user-welcome message on a talk page of a user contributing for about ten years in various languages... --Polarbear24 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Polarbear24: How funny indeed. :) But then explain to me why your talkpage was empty? Don't people ever talk to you?--Biografer (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because I'm perfect ;-) so they just send flowers.--Polarbear24 (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Polarbear24: I guess not. You just was in hiding from the rest of us. Like really, how many people come to Wikipedia a day (includes registered and not registered users)?--Biografer (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you overwrite someone else's talk page message and change their signature to yours in this edit and this edit? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Does it matter who warn those vandals?--Biografer (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also, you didn't answer the question. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? (scoff) Either way, if you demand my explanation, here: I realized that I inserted contributions of a different editor. In order to fix it I decided to override my previous edit. Since I can't remove the warning templates (because of your rules) I thought it was OK to just change the signature (otherwise the warning is dated to say, September 13, and my fix to my welcome message is September 15). See a problem? But to be honest, I am not required to answer your inquiries.--Biografer (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain why you changed someone else's signature to your own. Unless you can explain that, I am going to block you for running a poorly-written, unauthorized bot. I haven't blocked you yet because I'm waiting for an alternate explanation. Since you don't seem to have one, I will probably block you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... are you saying that you thought someone might be confused because your welcome message was newer than the warning? And then you removed someone else's signature and replaced it with your own because you thought that would be less confusing? I'm beginning to think that you're not running a bot; you're just disruptive. If you change someone else's talk page message again in any way, I will block you. Is this clear enough for you? Do not change anyone's talk page messages ever again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An Iranian baby cat, for you. Take care of it please. We love cats. :)

The Stray Dog Talk Page 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheStrayDog: Thanks, but user NinjaRobotPirate doesn't like my edits and threaten to block me if I will continue. And... I can't. I made some errors in Special contributions and am planning to fix it. Yet, he thinks that I am being disruptive. :(--Biografer (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hello dear user NinjaRobotPirate, please be nice to him. As I know you are. He probably made mistakes, everyone does, so if you found out them, let him know and then instruct him to fix it. I believe he does. This is a society and we appreciate the active users like him here. Thank you both. The Stray Dog Talk Page 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone makes mistakes. I'm sure I've made many. The problem is that Biografer is removing other people's messages and changing their content, against our talk page guidelines. I am frustrated that he has continued to do this after I warned him to stop before; the problem, I think, is that I was not explicit enough. In trying to be more explicit, I think I did come down a bit too harsh. I apologize for that, Biografer, but, really, you need to stop editing other people's talk page messages. The basic rule is that what someone wrote can not be changed by anyone else. This includes removing what they wrote, changing their signature, changing the time stamp, or any other edit. On your own talk page, you have more latitude. On your own talk page, you can remove old messages or archive them. That's fine. But anywhere else, you must leave alone other people's talk page messages. Beyond that, I don't have a problem with the edits. I hope that this clears up any issues, and I apologize again for the harsh tone of my previous message. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: OK. I wont change signatures or anything like that, but I still need to fix that welcome message because there are contributions of another editor that I accidentally put from August 25 to September 15 to the anonymous users and didn't realized it soon enough. Like, I am not thanking them for their contributions but for contributions of someone else. That doesn't feel right, so I decided to replace it with the one that actually mentions their contributions, that's all. Sorry if it was disruptive.--Biografer (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is there where I write back to you? There is a lot of info to figure out. Thanks for welcoming me and the articles on how to do things! I appreciate it.

@Hahahenny: Yes, but do it on the bottom. I will be more then happy to walk you through the process (as its rather complicated for the new editors). Also, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). :)--Biografer (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome. Please take a look at this [1], [2] and [3]. Thanks Jordi Lemebel (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordi Lemebel: Well, the source is reliable according to Wikipedia. What do you see in it that is so unreliable?--Biografer (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's Thebestwinter the one who said it. See reference [1]: (the source doesn't seem reliable, "fun facts" really?). Jordi Lemebel (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordi Lemebel: Well it seems that the source he claimed he wanted to put in there, he didn't (I checked). So, I need to assume that the problem is solved? If not, let me know, and I will pop in whenever I can. Sorry, I was away for half of the day. :(--Biografer (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user on the Scarlett (G.I. Joe)—who clearly has some Wiki experience—seems to be going on some editing spree and claiming tons of pages are invalid. I was first alerted about their edits to Microman and Micronauts pages. --SpyMagician (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyMagician: Wondering what makes him tick? Like, he doesn't even respond on his talkpage (only when it comes to reverts) which in itself is unconstructive. I told him why Yo Joe! is reliable and he still doesn't listen. :(--Biografer (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No clue. I have no idea why someone with this kind of knowledge and desire is using an anonymous account. I left a message here encouraging whoever this is too sign up for an account, but I believe they are aware of that and are deliberately avoiding logging in. Regardless, they continue to behave like this it only makes them look bad. But thank you for spotting this as well! --SpyMagician (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyMagician: No problem. I already reported him to AN/I (as you have seen) but maybe I done it too soon? Either way, I am tired of reverts myself. :)--Biografer (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Cool. I think you are fine. Just look at the edits and reverts I have done to the Red Shadows as well as the Scarlett (G.I. Joe), Microman and Micronauts pages. Odd pattern of “copy edits” that are much more than that. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyMagician: Well, he also says that he removes references because they are unreliable. But it beats me what in his head is unreliable. I'm thinking of opening a sock puppet investigation, but I don't know if he is a puppet of someone or not. In my opinion his behavior indicates that he is a sock puppet, but of whom? Beats me.--Biografer (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references thing is pedantic. In the case of the Micronauts and Microman pages, the “fan sites” are some of the most respected English sites for basic info on these—let’s face it—not very popular toy lines. Maybe some British (since the IP addresses are British Telecom) G.I. Joe collector—who knows about the Micronauts and Microman—just decided to do this? I know there is overlap in those fan communities. But still, why? Anyway, thanks again! --SpyMagician (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: And “they”—whoever that IP address editor from the UK is—are at it again. New IP address is User:109.149.4.80. --SpyMagician (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Microman assistance. Seems like Micronauts is a target as well. The only connection I see to all of this is the G.I. Joe connection; all of these lines have a common history. But hopefully the attention of the past few days ends up in something positive. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to be productive about the Microman page, I have made some review requests to the folks to maintain Wikipedia toy pages as well as those who maintain Transformers pages. Just a friendly “heads up” given the events of the past few days. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyMagician: Sounds good. I have tried to look into The Japan Times for more refs on Micronauts and Microman, but again, found nothing. :(--Biografer (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

)

The scar face (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The scar face: Actually, we welcome everyone who is here to contribute constructively. But when I realized that you were edit warring, I decided to remove it, since people here don't like welcoming people who break the rules off the bat. Otherwise they will blame the other side (in this case, me), for welcoming a disruptive editor or a vandal whatever they want to call that editor.--Biografer (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup, Biografer, Twinkle has several templates that I regularly use that are can be used to welcome users whose initial edits have problems (COI, blanking, vandalism, tests, etc.). That's another reason that I've gotten away from welcoming users before an edit is made. -- Dolotta (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jason Ybarra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Biografer. You filed this dispute at WP:AN3. What would you think of going ahead with an WP:AFD for this article? An IP claiming to be the article subject says he wants it deleted. Since the notability is on the edge, I believe that deletion would be possible. The article sources look marginal to me. For BLP articles, we do allow ourselves to be influenced by the wishes of the article subject, at least in marginal cases. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Since notability is at null I have no objection. However there were instances when a subject was mentioned in The New York Times and we didn't delete it simply because the subject wants to, but in this case, its a different story.--Biografer (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about undoing your last set of changes? I believe that all that material is actually unsourced. We don't rely on IMDB as a reliable source. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Don't know why it poses a problem if the article will be deleted with or without those changes?..--Biografer (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome on my talk page. As you suggested, I added my signature to the two talk pages that I'd contributed to. (In both cases, that created a new, wrong, date. No matter, because in both cases I've received no reply, and the errors I think I spotted remain in-place. Presumably because there's nobody Watching the page who cares about that issue/section?)

I'm curious if there's any particular reason you reached out to me? Perhaps because it was you who (anonymously) corrected my syntax for archived references? (If so, thanks. And I added the apparently-automatically-flagged missing archive date.) Netpog (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADDING: I meant to say, above, "who corrected [me] on the Eric Goldberg page", but obviously it was not you, because you reversed that correction. It's now very similar to what I'd done. So, okay, now I know.

Just one thing: I do think it was helpful to have the longer anchor text (which you truncated). It's not his page; it's on a medium-specific website. Yes? Netpog (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Netpog: Don't know what you mean, but external links should be archived as I did. The official link is dead, so there is nothing we can do with it. Right? So we archive the dead link and that's it. That IP was probably not experienced, but I thank him for trying.--Biografer (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your friendly lines on my discussion page! I only now and then try to correct little mistakes, when reading english pages. My main interest is the Latin Vicipedia where I contributed many corrections, additions and a few new pages. Thus I know the main rules of contributing to Wikipedia but with my school english of long ago I'm not familiar with stylistic details in that language. So I could not write longer chapters or even whole articles. Best greetings from Bavaria! Bis-Taurinus (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bis-Taurinus: Bavaria? And you are interested in Latin Wikipedia? Either way, welcome again and greetings from Bavaria as well!--Biografer (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biografer, I want to create a article for Mahthapar, Can I Start with Draft.Kshatriya1995 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kshatriya1995: What an odd question. Yes! You create your first article in a sandbox and then ask me or anyone else to review it. Then you or anyone else can move it into the main field of Wikipedia.--Biografer (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Guidance. Can you review my Article Mahthapar. Kshatriya1995 (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Khatriya1995: Can you send me a link of your article? I'm not sure that I am spelling it correctly. :(--Biografer (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for guiding me. I want to create a one more article in wikipedia. How i start please guide me. Kshatriya1995 (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for welcome on Wikipedia. चौधरी (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Biographer, thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. The articles you provided will be very helpful and save me a few Google searches. When I first started, I felt a bit overwhelmed; however, I'm getting the hang of things now. I found the Wikipedia community to be very welcoming and forgiving. Whenever changing my edits, someone always explains why, which has taught me helpful information to remember. Rhythm of Dawn (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biografer, Can you do me a favour. Please review my article draft:Raja Pratap Singh of Pratapgarh. Singh1995virat (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Singh1995virat: Looks good, but I don't have authority to move it into main space. I will ask @I dream of horses: to see what should we do about a draft.--Biografer (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Biografer. I waiting for your Action. Singh1995virat (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: There is a going concern where I feel like I'm being ganged up against by a Self appointed toxic gatekeeper - ::@Oluwa2Chainz: My posts are not promotional material but they are getting constantly reverted without being asked for the rationale. My post is an Encyclopedic discography of the artist, hence provides value as a reference to prove that the artist has truly produced those songs. Also it is legitimate information for users to see the entire discography of the artist. I believe this behaviour goes against the premise of Wikipedia as an open web and contribution platform. If this is promotional material, then it can be argued that all references to external websites from wikipedia that provides valueable information is also promotional material. Please kindly help look into this matter as I demand a peaceful resolution. 02:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

...and for pointing me toward editorial resources. I have benefited so greatly from Wikipedia over the years that I felt it was time to start giving back even beyond financial support. I hope I can live up to the standards every one aspires to. CBinLA (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CBinLA: Have you ever questioned where your financial support go?--Biografer (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Biografer! I am new to the Wikipedia community and have a question about Articles for Creation. Is that only for unregistered users, or could I also use AfC to submit an article and have it reviewed to make sure that I am doing everything correctly? Thank you for your help! Hwilson51 (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwilson51: Doesn't seem like its only for unregistered, so you can submit and someone will be with you shortly.--Biografer (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for welcoming me! Pyrhan (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrhan: You are welcome. If you have any questions you can either ping me at your talkpage or come to mine (whatever works). :)--Biografer (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. Biografer..how are you? can you review my article Draft:Raja Pratab Singh.

For the welcome message.

Thank you from me too! I appreciate the welcome! Raynerlucas (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re: User talk:Cooldude21830: "Thank you for your contributions" is extra lulz for a joker; basically, you are inviting them to do more pranks; they just think "duh, what a moron!" instead of being thankful for your kind greeting. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: Well how should I know? Does it say on their forehead that they are vandals? I was in the shower after that welcome, so I didn't had a chance to check what they did. Sorry about that though.--Biografer (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't edit Wikipedia in a shower :-) If you see a stupid user name, you better check their contributions. No big harm done, but I really hate the idea of somebody chuckling behind Wikipedian's back. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, good news: @Staszek Lem: As soon as I saw your message, I immediately removed that welcome message (which I do sometimes when I see that a vandal was welcomed). There was once a story that I welcomed a vandal after seeing him editing his draft section (obviously nothing wrong here), so I welcomed him. But then he blanked a page in main space and I was like, what the... Either way, you got the point that is not easy to distinguish a vandal from non vandal, and not welcoming a good contributor will do even more harm to our project. So, its 50/50. Lunchtime!--Biografer (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it seems you've placed the first entry into my talk page. I've had my account on Wikipedia for a pretty long time though and usually edit not too frequently. I'm just mostly confused that I got a welcome message seeing as I'm a bit of an old user. That's about it really, feels odd getting that message when I am pretty seasoned of an editor. Lzer (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lzer: Well how would I know? There are tons of contributors that come every day and some have their talkpage in blue and some in red. Those that in red I target. But yeah, its not the first time I welcomed someone who was an old contributor. It's odd that no one greeted you upon your first arrival here?--Biografer (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess you could quickly check the contributions on a user to be extra sure that it's a new user. Anyway, no biggie in the message anyway, stuff happens. Yeah, nobody really gave me a greeting when I was new. Best I got was someone giving me an "intentionally blank userbox" on my main user page but that was several years after my account creation. Lzer (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lzer: Well, that's not fun.--Biografer (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia -will definitely be checking out the tutorials and no doubt asking for help!--Margymaclibrary (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biografer, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My redirect of Sequence-controlled polymers to Sequence-controlled polymer was not vandalism; the articles are (nearly) identical and should be merged. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but please be more careful while doing reverts in the future. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antony-22: Oops, I guess so. The reason why I treated it as vandalism was because of the -1000 or more bites. Sorry about it. Plus, as far as I remember, you didn't wrote anything in edit summary, therefore it said (blanked the page), obvious stuff that vandals known to do. No edit summary, just page blanking is their motto.--Biografer (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm coming to you to inquire about your edit on DanTDM a week ago. I see you had tried to remove vandalism from an editor who had previously vandalized the article before its protection. What I saw was the change of a few references' access dates, the removal of HTTPS on some links, removal of archive links, and other changes which some would find extremely disruptive. I do have to compliment your removal of extraneous spaces and the change of some {{Cite web}} templates to {{Cite news}}, but the rest confuses me even though that editor's vandalism was already removed by Oshwah before the page's protection. What made you try to fix the damage? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292: Well, first of all, I was doing a revert at the time when Oshwah was doing his, so it was an edit conflict. I assumed that the edit conflict was caused by a vandal trying to remove more content (which sometimes does happen). As for removing of archived links (and I will do it again), there is a reason to it (yes, I should have mentioned that in the edit summary), but when you archived a YouTube link the ref in the archive is blank. It says An error occurred. Please try again later. Apparently archive.org can't archive YouTube links, while it does work with actual link. Any questions?--Biografer (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with removing the YouTube archive. Thanks for the clarification. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292: Not to mention, that we are not allowed to use YouTube as a ref. But, I assume, this case is an exception?--Biografer (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YOUTUBE for a better idea on how this works. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292: That was exactly what I was talking about. You see, on one hand it says While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites but on the other Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. So apparently the line is drawn when the Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis., which in this case is the YouTube's subject. Am I understanding this correctly?--Biografer (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Not opposed to this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to monitor the Mangalore article for vandalism by Anonymous IP address users.
They are trying to insert fake information.
D7G1FV49C (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome. I will definitely use the links on the help page and do my best to follow the five pillars of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia Zuniga (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia Zuniga: You are welcome. The five pillars are just the bare bones of the project. Once you will venture deeper, rules become more and more complex, to the point that some of our editors even end up committing suicides. :(--Biografer (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome!

Mermaidalchemist (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mermaidalchemist: Thanks. Now, two goats gonna eat my cheeseburger. :)--Biografer (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about that, I noticed after posting you already had the same goat, was going to change it but then thought really, what's the harm in two goats! Mermaidalchemist (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mermaidalchemist: Its a good thing that they are virtual goats so you can give as many as you want. :) In real life though, the more goats you have, the more trouble you will endure. That includes cleaning after them and breaking all those horny fights, especially if they attack your neighbor (and they mostly attack pretty much anything, even fences if you color them red). If they are of Spanish breed, that is. :)--Biografer (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there! Thanks for the friendly welcome. :) TheBlueBlur (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBlueBlur: No problem, I at first forgot to thank you for your contributions and decided to add it when you will come again (which is a good thing that you did).--Biografer (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. First, Charles Eldridge Bailey died January 1966. People from Asbury Park and Neptune know more history than any article and probably would share information that wasn't covered by in your article. Asbury Park is one square mile that has a rich history. Did you know that Thomas Smith former Police Chief Asbury Park also took the civil service exam which integrated the Fire and Departments. As a native, I am proud of this Asbury Park. Asbury Park jazz scene was famous. So you need help to do a great job. Have you asked any of the old timers? Thanks--Chargood18 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chargood18: First, I would like to apologize for such a long delay in my response, second, I don't know of any old timers. Third, I don't leave in NJ so I don't know anything about Asbury Park, but if you want to add some information (as long as its properly sourced), you may. Especially about that jazz thing that you mentioned, sounds intriguing.--Biografer (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me some more about editing and the wiki! User1696 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have received welcome messages from you on many of my accounts. So, I wondered if you are a non-human BOT? --New OS system (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@New OS system: I'm a human bot. If you know what I mean? ;)--Biografer (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MEATBOT? Yeah, that's forbidden lol. 2A02:908:F35B:4FC0:991E:D223:78E:D3E2 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @2A02:908:F35B:4FC0:991E:D223:78E:D3E2: Don't know, but the admins say that its fine. Like, I am not spamming anything that will be considered harmful to the project do I?--Biografer (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hint to the article creating guidelines. Allensbacher (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Allensbacher: Thanks Allen. I think the above editors didn't got the joke and assumed bad faith of me. Common thing to do on this project. If you knew, this what you will endure I guess. :(--Biografer (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How was my edit vandalism everything I said was backed up by facts. I added in information that was deliberately left out and removed irreverent information that was there to create a false narrative. Silent mocker (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Silent mocker: You removed Austin Chronicle, a reliable source.--Biografer (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source of lies. Legal documents are better as they detail the facts and have to summarise it in a few paragraphs like news cites do. Silent mocker (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Silent mocker: Actually, this is just your opinion. According to Wikipedia reliable sources are, in fact, newspapers. Legal documents are dubious, and have never seen an article here citing a legal document! Show me one that does, please.--Biografer (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I literally found one the first page I tried and I am confident I'll find more on other pages. "Ted Bundy Multiagency Investigative Team Report 1992". Thank a wild guess where I found this.

@Silent mocker: Its rather old. Like, 1992 is last century, man. All of those sources that we provide are much recent and are unbiased. Providing Investigative reports are considered to be orginal research, a no-no, according to our policies.--Biografer (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Biografer thank you for your quick welcome message. Cheers! Dbug75 (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sincerely. --48f (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you would compare the two maps you would probably see that the current map doesn't show the East Franconian language area. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only region the current map is actually correct about, is the Dutch-speaking region, probably because it's a Dutch map. The legend is also wrong, because some parts of the Netherlands being traditionally Low Saxon-speaking, the Dutch-speaking part of the Netherlands and Belgium is shown correctly. It should be obvious that the other map is better. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that has been brought to your attention before. Indiscriminate welcoming of newly registered users is greatly frowned upon for multiple reasons. Many of the editors you are welcoming have never made an edit on the wiki and most likely will not make an edit in the future. Also, your edits do nothing to address the issues presented at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use a bot to welcome new users:

1. If a bot is used, it is cold and impersonal, and the bot is incapable of mentoring and assisting newcomers.
2. Many vandals are exposed when an edit made by them receives extra scrutiny because their user or talk page shows as a redlink.
3. The bot would make thousands of pointless edits welcoming vandals and accounts that never make an edit.

You actions are consistent with a WP:MEATBOT, regardless of the method you are using to welcome users. Continuing to welcome users in this manner will require that you obtain consensus. Failure to do so will likely get you blocked from editing. Nihlus 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: I already obtained consensus. Talk to @TheStrayDog: and @Home Lander: if you don't believe me.--Biografer (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for being a meatbot, how come its perfectly fine for users such as @Oshwah: and @PlyrStar93: to do their blocking of vandals and its perfectly fine for @Rich Farmbrough: to do his colons. Yet when I put my effort to invite folks to join our project, I am here threatened with blocks?!--Biografer (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not formed by two editors for something as wide as this. You need to obtain consensus from the community in order to continue. As for your second point, Murph9000 put it best: There are a large number of different welcome messages which cover different scenarios. Indiscriminate spamming of messages interferes with using messages which are more appropriate. In particular, giving a good faith message out to vandals is counterproductive and frequently a waste of space. Even in non-malicious scenarios, there are messages which are intended to give specific help based on the user's contributions. If we wanted a standard welcome spammed at everyone, we would have a bot doing it. Please discontinue this behavior. Nihlus 18:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: Oh, I will wait patiently till all others will arrive here. In fact, for the quick response, I will send them a message too. Maybe I should mass produce articles? But wait, that too would be consider meat boting.--Biografer (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, so your accusation of "mistreatment by admins" is baseless. Additionally, Rich Farmbrough was asked to stop by me as well. I don't understand your point about Oshwah or PlyrStar93 though. Nihlus 18:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Here is a suggestion, have a look at Special:ListUsers, tick all three tick boxes, then you are getting only recent accounts that have edited. Ideally check their contribs.

You might consider using the WP:Teahouse welcoming template, if you want to use a template at all. I have welcomed thousands of new users using this template, and though it was a fairly quick exercise, comparatively few responded, so I am not 100% convinced it is worthwhile, but at worst it seems harmless.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Another tip, make a copy of the welcoming template you use and set it up to "subst:" BASEPAGENAME - it looks much better when editors read the source, IMHO. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Thanks, but the thing is, is that no matter what template I will use, biased Nihlus will tattle-tale on me to the admins and then I will be blocked regardless.--Biografer (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments directed at me are not welcome. I have adequately explained why your behavior is an issue. If you wish to continue it, gain consensus from the community. I will gladly defer to that once established. Nihlus 19:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments directing at me, are not welcomed either. You gave a link to consensus, but there is no where I can see the issue that I am in being listed there. As for welcoming them differently, @Nihlus:, I have tried to at least add an image that will go well with their user name: diff, but because there are only a handful of such (majority of them just have their names and/or numbers listed, its hard to give them plausible welcome, which wont be banal. As for people who don't make a single edit after being logged in, take a look here.--Biografer (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are related to your actions on here. Additionally, I have removed the image from that user talk page as we cannot use copyrighted images outside of article space (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #9). Nihlus 19:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nihlus: Hmmm, some editors use Cookies images to welcome new comers. They are apparently free?--Biografer (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we have permission to use that image. You can find the permission information on the file page: File:Choco_chip_cookie.png. Nihlus 19:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nihlus: Is that the only one that is allowed? Or are there some others that I don't know off?--Biografer (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Anything that states This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license is fine to use. Nihlus 19:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the comments from Biografer are not welcome. Perhaps you (Nihul) should re-read your comments on this page and see why you have elicited them from this undoubtedly good faith editor. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps have a look at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. I don't have the horror of welcoming vandals that some have, and indeed it has been suggested that converted vandals are an important source of recruitment (again, not sure I agree, but it is by no means a fringe idea), but I understand why its seen as something to avoid.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Thanks. Yes, but its not vandalism that Wikipedia admins are obsessed with, is the fact that once a new editor establishes firm ground here, its the perfect way for admins and or other users to gang up on someone who is good and make him feel bad for himself. But I don't feel shame of welcoming new users, should I be ashamed of welcoming somebody that might potentially here to help us? Maybe I should just welcome them with Stay away from this project like a plague! sign. It seems that this is what Nihul wants to me to do... :(--Biografer (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it seems that way. In the past I have felt I could not honestly encourage people to edit, after the way "admins and others" had behaved towards me. This is however the exception rather than the rule. The majority of editors are normal decent human beings, even those who seem obsessed with rules and hat-collecting are pretty nice to meet socially. I see this sort of behaviour as a problem with social interaction, where the script runs:

• These are the rules.
• You are breaking them.
• You must stop
• If you don't stop I will impose sanctions/cause sanctions to be imposed.

This is basically a sound societal interaction - but it misses firstly the nuance that the last three steps don't in general have to e spelled out to peers, and secondly that rules are actually not like mathematical tenets. Moreover the type that pursue these arguments will often use a "rule" that doesn't actually exist - one admin spent years reverting other users over a minor template change for which there was consensus, and mis-interpreting a couple of other policies.

You can't let this sort of thing get to you. You have to stay positive. You have had some nice responses to your welcomes. See if you can find a way to continue, and make Nihlus happy at the same time - that is the true win.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

My name is Nihlus. Also, if someone cannot find anything else to do on this massive wiki than to spam welcome messages, then perhaps they are WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia. There are guidelines and restrictions for a reason; if we wanted people to welcome every single user who came through the door, a bot would have been created a long time ago. Nihlus 19:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A bot would be cold and unwelcoming" - this contradiction in your early statements is one of the things that, for me, undermines your message here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Incidentally - take a look at the top message on this talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) How is that? I'm saying we don't want someone or a bot doing this as the difference is negligible for spamming the messages. I'm saying that if we did, we would have a bot do it, but we don't, so we don't want either one doing it. Nihlus 20:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No @Nihlus:, this is not what I see you are saying. You are saying that we should stop welcoming editors. Period. And this in turn will end bad for the project. There is also another rule that you forgot, its called ignore. No harm is done.--Biografer (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Well, I added myself to the list. But I still dubious this is what Nihlus was pointing me at.--Biografer (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No where did I say that. I asked that you stop the indiscriminate spamming of welcome messages. If you come across a user while editing who hasn't been welcomed or perhaps made an error, then it's appropriate to welcome them with a message that is tailored to their situation. Spamming 20,000 messages over the last three months is the problem, not appropriately welcoming users. Nihlus 19:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not appropriately welcoming them???!!! Fine. From now on I will welcome them much differently. You all see.--Biografer (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biografer was probably using hyperbole... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, the welcome you placed in this edit was uncivil and uncalled for. It appears to be made in retaliation as per this comment. For the time being, cease your welcoming of any new editors. If I see any more welcomes like that, I will block you -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were more examples that were made before this warning. What the hell do you think you're doing, other than directly driving away potential editors? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime: What the hell do you think? Telling them the truth. Telling them how people here don't care about anyone or anything, that its all a scam. How should I have reacted if Nehlus told me not to welcome them with this Welcome message. And no, it have nothing to do with this comment, it have everything to do with with this tirade. Everything was going fine before this Nehlus arrived. You know, I got many thank you's, barnstars, goats, cats, you name it. All because I welcomed editors. You two on the other hand don't seem to appreciate it. :(--Biografer (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't appreciate you telling new editors they were inserting overly useless information (as a welcome message), or that we will block you if you will persist on helping us. That's not helpful at all. Welcoming new editors who have made a couple of edits with a standard {{welcome}} template is helpful, and I would appreciate you doing that instead -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 21:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime: Thanks, the template works great!--Biografer (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I am not involved in this, but I came across your talk page (as I often do since I patrol user creation log) and I thought I'd put in my two cents on this discussion. Your intent to welcome new editors so that they feel more comfortable with editing and are not afraid of making mistakes is greatly appreciated. However, I see that you've taken offense to people pointing out some potential problems with the way you are going about with your contributions. No one is ganging up on you! We're trying to settle problems by talking about it. On the other hand, please don't put out passive aggressive "welcomes" as a retaliation. It doesn't resolve anything and just makes you look bad. The work you've done in welcoming users is great! But would you agree that it is incorrect to welcome a sock-puppet who's sole intention is to cause disruption? Similarly, would you agree that it would be better to welcome users who have shown an active interest in editing Wikipedia by doing good edits than just impartially handing them out? Simply put, a bot cant really make those decisions. Thats why there are concerns regarding using a bot to welcome users. I quite like Rich Farmbrough's idea of welcoming editors that have made edits and are recently created accounts. But that wont stop accidentally welcoming vandals so its not a fool-proof method, but a good one nonetheless. Now, regarding welcoming vandals - there's nothing inherently wrong about it. There are templates made specifically to welcome editors who may have acted against Wikipedia's policies (they can be viewed under Twinkle's welcome user options). The problem with handing out a generic welcome notice is that the notice begins with "Thank you for your contributions." and thats isnt really correct. We arent thankful for the bad edits, are we? :P I hope you dont mind me posting this here. I'm curious to know what you think.

P.S. I'm seeing that you've started removing old welcome signs and putting up new ones. What exactly is the purpose of that? Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 23:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jiten Dhandha: The reason why I decided to remove the old ones is because the new one have more helpful links. Considering that our editors haven't looked at them yet, it is probably OK to update them, don't you think? Otherwise there will be more confusion as to what and how. I do agree with you on everything though, but you need to understand that I am here to help too.--Biografer (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is doubting that you are here to help! I know you mean well! But you haven't answered the concerns raised by me and other people yet. A bot cant make the decisions I've talked about, so use of a bot isn't all that helpful. BUT... and thats a big "but", it is possible to welcome users and not make a mistake. For that to happen, you might have to do it manually though! You might not make as many edits as quickly as possible, but what you'll be doing will be greatly appreciated. You can start going through Recent Changes and when you see good edits being made by a user or an IP, you can welcome them. If they have made some errors, you can even write out personal messages about where they are going wrong like: 1 2 3 4 5. That way, you'll be more helpful to the people who are genuinely interested in editing. What do you think about this idea? Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 23:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was just about to suggest pretty much the same thing, Biografer. By all means, keep welcoming new users, but only if these conditions are met:

• You have verified that the user has edited. For whatever reason, hundreds of thousands of accounts are created that never do anything. By welcoming these zero-edit accounts, all you're doing is wasting your time.
• You have verified the user is a good faith contributer. Some people really don't like it when vandals/trolls, spammers, and sockpuppets are welcomed, and for good reason too-it's counterproductive. Imagine a vandal adds libel to your article, and when you check the said vandal's talk page, there's a big friendly welcome message on it. It makes it look like Wikipedia welcomes these kinds of trolls.

That sound like a good compromise? Also, are you running a bot? Just wondering. Sro23 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: No I am not. And never will. I don't welcome trolls and vandals, and if I do, that welcome gets removed by... ...guess who? Me! So, I don't see a problem that all of you here see.--Biografer (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't it make more sense to first be certain that the user isn't a vandal, so that you don't have to go through the process of welcoming them and then removing your welcome? Sro23 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: Hmmm, no. The reason is, is that while I would look into one editor's contributions and determine what he is here for, the other good editor will make some good edits and we wont even say thank you to him. Got my reasoning?--Biografer (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for using the word "bot" in the previous comments I made. I thought you were using a bot seeing how quick you were making your edits. Regardless, the edits were still made a bot-like fashion so I think my arguments still stand. You said "I don't welcome trolls and vandals, and if I do, that welcome gets removed by... ...guess who? Me!", but I might have to disagree with that. I've seen numerous instances where the people you've welcomed were editors whose sole intention was to vandalize and the welcome template hadn't been removed: 1 2 3 4 5 6. I'm not saying that you should remove the welcome notice from the links I've given, but that its very easy to miss out people when you are reviewing your edits because of the sheer number!

I was going to ask the same thing as Sro23 but I see you've already answered it. I dont quite understand the reasoning. You are trying to give out as many welcome's as possible because you want to welcome the good editors? The slight problem here is that a large number of accounts that are made usually dont edit - only a fraction of them stay past a few edits. Welcoming editors who haven't edited can be considered a waste of time that could otherwise be used to welcome IP's or answer new editor's questions at Tea House, etc. Its fine if you miss out on some good editors in the time you are reviewing another editor's contributions. Its not possible to single-handedly welcome all good editors on Wikipedia! If you do review the edits, you will ensure that you dont make mistakes and the people who are actually interested in editing are welcomed. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 08:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was obvious vandalism. Why did you welcome the vandal? Sro23 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: Because he didn't do that much damage.--Biografer (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this interesting. -- Dolotta (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Many thanks for your note and help on wiki :) Hebohne90 (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to your 4im warning and immediate report to WP:AIV. Please read over and familiarize yourself with the information at WP:RVAN, specifically the section where it talks about the process to warn someone. You normally have to warn someone multiple times before reporting them at AIV as it gives them a chance to stop. While {{uw-vandalism4im}} is appropriate for vandalism, it shouldn't be used for someone who is only removing content from the article. The warning you should have used was {{uw-delete1}} as it is a softer notice with more welcoming information. Thanks. Nihlus 22:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: Never knew that you were in support of greeting vandals, but whatever. Listen, I didn't had time to warn them multiple times, so I calculated: The vandal did 4 edits, in both edits he removed content. So, 4 vandalic edits equals a level 4 warning. Sounds fair? I expect to hear yes from you.--Biografer (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's actually not correct, which is why I am here reminding you of the guidelines and standard practice. Nihlus 14:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that your report at AIV was removed as inactionable because you didn't provide the standard number of warnings. Additionally, this comment aimed at me (WP:NPA) was wildly inappropriate. I don't speak garbage (unless you think policies, guidelines, and standard practice are garbage), and I don't want everyone to be blocked. I want you to do things the right way and the best way for the new users as you will be the first person many of them interact with. However, I don't believe you are willing to take constructive criticism (WP:NOTGETTINGIT) and are more interested in proving unnecessary points through disruption (WP:POINT). I highly recommend you dial your behavior back. Nihlus 14:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! I'm not talking to people who are here only for the purpose of harassing editors and will be glad to report you starting immediately.--Biografer (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing you in the direction of doing things properly is not harassment; otherwise, there wouldn't be multiple editors on your talk page making the same suggestions to you over and over. Nihlus 15:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sending me numerous warnings for various reasons, is viewed by me as a form of harassment. As for other editors making suggestions, its called one said something and the rest join in in unison. Maybe you contacted them off-Wiki and I am more then certain that you did.--Biografer (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Various valid reasons is not harassment. And now you are casting aspersions by accusing me of canvassing off wiki. Doubling down on this accusatory, tendentious behavior is the opposite of what you should be doing. Nihlus 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Following Nihlus to Rich's page to make a wild accusation about his motivations is clearly inappropriate. Please do not do it again. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Well, its not me who is doing harassment but Nihlus definitely does just that. Don't know why its again my fault. :(--Biografer (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind a word from me, I think there's been a bit of misunderstanding and stress here today. Might I suggest just forgetting about Wikipedia for the rest of the day and relaxing with something else? Sleeping on a problem can make you feel much better about it in the morning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thanks, but can you tell the same thing to Nihlus? In fact, I think I can warn him with that too.--Biografer (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't, you should just keep away for now - that was the point of my suggestion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were specifically advised to not do what you just did. I highly recommend you take Boing! said Zebedee's advice and take a break from the wiki before you get yourself blocked. Nihlus 18:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: First, I just did. Second I think his tone need to be dealt with too. I believe that its unfair to tell one editor to go, and another to stay and continue harassing (if not me, then Rich for sure). I don't understand why a newcomer is the one to blame? I didn't went to his talkpage and started this tirade. He was solely responsible for it. First, I got accused of welcoming vandals (how do I know who is who), now I am a harasser (and the first one to go). I wanted to contribute to this project in a civil way, just like everyone else.--Biografer (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to help you and stop you getting yourself blocked, as that is likely if you continue with the harassment accusations. Sleep on it, and when I have some spare time tomorrow I'll examine the whole thing and try to advise. But let me be blunt - stop this now, or I will block you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, till tomorrow then?--Biografer (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be until late tomorrow as I have a busy day, so I'll say goodbye until then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let me know when you will arrive and go over the matter since its rather contagious (if its appropriate to say that).--Biografer (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have a few things to deal with now, but I should be free in 2 or 3 hours time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biografer, thanks for the advice as I'm just starting out. I have a question about the page I'm starting on. The wiki profile box that appears to the right in google listings hasn't appeared for this page as it does for all wiki pages I've seen. Is there something that needs to be corrected? Pamela carrington (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamela Carrington: Same here. It have something to do with Internet Explorer.--Biografer (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamela Carrington: The information box that google displays is constructed by google, often using Wikipedia, but also using other sources, including direct input by those using the search engine. We have little or no control over what content Google chooses to pull to place in their results without directly contacting someone at Google, which we have needed to do in the past when they have captured a particularly badly vandalized version of an article and used it for their content. GMG^talk 12:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{ping|Biografer}} Thanks for the feedback - In this instance would you contact google or should I? Pamela carrington (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to get blocked? I can expedite that for you! Cheers:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been preached enough by different editors and whatever the heck you do, I don't expect you to welcome globally-locked LTAs.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging There'sNoTime.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who else am I not allowed to greet? He wasn't abusive to me. And he raised my spirits, what's wrong with that?--Biografer (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reply, without even going through the policies cited by me in the edit-summary of this edit, is the exact reason why you shall be blocked, until and unless you manage to read about our various policies, competent enough to understand them and learn to abide by the advice preached by several long-standing editors.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Being long-standing editor is one thing, but being polite and assuming good faith (which you don't) is quite another. If you believe that a block will solve this, then you are wrong. Another user told me here that no harm is done if I will welcome someone who is an apparent vandal. Why then everybody suppose to gang up on me here, if there is no harm? And yes, I did read your policies on LTA and so on and tell you what... My opinion, while I do understand your ego to keep everyone against each other on this project (just because you are a long-term editor (in my opinion, more like a long-term abuser)) doesn't mean that you should vigorously remove a non-offensive content.--Biografer (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I was pinged - you all need to cool off -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Biografer. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken me longer than I intended to get round to trying to help you (and I'm sorry I didn't get here before that AN report happened). I don't want to focus too much on the past now, but looking back I can see how you would feel rather confused and frustrated. I don't actually think there's anything there that could be judged as actionable harassment, though I'd say I see mixed messages (and some over-the-top comments), and I think all sides could have been more receptive to friendlier interaction - I do I think everyone was acting in good faith, but I'm expecting to see the confrontational approach softened now (y'all hear?)

Anyway, what I want to do more is think about how to prevent future problems, so I'll explain what I do when it comes to welcoming new editors and will offer a few suggestions.

• Firstly, I never welcome new users before they have made any edits - the consensus seems to be that that's a waste of time and resources. I've no idea why, but the great majority of users who register an account here never make any edits, and there's really no reason to create an account if you're not going to do that - but that's the way it is. So I think that's a good first rule of thumb - don't welcome users who have not made any edits.
• The next issue is welcoming users whose first acts are ones of vandalism. I know you have been told not to do that, but I don't think there's any rule or consensus that says you shouldn't - in fact, as I said at WP:AN, I frequently do it myself, though it is with some prior thought. I approach it by looking at the new user's edits. If they're really nasty vandalism, I'll just revert and warn and leave no welcome - there are some cases where I don't think it pays to give mixed messages.

  But if it's just the kind of "ooh, look what I've just changed" vandalism that many young people are tempted to do, I'll give them a standard warning (usually just a level-1 warning using Twinkle) and then I will also add a welcome. In such cases I want to convey two messages - both "You're welcome here if you want to contribute constructively" and also "but there will be consequences if you deliberately damage the encyclopedia". It's a kind of carrot and stick approach, and if it convinces only one in 10, or even only 1 in 100, to come over to the good side and help us, I think that's a win. And it's almost no effort - as I'm already at their talk page, it's only 2 more clicks to add a standard welcome message (which Twinkle puts at the top of the page).

• I've looked over your welcoming of the past couple of days, and I don't see any real problems. At User talk:Lobbyists4Good you perhaps didn't spot that it's a promotional user name, but that's easily missed and there's no harm done - someone else spotted it and blocked them. I also note that at a couple, eg User talk:Chris Paul, the user had made an inappropriate edit. But nothing that bad, and I think the net result at User talk:Chris Paul was a good one - a welcome plus a level-1 warning, giving them both the messages as I often do. Perhaps that's something you might think about - have a look at the user's edits in case a warning is appropriate too.
• While we're on the subject of warning people, it's usually pretty much standard to give a low-level warning first (even if they have made several edits) and then only escalate warnings if the problematic behaviour continues - it's up a warning level per warning, not per edit. While the full set of warnings is not mandatory, doing it like that increases the chances of success should you subsequently need to report to WP:AIV, where reports are often rejected if the standard set of warnings is not used. (There are cases where the full four warning system can be bypassed, but I think we should leave that for now.)

Anyway, I hope that all makes sense, and I'd like to hear what you think of it.

(If anyone who has had issues with Biografer in the past is watching this, can I politely request that you do not join in here but instead leave it to me. If you think I'm missing anything or disagree with anything being said, please feel free to come over to my talk page to discuss it. And Biografer, I also suggest you stick to here and don't join in on any other users' talk pages if you see any related discussion on any. I'm asking this because I really do think that a bit of space between Biografer and those who have been in conflict here would be a very good thing at this time.)

Wow, that's far more words than I'd intended :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) A suggestion, if I may? Twinkle's Welcome option has a section called "Problem user welcome templates", which can be used to welcome users, while at the same time letting them know that their edits may not meet our guidelines. Personally, I have found them useful for new users that seem to be making test edits and the like; it's less "bitey" than leaving a warning. Though I also like Boing! said Zebedee's suggestion of leaving both a welcome and a level-1 warning. In any case, I hope you find this useful Happy editing! –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's definitely a good alternative. I tend not to use them myself, but a lot of people do and they are good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, it makes perfect sense. The problem is, is that while I am saving a page after previous revert, sometimes vandals continue to remove content, resulting into an edit conflict. I of course can open 2 windows (one for article reverts and the other (a user talkpage) for warnings), but sometimes ClueBot does the warning before I will get there which then discourages me to put that warning myself. Ending up with me just welcoming an unsuspected vandal and getting rather angry users on my talkpage.--Biografer (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please tell me what I should do with my sandbox? I am new to the Wikipedia but I am trying to fit in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1696 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @User1696: Good day sir, a sandbox is a place where you write your article before it can go into main space. You can of course write it in main space but if might get deleted and therefore you will need to start over again. This feature allows you to write an article without fear. For more info please look at WP:Sandbox. Thank you.--Biografer (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, that's a good answer. It's a good place for early drafts of an article that would not yet be sufficiently well developed to be kept in main space. So when you're getting together your list of sources, working out the format of the article, etc, your sandbox is a great place to do it. It's also a handy place for trying things out, like templates and things, to see how they work before you use them in main space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me about the sandbox! User1696 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User1696: No problem. Feel free to ask anything your want. I will be more then happy to walk you through many kinks of this project.--Biografer (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I put the thing about the sandbox on my talk page before I looked on your talk page and I forgot to delete the question on my talk page. User1696 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, the type of troll username found here follows a pattern of a common troll, and was blocked by Zzuuzz, who is a CheckUser, and if they had reason to believe it was an experienced user, they would have run the check. I know that you and Nihlus are not on the best of terms, but as someone who is neutral in this spat, I really don't see any evidence that would get anywhere in an SPI. Its probably best to let this go for now, and remember, most regulars get trolled around here at some point: I've even been A7'd :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Thanks. I know that he was blocked by an experience admin/check user and it have nothing to do with me not liking Nihlus. I was trolled several times here, but non were as personal as this.--Biografer (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I am curious if @Zzuuzz: can provide me with details?--Biografer (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is the LTA user we discussed before at the admin board, if you can remember. They've been a vandal for quite some time, and it's quite possible they won't stop, or be stopped, in a hurry. They've focused on a few editors. This is trolling, my advice is to not respond in any way. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: If you will ping me to that specific discussion, I might be able to. I vaguely remember something... May I ask who else did they impersonate (other then me)?--Biografer (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biografer, I won't link to the list of usernames per WP:DENY, but many of our high profile admins and editors have been targeted by this exact troll using a similar name and format of post. This is not any editor in good standing that you have interacted with. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if that's who it was, yes - just ignore them, it's their own life they're wasting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here. There's literally hundreds, and it wouldn't do for me to start listing abusive usernames or people who have been targeted. Honestly, there is very little you can do about it, and that is precisely what you should do about it. Admins and checkusers do work behind the scenes in cases like this, but they are unfortunately not magicians. So the advice is to keep calm and carry on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Thanks for the tip, but user New OS system is rather standard in comparison to this. This is new, much new. If previous trolls were hitting me with various thanks for welcome (even before I welcomed them), then this one impersonates my username. Moreover, he even knew (and possibly followed) a discussion that was about me on AN/I.--Biografer (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that several prolific vandals and trolls, including this one, follow _everything_ on ANI and pick on users who are subject to any form of scrutiny or pressure. Here, one of their other usernames. And here's one on me Trust me, this is a long term troller. Personally, I think you also owe that other user an apology, or at least refrain in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	big up Hustle7 (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for repairing the recent edits to Camila Estico. That was more work than I was willing to do on the topic. :) A quick question though - the infobox lists her eye color as "white." Surely that can't be right. I didn't want to change it without speaking to you first, as I didn't want it to look like an edit war. Thank you for your time! Jessicapierce (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessicapierce: Don't worry, I removed the eye color until further notice, and expanded section a bit. Obviously this article needs Early life section. As for the eyes, the photos show that they are chestnut, but I wont go with it until written confirmation. I also added residence with a ref (bringing the refs number to 6).--Biografer (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about the edit. I mistaked him with Greg Holland who just became a free agent... then I changed it back to Colorado Rockies... Andrewj27446 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewj27446: Its OK. WP:IAR. Basically, if you made a mistake, and you fixed it, there is no point to report to me (or anybody else) here.--Biografer (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biografer I have a draft of how I think my boss's bio should look but I need help with it because of conflict of interest and because I'm not sure where citations are needed. His current bio has very bad layout and puffy language: Peter Hotez Do I need to do a sandbox thing? Or should I put my draft into his talk page? Thanks in advance. Nwolf1470 Nwolf1470 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nwolf1470: My advice for you would be to start with a sandbox. OK, I seen what you did. You should have added references to the puffery to make it less puffy, but even there the refs should be from a reliable source.--Biografer (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biografer! Thanks for signing up to to take the AN/I survey. As you don't have email enabled, I am unable to send you the survey link. You can enable email in your preferences, or email me at pearleywikimedia.org and I can send it on to the address you use. Regards, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is with reference to your comments about the Rashtriya Hindi Mail, books links are dead: Mass Media

@Biografer: Can I know if you are referring to book link: Google Books - this seems to be working. MyeraMishra (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W3Newspaper MyeraMishra (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more citations in deletion page. MyeraMishra (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HEY! Don't worry, the discussion wasn't about you. Another editor was adding stats even though I asked them to stop 3 times. It just clutters up wiki and it makes it messy when us editors look at the history. From my understanding, there just seems to be a general consensus to wait unless that person got traded.

If you reply to this I might not see it for a few days as I am currently away from home.

Keep up the good editing! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that I totally see where you're coming from with the editing conflicts but I just follow consensus HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: And what seasons are now open to put the stats in? I mean, I found no info on your site that indicates that there is consensus regarding WP:Hockey. I even checked Season Article Drive (assuming it had to do with seasons). I also checked Consensus policy and found nothing that would even closely relate to the "consensus on Hockey" thing. Am I missing something?--Biografer (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I addded stats to an article someone quoted WP:Hockey to me and when people add stats in the middle of the season it is always undone bc it creates an editing mess in the history. I totally see you're POV and it would be nice to constantly update but wiki isn't meant to be up to the minute. As well, sometimes goals are reassigned a day later (Like Andreas Borgman's first goal) and so it messes up stats if that happens. I'd ask an admin about this but I just follow what previous and well established editors seem to be doing. I want to let you know that I don't care either way and it seems I was a little misinformed about policy. If you update stats I won't undo them until I've discussed this with an admin for more specific reasoning on the stats update policy.

HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I messaged admin NinjaRobotPirate. You can check it out on their talk page. Feel free to add anything.

HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to mention that the person I was talking about on my talk page just added the section 2017/18 and didn't add any stats which is why I deleted it. The onus is on them to provide stats and sources. Regardless, I think it would be smart to learn the exact policy HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Some policies on this site aren't written in stone (but they should).--Biografer (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. I didn't mean to make this some big thing but I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I dragged you into something bigger than you wanted it to be. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: I'm the same way, but rules which aren't written usually supported by WP:CIR, which is rather annoying, because it would be better if something like this would have been listed somewhere. Say for example, insert a consensus part on Hockey into WP:Consensus policy by referencing to the main article which is WP:Hockey. Because of those "unwritten" rules our project looses more editors to blocks for violating WP:CIR then to anything else. Confusion leads to frustration which in turn leads to "pacified" block. And because the unblock requests are also tricky (because you need to explain what you did wrong, not why the rules are tricky), chances that a person wont be unblocked no matter what he will do (a pity, if its a new editor). I for one know that WP:Football doesn't have this consensus thing, so editors edit the caps as soon as that player makes an appearance. I might be wrong though, but I seen some people editing caps of football during Manchester United vs Manchester City match of this year!--Biografer (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I have some football players on my watchlist and their stats are updated right after the game. I guess I never questioned why hockey wasn't like that either. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: So, I need to assume conflict solved? :)--Biografer (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the late reply I am away from home. So what I'm gonna do is just not undo hockey stats unless they are absolutely wrong. Thanks for being so patient during this! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undoing all that I just did there earlier! — Wyliepedia 21:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CAWylie: Look, I am sorry if it happened but there was an edit conflict which happened immediately I finished fixing dead links. Sorry if it aggravated you.--Biografer (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Biografer I just wanted to say thanks for all that. By the way, I'm just new over here and I guess I might need your help every time when I'm tryin to make-up an article / page. But if you're willing to help me out, be my guest. Okay Gontle Galefite (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Gontle Galefite (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gontle Galefite: Yes, I will be more then happy to help you. What are you planning to write about? Like, what are your interests?--Biografer (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Biografer I want to write about the National Broadband Plan of the country of Botswana and even the digital terrestrial of ISDB-T of the same country again. Are you able to access my current articles? I just want to know. Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gontle Galefite: Yep. Draft:ISDB-T in (Botswana) as I assume?--Biografer (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer can you check the things that I wrote, correct or not and please add something at the External links Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gontle Galefite:  Done All is good. I added some external links, but there is a problem (on the Internet part) The Guardian Link (probably because its the Botswana branch), doesn't open. I tried to send it via web archive with no avail. But BOCA is a good ref (and can be used as such), so is The Guardian (if it will work properly).--Biografer (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, @Biografer you're super fast. By the way, thanks for that. May God be with you. Look you can at least try to add some things right there, be my guest. Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is sam, i am blogger by hobby and contributor. I found few primary source articles from English based news papers about this Non profit organization online while searching for educational scholarships online. Thought of creating a page for this V adept energy organization for their charitable work and society contribution.

below links look very reliable primary source. the news papers links such as The Hindu, deccan chronicle and telangana today are ranked top on the web http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/where-ideas-take-off/article4347001.ece

http://www.pressreader.com/india/deccan-chronicle/20121120/282522950750887

https://telanganatoday.com/hyderabad-based-v-adept-to-develop-innovation-lab

https://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/english/telangana+today-epaper-telantod/hyderabad+based+v+adept+to+develop+innovation+lab-newsid-78857038

http://vaenergy.org/media.php there are more than 20+ news articles from various national papers have published about this non profit organization. what do you think ? cheers. thumbs . BTY i am trying to make this article better. appreciate your support.Biografer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satish1947 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Satish1947: Well, first of all, thanks for writing this article! Second, I would appreciate if you would stop shouting and turn off your caps lock. Third, if I will be you, I would stop canvassing, and focus on improving the article. Lastly, to prevent further deletion, use a sandbox. Friendly note: Don't shout and don't canvass and you will be fine. I checked your article. The sources are reliable, and there is only one Delete vote. But, even if they (Wikipedians) do delete it, no sweat, you can always recreate it, by first going through a sandbox (a link to which you will see above).--Biografer (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biografer! I see you've edited the WP article for Studio71 recently. I run a paid editing service on Wikipedia called Mister Wiki and someone who I've been attempting to make an article for is one of their executives, Dan Weinstein. Would you be open to reviewing a draft that I've had ready for some time? Articles for Creation is pretty backlogged and figured this would be my best shot at expediting it even a tiny bit. Would be much appreciated and happy to help you back on Wikipedia in any way I can. JacobPace (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, JacobPace, what makes your drafts more important than the other 2200 drafts pending review? Primefac (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

@JacobPace: I will see if I can find sources for Dan. :)--Biografer (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the sources indicate nothing of importance. By searching news via Google I found that he is only briefly mentioned in Variety, The VideInk (not a reliable source), and Tubefilter (another unrealiable source). Variety is reliable when it comes to movies (as far as I know), but the other two, I am hearing for the first time. I will ping @Primefac: to ask his opinion of my analysis.--Biografer (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your analysis of the sources. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - thanks so much, Biografer. I really appreciate you taking the time to look into this. Here's actually the draft that was mocked up if you wanna quickly skim it over and give me your two cents. Primefac - I understand how it might come off as that, and to be honest it doesn't make a different waiting "approximately two months", but I read about WP:CAN and I assume any editor (paid or not) is free to do the same so long as they don't spam the community. And the fact that Biografer took the time out of his day to help me I am very grateful for. JacobPace (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobPace: Actually, by looking at your draft, I have a 50/50 feeling that it might go through. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter refs (that talk a bit more about him and his life in general) might pass WP:GNG. But, if it wont, it wont be yours or my faults (I have 0 influence on consensus). :) So, my advice, keep your hopes up, if it will go through (YAY!) and if not there are plenty of stuff that you can still help us with. Some executives (paid or not) help us here with updating their companies' revenues (and its only them who know it).--Biografer (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'm not trying to push my agenda or anything, but any tips to speed it up or should I just wait? And yes, I do plan on creating a legitimate alternate account for good-faith edits once I wrap up a couple projects. JacobPace (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobPace: Yeah, you just need to wait. Two months is not that long, and there is a chance that it might be sooner then later. Keep in mind that time is approximately 2 months. They might come to it sooner, depending on how many other articles they have and how goodly or badly they are written. Keep your hopes up, though. :)--Biografer (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, thank you! If you don't mind, could you quickly give me your thoughts on this one as well? That's it and I promise I won't bother you anymore lol. JacobPace (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobPace: Wow! This... ...is... ...quite... ...impressive!.. Now, this will past both WP:GNG and BLP:Entertainers. Happy writing!--Biografer (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You rock. Thanks! JacobPace (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check this diff again. Where did I remove sourced material, rather than rearrange the relevant references a bit more rationally? Thanks. 79.13.120.159 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@79.13.120.159: There is no reason to check it again. Your edit was reverted by a previous editor, and that is enough for me to judge what you did. Perhaps, the other editor have his own opinion on your "rational reference rearrangement". Pinging @Beyond My Ken: for verification.--Biografer (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have - ref #1 to Nazi conscience has been overlooked in the previous discussion. 79.13.120.159 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@79.13.120.159: Perhaps. But then explain to me if you rearranged something why it said "-82 bites". Obviously you removed something, otherwise the bite amount would be 0. PS: That's why I am pinging the other editor, so that we both can discuss it here. Maybe it will turn out that you are right. :)--Biografer (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, Biografer, you may have pointed out to me one of the unconscious reasons why I don't really like editing on wikipedia - nuances are not carried over via talk pages as well as if we were discussing it in person. Since this is also part of the reason why I get irritated when discussing edits with other people, I wish to thank you for this; things might well get a little bit easier from now on.

Now, to the point, and on this BMK may very well disagree with me - I should probably have brought it to Der Stürmer's talk page. First paragraph of the lede has two references. One to "Nazi conscience" for the first sentence and one to "Historische Lexicon Bayerns" for the next three, repeated each sentence. According to BMK, this is perfectly allowable, and I have no reason to contradict him. I do find it redundant, though, and you can find this on the page's talk. Another objection by BMK is that a single ref at the end of a paragraph implies it supports the whole paragraph. Here, we disagree - there's the "conscience" ref after the first sentence. It makes for a cleaner first paragraph if two of the "Bayerns" refs are removed and only the last is kept.

Similarly, for the first paragraph in the "Nazi attitudes towards the paper" section. 79.13.120.159 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@79.13.120.159: Some references can be used multiple times, there is no policy against it.--Biografer (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, and if done intelligently I'd welcome it. This case, however, seems one of "simple" working better. 79.13.120.159 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've looked over the material again, and I've reversed my opinion. I now think that the additional references aren't necessary given the way the paragraphs are structured. I'll send a note to the editor who originally made the changes, and post my revised comment on the talk page. I'm going to head over there, restore the REPCITE changes, but, of course, leave the author that Biografer added. Thanks to both of you for bringing this to my attention again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@79.13.120.159: Thank you for pointing it out in a civil manner. I think you right are after all. :) And as I can see discussion was worth it. I would like to thank @Beyond My Ken: separately for rational rethinking and doing revisions, as well as notification to the previous editor about his "right of mind".--Biografer (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Thanks to the two of you for the same. 79.13.120.159 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dear Wikipedian, you've just welcomed me as a new user, I certainly would thank you … except that I have been editing Wikipedia for years. Maybe you'd like another barnstar, but please earn it honestly.

Cordialement,

--5915961t (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@5915961t: Sorry, but then explain to me why you have 2 accounts?--Biografer (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uh, I don't understand: I edit mainly in French Wikipedia, but in other languages too, with the same pseudonym; I never opened a second account, so I'm quite as puzzled by your question as I was by your intervention …

Cordialement,

--5915961t (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@5915961t: Because there is a user under the same name as you sign your comments: Cordialement The user is inactive though and his talkpage is blank. With that said, that might clear the puzzlement a bit for you, but not for me.--Biografer (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear you are still not paying attention when attempting to welcome users. 5915961t has been editing here for years. Nihlus 06:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now a new bug, or a new error from yours? « Cordialement, » is something like “Yours truly”, but less formal; so there is NO user of that name to be pinged! And I doubt there's an other user with my own pseudonym, which is:

Yours truly,

--5915961t (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: It is clear that majority of editors that I welcomed in the past months were good editors. Just yesterday I reverted a bad faith edit by someone. So, I am getting a hang of it. :) Also, this was the only editor who's contributions I overlooked. I looked at the current article that he was editing, it was good contribution, so I welcomed him.--Biografer (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@5915961t: Sorry, for bad faith at first, but I didn't knew what Cordialement meant until you mentioned it.--Biografer (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't see any bad faith, and prefer to be welcomed than … reverted  :–)

Nice continuation to all! Cordialement,

--5915961t (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Percy Bland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Compton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to ask you to publish my first article? Cholek12 (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cholek12: Which is about what?--Biografer (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check my contributions. I created only one article. Cholek12 (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete that awards? Cholek12 (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cholek12: Sorry, its called edit conflict.--Biografer (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cholek12: Now its back: Draft:Andrzej M. Chołdzyński--Biografer (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my friend. Cholek12 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biografer! Hope you're doing well. I recently took some time to improve my proposed draft for Datari Turner and I just wanted to see if you had any feedback for me? Also, regarding its salting, is there any way for that to be removed? Thank you for all the help! JacobPace (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @JacobPace: As you probably know quite well, desalting an article requires Admin intervention. Quite frankly, after the recent Arbitration case, you would be pretty hard pressed to find any active admin who would be too keen on helping a Mister Wiki employee. I hope, for your sake, that I am wrong. -- Dolotta (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dolotta. I too hope the admin looking over the draft can look at it with an open mind and open heart as well. JacobPace (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobPace: I too have an issue with it being salted, but unfortunately salting cannot be removed (even for a person who have no connection to the subject, like myself). The admins here like it to be their way and there is a reason for it.--Biografer (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I guess I was asking more if you had any suggestions for the draft to have the best chance of success (its notability, structure, writing, etc.) seeing as you work on a lot of biographies on Wikipedia. Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.41% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for February: Black women Mathematicians and statisticians Geofocus: Island women #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: What's the difference between this and WikiProject Women?--Biografer (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red is specifically targeted at creating articles on women and their works while WP Women is a more traditional WikiProject covering women in general. At WiR, we are particularly interested in improving the gender balance on the English Wikipedia where only 17.4% of all biographies are on women.--Ipigott (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on the wikipedia page "Hazarajat", under the title "Ethnic Group", are you sure that Hazara people formed 28% of Afghanistan population? Based on world population review afghanistan population, the Hazara people only have 9% population. Therefore, can you edit the page"Hazarajat", under the title "Ethnic Group"? I don't know how to cite page. I can't find any page that said Hazara people formed 28% of Afghanistan population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.118.50 (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@198.178.118.50: Try to find a source that claims that "Hazara people only have 9% population". As for citing, check this helpful instruction out: Citation.--Biografer (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- IPs can't receive pings. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolotta: Never knew it. But then, what is the point behind their talkpage existence? Just to drop warnings and block templates? Can an IP editor ask for an unblock or is that too is unlikely function?--Biografer (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the particulars since I am not a programmer and have no wish to be. All I know is that for some weird, strange reason, the software does not allow IPs to receive pings. There is a check box on the notifications tax in your preferences where you can get notified if a mention (ping) is not successful. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Thank you for your message to me. I've been using Wikipedia for years and have found it to be invaluable. I give an automatic monthly donation to Wikipedia to help and so I don't feel guilty using it almost every day! ;-)

Although I've been a user for years, I've never written an article and I've only ever made minor edits to articles. I don't know how (there's so much to learn) so I thank you for the information you sent to me. Cheers! Starsmark (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Starsmark: You are welcome! Many people who are editing Wikipedia on daily basis and used to receive a welcome message from me after a decade of usage was rather ungrateful for it, but I am glad that at least you are different. As for donations, don't brag about it too much. I personally don't give them a dime for this reason alone. After this issue it became uncertain if the money go anywhere but to the founder's pocket who uses it for personal gain (and who knows what they are). On the other hand, yes, it is invaluable when it comes to sharing of knowledge. Great tool for that matter. However, if you decide to write an article feel free to leave me a message here and I will be glad to help!--Biografer (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

I wasn't bragging. I only meant to convey how highly I value Wikipedia and how often I use it, which is almost every day. I don't care who pays and who doesn't. Honestly, sometimes I feel everything I say or write is misunderstood and criticized. Starsmark (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Starsmark: Same here. Just look at the above discussions and you wont feel alone.--Biografer (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to welcome me and sending me some helpful links on creating and editing. Much appreciated. Andianajones (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi how are you doing Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Well, hello. What do you need?--Biografer (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to ask you something Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Do you have Skype, because if its private, we can chat there?--Biografer (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't have skype Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just tell you what I need Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Feel free. What do you want to ask me?--Biografer (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so you have been here for a while and how do I create an article Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer are you going to answer my question Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: What do you want to write about?--Biografer (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Tenebrous Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Seems notable. OK, so first you need to read this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article It will tell you how to write an article in general.--Biografer (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer I Just reed the link words so do I start Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Yes. Theoretically, you can start at anytime but I just decided to give you a link so that you would know how to write.--Biografer (talk)

@Biografer So I summited the draft a few minutes ago what do I do now Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Just wait. It might take a month or two before they will read it. If its not notable enough or if its a blatant hoax, they might reject it. I don't have authority over that though. :)--Biografer (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer how many articles have you created Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Does it matter? 69 in total. Why?--Biografer (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer so you have creating acticle experience Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer so they declined my request what do I do now Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Write something else, or rewrite it with better sources.--Biografer (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer ok I’ll create something new tomorrow because it 10:13 were I live Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it needs to be said since the editor above has been blocked as a sock puppet, but I feel the need to explain to you, Biografer, that no, an article on Darth Tenebrous is not notable... I don't know how you came to that conclusion but you are incorrect. --Tarage (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: According to this search it is. IGN talks about him, Vulture does too. Like, look, I don't know what are the WP:GNG for characters, but if those two sites do mention him, there is a reason for it.--Biografer (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Writers have struggled with them in canonical and quasi-canonical Star Wars spinoff stories ever since: There was a tale having to do with mapping the Jedi genome; an in-universe manual talked about how rock creatures without organic cells might interact with midi-chlorians; and some dude named Darth Tenebrous created things called maxi-chlorians, about which the less is said, the better." You have to read the sources. Not included in any movies, maybe included and worth mentioning in the appropriate book article, not notable enough to have their own article. Just because you can google a name of someone doesn't mean they are notable. Hell, you can google my real name and get results, but I am not notable. --Tarage (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: How exactly would I Google your real name if we all use aliases on Wikipedia?--Biografer (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. It's an example. The point is, he's not notable. Fan wikis cover it well enough. --Tarage (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example, if you would ask me, but o' well.--Biografer (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can I create a talk page? I found a page without a talkpage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazna_Khalid), how do I add one? 2Joules (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@2Joules: Depends on what subject is that talkpage belongs to? Wikipedia have many topics and as many taskforces. Creating talkpages is simple and complicated thing to do at the same time. It is rare when an article's talpage is empty. Usually, bots create talkpages here (except for user talkpages) by using various templates. Such example you will see here. Eventually, we as editors fill it in as you will see in my edit here. If its a bio, you can just copy and paste it. If its an animal, you need to create a different one, and in that you need to create one for each family. I hope, this will clear up some of the mess that you asked me to clear. :-)--Biografer (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: Thank you. I tried to see the wiki text of some talk pages but it was not clear to me if we just copy a template and then other information is taken care of or if we add the wikicode manually and all talk pages falling under a main umbrella subject are just the same. I can see now that the later is truer. Thank you again for helping. 2Joules (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little puzzled you marked this as a test p. There's a long Russian article, and you're a native speaker. And he is a full member of ANUSSR. I marked it for expansion. DGG (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I was puzzled by the way that somebody wrote one sentence and used WorldCat as a main ref. That's why I assumed it was a test page. PS: I have expanded the article though, check it out: Boris Arbuzov (chemist).--Biografer (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think not notable is a valid reason for speedy deletion, you should never nominate anything for deletion, period. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oiyarbepsy: If you would look at the article's talkpage, you would see that reason why I did that wasn't my idea.--Biografer (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You are contradicting yourself, @Oiyarbepsy:. On one hand you say that I had actually PRODed this as original research, but on the other hand you are telling me that original research and not notable are not ever reasons for speedy delete, ever. According to CSD policy this article falls under 3 criteria which it meets: G11 - because (the last line of it al least) indicates that it is promotional. A7 - No indication of importance (not notable, in my language) - because its unsourced. And finally, A10 - because it does duplicates the same info that talks in LALR article only expands on it a hair bit. Seems like, like my PROD was in fact justified, but I wont object a redirect or merge for that matter. Just wanted to explain this to user Oiyarbepsy somehow.--Biografer (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • G11 means that a complete rewrite would be required to make it non-promotional - in this case, the only action required is to remove that last sentence, so this speedy delete does not apply. The article clearly demonstrates significance as an algorithm that is widely used in computer science, and besides, this subject is not on the limited list of what can be deleted under A7. A10 only applies if there to new articles that don't expand on the other topic (and you admit that it does) and only to titles that aren't credible redirects. Therefore, none of the claimed speedy deletion criteria apply to this article. Speedy deletion is only applicable to cases where there is literally no doubt or questions, not to articles about technical subjects where users aren't certain whether it is original research or not or how different it is from other topics on Wikipedia. My initial PROD was justified at the time, but your Speedy was never justified by any stretch of the imagination. You need to learn the speedy criteria better and use them correctly, instead of twisting the criteria to see right after you've already got it wrong. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, reading your post again, it seems you don't understand the difference between PROD and speedy delete. You should not be working in speedy deletion if you don't know the difference. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Oiyarbepsy: Just got it. PROD is Proposing Deletion and Speedy Deletion means that no discussion is necessary which in this case should have been applied. :(--Biografer (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm really curious why on earth you assessed the Tatyana Makarova article as a stub. It was over 7,000 bytes, many paragraphs, had infobox, wikilinks, images, is not an orphan, etc...What is missing, what needs to be improved? While ratings are subjective, tagging articles like that one as a stub just clog up to-do lists and stub categories with articles that are not as desperately in need of improvement as 1-2 paragraph machine translated articles without sources that don't have infoboxes. I mean, with articles like this that are true stubs that require translation from the corresponding Russian article, what good is it to tag longer articles that don't have nearly as much room for improvement?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PlanespotterA320: I apologize for my mistake. Indeed, it suppose to be a C, but it still ranks as Start. :(--Biografer (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the reason some templates still list as start is because you did not fill out the B-class checklist (it's this:

<!-- B-Class checklist -->
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = y/n
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = y/n
| b3 <!--Structure --> = y/n
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = y/n
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = y/n
) Hope this helps.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading Wikipedia:Twinkle as it contains install instructions ("Getting started: To enable Twinkle on your account and receive any future updates automatically, you can simply enable the "Twinkle" gadget in the Gadgets section of your Preferences page.") and links to other documentation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As a member of the Russian Wikipedia, would you please consider joining the Soviet Aviation Task Force and perhaps tackling some of the items on our to-do list? One of our most valuable members, Ftxs, was blocked over some issue with a Syrian civil war article, so now our progress is much slower. Many of the articles on our to-do list are biographies, which you seem very fond of and as you are a native Russian speaker we could really use your help. Thank you, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PlanespotterA320: Yes, no problem. I actually already tried to translate some titles from Russian to English (I hope you seen them?) Right now I am trying to fill-in bare refs in articles related to airports though.--Biografer (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Please add your name to the participants list and add the task force userbox! I'm really glad to have a native Russian speaker in the project now. So many documents, reports, and newspapers for sources are only in Russian with only a few English sources available. :)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for adding the election results to the constituency articles. Just a couple of requests – the percentages for each candidate should be of the valid votes, not the entire votes cast (unfortunately this will involve recalculating what the ECZ published) and the total percentage should be 100. Also, I think it's best not to abbreviate the party names – the acronyms won't be familiar to anyone not familiar with Zambian politics. Cheers, Number 57 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Thanks. Can you let me know if I did this one right? Katuba (constituency)--Biografer (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. You need to recalculate the percentages yourself (do not use the ones from the ECZ) and exclude the invalid votes when you do the calculation. The percentage received by the candidates should add up to 100%. You need to make sure the total row is the valid + invalid votes, not just the valid ones. And INDEP means Independent, not Independent Party. I've made all the corrections here, and have also corrected the figures you added to the Kabwata and Roan articles.

I was also a bit unclear as to why you created links for some candidates and not others. The candidates I would link are ones that were previously/were to become MPs for the constituency, so in the case of Katuba, Gilbert Mululu and Patricia Mwashingwale. I couldn't see any reason for linking Reuben Musakabantu or Queen Kapembwa. Number 57 23:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Same reason as why you wikified Gilbert Mululu and Patricia Mwashingwale. Like, I sometimes wikify people that have a full name rather then name/middle initial/last name. In case if somebody will write an article on them it will be easier for people to click on that and start creating. Either way, thank you for your calculations, and am sorry that I caused so much trouble. :(--Biografer (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's no trouble. With regards to linking candidates, only politicians that have been elected to Parliament will generally be deemed notable – I linked Gilbert Mululu and Patricia Mwashingwale as they both were MP for Katuba at some point in time. However, Reuben Musakabantu or Queen Kapembwa were not elected and so would be highly unlikely to be notable, hence why they shouldn't really be linked. Number 57 11:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I don't mind counting the percentages manually (I can take out my calculator, since I can't seem to find one on my Windows XP computer or my newly brought iPhone), but am wondering if doing such thing would smack on original research?--Biografer (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple calculations are exempt from being WP:OR – for example on many election results pages the figures are added up by editors because the Election Commission never published the totals in one place.

In terms of doing the calculations, I'd recommend using Excel. Create the table with the vote figures in it, then copy it into Excel and do the calculations. Number 57 20:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Smart idea. I'm an expert when it comes to Excel spreadsheets, but for that I will need to move to my desktop and restore everything (since it was hit by a virus a year ago).--Biografer (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to let someone control my first new made page to see wether it is in line with Wikipedia standards: Caridina woltereckae. Also thanks for the welcome.Jarne Colman (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarne Colman: You probably meant to say; To check. Yes, that I can do and I already did. Articles on animals are not deletable. Your article, while is Stub, is good.--Biografer (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed meant to check it. Thanks for the quick response.Jarne Colman (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--21:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

An editor named, CoughingCookieHeart, have made this edit in the article. But the problem with the edit that it have errors, most of the sources that was added by the editor was already in the article, so I was changing the references into footnotes with this edit. Yeah I should have made an edit summary, so that's was my mistake that you take my edit as disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User talk:Auwall requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gbawden (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Centennial High School (Oregon), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rose Festival (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am a college student working on this article for a final project for my class, for a very large portion of my grade. I am not done working on this article- could you please edit this later, tomorrow perhaps? I have a deadline to edit by 5:00pm today (in about an hour). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristischles (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cristischles: Sorry mate, I wasn't aware that Wikipedia can be used for college projects, but you still can't remove images and say that you actually adding them.--Biografer (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vietnam's Got Talent (season 4), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shadowplay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canajoharie (village), New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the archive URLs from the article on Pavel Gubarev? Archive URLs are useful even though the original URL still works for now. By having the "deadurl=no" parameter set in the citation template, people still get the original link when they click on the link in the citation.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: I don't think its acceptable to have a duplicate urls. One archived, one not that is. Further more, I don't think it is acceptable to fight over it on this talkpage. And, last but not least your revert had undone an archive that I did. I suggest you to stop reverting just because you think its fun. There are far better things that you can revert other then removed archived urls. :)--Biografer (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		thanks for the information on wikipedia. have a nice day

Popcorn the artist (talk) 15th May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the welcome message. Was that in response to some gaffe I've already managed to create? Thanks! Nickhayeck (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nickhayeck: No, if it would have been a gaffe (by that I assume you meant trouble), then we have different message {{Uw-vandalism2}}. But, I hope we wont go that road will we? :)--Biografer (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: Ah, I was referring to a factual error or something of the sort. No trouble from me :) -- Nickhayeck (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый вечер! Получил ваше сообщение! Спасибо! Скажите, как можно переместить новый артикль из черновиков - в полноценную статью, и как долго это занимает времени?

Humanofmc (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanofmc: Вы имеете ввиду стаб. В Русском языке, артикль это знак ударения. :) А о чём статья? По времени, (смотря о чём вы пишете) должно занять не много времени.--Biografer (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Я сейчас создаю биографию - и она в разделе драфтов - как сделать ее лайв? )

Humanofmc (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanofmc: Можно просто перенести, а драфт оставить (его потом админы убирают, если не будет нужен в течении 6 месяцев).--Biografer (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Я понял о чём ваша статья. Попытаюсь помочь.--Biografer (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Max_Beitan - вот работаю над ней последние несколько часов. Ваше мнение? И скажите ваш скайп - чтобы было удобнее)

Humanofmc (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has edited by me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_nations_at_the_FIFA_World_Cup

but to edit with a good view is very hard, have easy code for being good editing? i just copy code from the upper code. and so far how about it? sorry bad english

IEIWith (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a canvass, just a reminder.

I firmly believe that the mentioned page should be retained as it does satisfy minimum criteria of notability and instead needs improvement. Please give your independent view on the issue. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is broad disagreement over the levels, with many editors and admins thinking that level 1 is a joke. I don't tell people to start at 1 and work it up slowly. Some acts are instantly blockable. Finally, "you should have used" just doesn't sound right. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: What should have I used, "suppose", or you have some other suggestions? If so, I don't see it more or less civil (if you assume that I was breaching that rule), but to each his own. Either way, let me explain the issues at hand: More then half a year ago, I was chasing a vandal here who was removing sourced content from as many as 4-5 articles. I gave him a rather stern warning: Level 4, and reported him to AN/I following his attempt at vandalizing another article. At AN/I, I was greeted with criticism that I should have given the "vandal" a bit of leeway (aka, level escalation), otherwise I shouldn't report editors who are supposed vandals without proper amount of warnings. PS: I did provide diffs which clearly shown his actions as vandalism. That is why I was surprised that you immediately did Level 3 warning. PS: I do assume good faith of your actions. It was just shocking for me to see such a warning and so soon. :)--Biografer (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biografer, "should" is patronizing. I can't comment on what happened at ANI. All kinds of things happen there. Sometimes people report but there've been no warnings. Sometimes people report non-vandals. I remember reporting what I thought was obvious vandalism and an admin saying "no it's not" or whatever. (But I don't think I told an admin they should do this or that.) If you remember what it was, I'll be happy to look and tell you what I think. Mandarax and I, and many others, were quite unhappy with the new level-1, a few years ago. So once you scrap that one, which isn't a vandalism warning really, you only have three left, and obvious intentional vandalism doesn't deserve a welcome. And yes, I have blocked editors after just one edit. Who has time to follow an editor who is obviously up to no good, warning four times before reporting? Drmies (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: You said "new level-1", so I need to assume that level-1 warning was introduced recently. If so, in what year specifically was level-1 warnings introduced? I assumed it was since the beginning of Wikipedia (early 2000s).--Biografer (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before your time. If I had to guess I'd say three or four years ago. The edit history of the template might make that clear. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the background of this discussion, but I won't let that stop me from commenting. I consider it entirely appropriate to begin with a level 2 or 3 warning, depending on the severity of the vandalism. As for starting with a level 4, I reserve that for the most loathsome edits; in my 13 years here, I've only done that maybe one or two times. BTW, when you said you reported a vandal to AN/I, did you mean to say AIV?

Regarding the level 1 warnings.... I may be misinterpreting what you meant, but I think you misinterpreted what Drmies said. He wasn't saying that level 1 warnings in general were newly introduced, but was referring to the new(ish) versions of those warnings. That happened six years ago. For a little bit of how I felt about those new versions, see User talk:Drmies/Archive 35#The horrible new level 1 warnings. I have never intentionally issued any of those warnings (although I've accidentally done it a few times by a Twinkle misclick). I use the original warnings (still available at User:Double sharp/uw), which I've configured as customized warnings in Twinkle. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mandarax. I always enjoy your comments and insights. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandarax: Yes, I was referring to AIV, so the discussion that was there is long gone. :( I use some times this level 1 warning: {{uw-vandalism1}}--Biografer (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I didn't want to post on the socks page because I don't know the master but they are definitely connected to Air Line Pilots Association (North America) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and University of Atlantis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Their common MO is that they seem to create promotional usernames, get blocked, and then use offensive nicknames in their unblock requests. I'm not sure if this helps or not but the more information available the better, right?

Of course.--Biografer (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All blocked, and a few others, thanks to Zzuuzz. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: Who were the others?--Biografer (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha, a bunch of made-up accounts; I saw a dozen of them, and on a number I placed CU blocks, so you can see those in my log. There is no point keeping track of that user's sock puppets. Plus, they want to be caught--they just do it for the attention. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We go back a while, I'm afraid. We'd have to block a major part of a major state to prevent it. I tried talking to him, but to no avail. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and HickoryOughtShirt?4: Who is him?--Biografer (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The living person behind those accounts, and a thousand others. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, him. I had Courcelles protect my meta talk because of him. I tend to hand him off to stewards. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: That is quite a vandal you have here ...--Biografer (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what you did here wasn't constructive, mostly along WP:RETAIN lines, though with two questionable sourcing edits as well as all the twiddling:

• You deleted a non-empty |archive-url=. That directly broke the citation.
• There's no point in replacing one maybe unreliable source with a definitely unreliable one. Swapping catsofaustralia.com out for bastet-beauty.com replaced a questionable small-organization site with a personal blog which is even less reliable (WP:SPS).
• Removing infobox parameters that may be filled at any time (e.g. |gccfstd=) isn't helpful. It makes it less likely that anyone will periodically go check to see if the parameter can now be filled, and less likely that someone will fill it even if they could, because they won't know what the parameter name is or even that it exists.
• Per WP:CITEVAR, please do not change from one citation style to another without good reason (some even demand a consensus discussion first, but I don't go that far – I think it's extremist).
  None of the following are helpful:
  • Changing from |first=|last= to |author= – All that does is a) corrupt the template's metadata, and b) interfere with the ability to get author names to show up consistently in the refs section. Using |author= in this way is actually directly deprecated. It's an alias for |last1=, so you're telling us that someone's surname is "Somerville, Louisa" and that they have no given name. The |author= parameter alias should only be used for organizational authors, e.g. |author=Select Committee on Underwater Basketweaving.
  • Removing all spaces between template citation parameters and values – All that does is make the citation code difficult to read, edit, and scan for completeness or error, as well as interfere with line wrapping in the editing window. (That said, if you encounter something like | para1 = value | para2 = value it is reasonable to group the elements: |para1=value |para2=value; that's the dominant style on the system for good reason.)
  • Using |year= instead of |date= – The former has been a deprecated parameter alias for a long time now. (Not sure if any of those were yours, actually.)
  • Changing <ref name="foo" /> to <ref name=foo/> – Firstly, if anyone ever replaces the ref name with something like "Jones 2009" for a source cited multiple times, all those citations will break, because the quotation marks are required if the ref name has a space in it; it is always safest to include the quotation marks. Second, any XML parsing tool can handle our <ref name="foo" /> markup, for WP:REUSE of WP's content, but various of them will break if not fed valid XML markup, in which the space before the /> is obligatory. While the average page here is "broken" in this respect, that's no reason to break more of them on purpose. It just makes our eventual cleanup job, moving to more standardized formats in the long run, more difficult.
• Using ""DD MM YYYY" dates in an "MM DD, YYYY" article or vice versa is also problematic; it's against MOS:DATEVAR, and it just creates consistency cleanup work for someone to do later.
• Changing {{citation needed}} to {{cn}} should be the other way around. {{Cn}} is only a shortcut for editors in a hurry, and primarily intended for talk page use ("I {{cn}}-tagged it."). We even have a (slow) bot that replaces such template aliases inside articles with direct calls to the templates in question. The shortcuts, if used inside the actual article, are less informative for anyone (especially new editors) reading the wikisource; and it unnecessarily makes the system process a pointless redirect before rendering. (But see below: some redirs in the code are not pointless).
• With regard to actual article links, we have a guideline (MOS:NOPIPE) against changing, e.g., [[St. Petersburg]] to [[Saint Petersburg|St. Petersburg]]. (There's a rationale for it at the guideline. I don't feel strongly about it, but some editors do, and may cause drama over it.)
• Changing {{Cite episode ...}} to {{cite episode ...}} serves no purpose at all. Weirdly, in the same edit you changed {{reflist ...}} {{Reflist ...}} and {{domestic cat}} to {{Domestic cat}}. This gives a "Ha ha, I'm just messing around for the hell of it; see if you can even figure out what I'm doing!" impression.
• Similarly, changing == History == to ==History== is completely pointless, other than to normalize one different heading to the style of the rest in the same article. Either style is permissible (MOS:HEADINGS), so there is no consensus to "correct" one style to the other.

I do appreciate that you added some sourcing, and updated a URL. It's also nice to change vertical citations to horizontal when they're in the main prose (vertical ones make it hard to figure out the paragraph structure of the article, but are preferable when citations are grouped at the end of the page, in WP:LDR style). Anyway, I've normalized the citation and date formats to one consistent approach in the article now (I don't even care what the date format is; I just went with the one that was already used the most in the page already).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I didn't knew that the site I used as a ref was a blog... As for dates, there were some that were dmy and some were ymd, I decided to use dmy, and just like you, I don't care about dates, archives, etc. So, why worry? I believe it was a waste of your time to go and clean-up something that can remain as is. When I checked the article immediately after my edit, I haven't seen any broken links. I dis saw a red link in taxon of, but I assumed it was like that prior to my edit. If that's the case, I am truly sorry.--Biografer (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can't remain as-is; we're instructed by CITEVAR, DATEVAR, and the rest of MoS to be consistent in the same article. PS: I don't think there were any broken wikilinks; I was talking about removal of the |archive-url=...|dead-link=y in a citation. The original URL remained, but it hasn't beed valid in years, which is what the archive stuff fixes. Anyway, the point was to give some specific rationales about these things, instead of the all-too-typoical "WTF are you doing! STOP!" kind of post people tend to make in usertalk. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Per CITEVAR and DATEVAR, as I told you earlier some of them were dmy, some were ymd, and some refs didn't even had accessdates at all. So to establish consistency, I did dmy. If you don't like it, that's your problem. As for the comment "This gives a "Ha ha, I'm just messing around for the hell of it; see if you can even figure out what I'm doing!" impression." - If I would have done only that I probably wont be here by now, but I am, because I do rather helpful edits. As for "Using |author= in this way is actually directly deprecated. It's an alias for |last1=, so you're telling us that someone's surname is "Somerville, Louisa" and that they have no given name. The |author= parameter alias should only be used for organizational authors, e.g. |author=Select Committee on Underwater Basketweaving." - BS. I checked both ways and both ways look fine. I don't know where you got the idea that "so you're telling us that someone's surname is "Somerville, Louisa" and that they have no given name" thing. First, the given name is "Louisa" and its obvious because it goes last name then first name. No to mention that some articles use |author= as first and last name combined and nobody creates drama over it. In fact, I personally prefer first then last, but because citation with |last= and |first= can be placed either way, the result will be "last, first" no matter which way you put it. So, in short, I don't see the difference and this discussion is pointless. PS: To be honest, I did read your lengthy message as "WTF are you doing! STOP!", only way longer then just that phrase plus being WP:Pointy. Off topic, for some odd reason, the image of the cat looks cuddly on my iPhone but on my laptop its a Cheshire Cat with an evil grin. :(--Biografer (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly, and hopefully without sounding pissy: Doing unhelpful edits while doing helpful ones doesn't make the unhelpful ones helpful. Flipping leading case on template here, and flipping it the other direction there isn't helpful. It wouldn't even be helpful if you flipped them all in the same direction; it's just arbitrary. It's not harmful, but it's a waste of time, including for others, since it triggers watchlists for no practical reason. The |author= parameter is for organizational authors. Whether it looks the same when you do |author=Janet K. Fong and |first1=Janet K.|last1=Fong is irrelevant; the meaning is different, and you cost us operable metadata when you shove an entire human name into one parameter, plus you misidentify the entire name as a surname (|author= is the same parameter as |last1=; this is bad template design, but it is what it is). Nothing is "obvious" about any human name like "Louisa" to an automated tool. What you're doing is breaking the WP:REUSEability of our content, among other things. Asking you to stop doing that isn't "drama", it's a request to stop making articles [slightly] worse with this semi-automated twiddling (per WP:MEATBOT). The fact that we have some articles with |author= being misused is a problem to correct (as we get around to it); it is not an excuse to multiply the error. But bringing this up isn't an accusation that you're a terrible person, it's just a request to do something different and why. It's not being critical just to be critical; there's a real reason, even if it doesn't rise to a level like the core content policies or BLP. Icons: I really know F all about emoji, honestly. I got the impression that the graphical glyphs vary widely. I guess this confirms it! Anyway, antagonizing you wasn't my point, just asking you to tweak your gnoming a bit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I don't know why |author= is used in such way, but I use |agency= for that. If the author is agency, I choose agency. If the author is a person I choose |author=. I don't use automated tools, other then Twinkle, so I don't see the error that you are seeing. I don't really see the correlation between what I am doing and reusability of our content. The content doesn't go anywhere, does it? Plus, you are citing irrelevant to our discussion policies.--Biografer (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

|author= is used in such a way (identifying organizational authors like committees) because that's what it's for. That's not what |agency= is for; that's only for newswires (like AP and UPI) who are being syndicated in a particular newspaper: {{cite news |first=Chris |last=Thimblenose |Title=Bostwana Invades United States |agency=[[Associated Press]] |work=Weedsville Picayune Times |date= ...}}. The template documentation is clear about that: "agency: The news agency (wire service) that provided the content; examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. May be wikilinked if relevant." Please just use the parameters for what they're intended and documented for. Here's the relevant bit for |author=: "For corporate authors or authors for whom only one name is listed by the source ...(e.g. |author=Bono)" It is emphatically not for doing something like |author=Snorkeweasel, Sam Q. or |author=Sam Q. Snorkelweasel. I would surmise that we have |agency= because some newswire articles have a byline, so it would not be possible to identify the author with |last= and |first= and also identify the newswire with |author= because both |author= and |last= resolve to |last1=. It's important to ID the newswire, because their stories can be found in a zillion newspapers, so the exact one cited need not be found (and may be near impossible for most readers to find) to verify the content; they only have to find the same article in some other paper.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

|SMcCandlish= Well, I was thinking I was wrong even here, but apparently I am doing the same thing as you described when it comes to |agency=. I use it for AP, AFP, TASS or Reuters. :)--Biografer (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for message. The Earwig tool only works on the text as it is, currently showing 9.9%, violation unlikely. I didn't just take Cwmhiraeth's word for it, I ran the tool, which showed a significant violation including verbatim copying. I'm not prepared to restore copyright material just to try to persuade you that we were not making it up, and you should be aware that copyright text must be hidden in the history so it can't be recovered.

In truth, the extent of the copyright material was not huge, most of what Cwmhiraeth removed was actually promotional material rather than copied text. Despite what you say, some of the promo and claimed facts were completely unsourced, eg Admired by the audience of his unique and individual interpretation using synthesis of belcanto and a “speaking” technique. Listening to his collaboration with the instrument it seems to us that he sometimes sings and sometimes just speaks. Thanks to his energetic interpretations and a winning personality, his concerts leave a unique impression. (and subsequent similar paragraphs) is fact-free unreferenced sales talk.

Even where there are references, they are often of low quality It is now Wikipedia policy that text about living people must have independent verifiable references, as defined in the link, or it will be deleted. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to him or an affiliated company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what he or an involved organisation claims or interviewing him. I didn't check all the references, but some were interviews with him, some were just reviews of his concerts, some were not independent-third party sources, one was a photo album.

Another example Mr. Greenhouse he marked: “Max Beitan will be one of the best cellists in the world!”. is completely unsourced. Even if he really said it (quotes must be sourced), one man's opinion doesn't make it an actual fact, and I can't see any negative quotes, sourced or not. He's presented as god's gift to music.

It's clear that this promo article was largely written by him or someone acting on his behalf, and I think Cwmhiraeth and I both considered whether it should be speedy deleted. Instead, she salvaged the article by removing unsourced, dubiously sourced and promotional material. The fact that you appeared to be a GF editor whose contributions didn't indicate an obvious conflict of interest also helped.

Cwmhiraeth is a very experienced and expert editor who has made this a much better article, and while I can understand your annoyance that some of your edits were lost, you should think carefully before adding anything else to this article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: Is it possible to post those references onto my talk page? I don't know Latvian but I just want to see them. Thanks,--Biografer (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Elena Fyodorova (2 January 2013). Максим Бейтан: Новый Ростропович? [Maxim Beitan: A new Rostropovich] (in Russian). Retrieved 25 June 2018.
• "Maxim Beitan". www.opera.lv (in Latvian). Retrieved 26 June 2018.
• Inta Zēgnere (12 March 2014). "Čellists Maksims Beitāns: "Pirms pelnīt naudu, vēlējos iemācīties labi spēlēt!"" [Cellist Maxim Beitan: "Before earning money, I wanted to learn how to play well!"]. klasika.lsm.lv. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
• Русское вещание LTV7 (30 May 2017), Страдивари, Гварнери и Амати в Риге [Stradivari, Guarneri and Amati in Riga], retrieved 26 June 2018{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• "The Great Stradivarius | Aunie Frisch – Creative Consultant – Graphic Designer & Digital Strategist". afrisch.com. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
• "LNO kora koncerts "Dievs, Tava zeme deg!"". 5 March 2012. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
• ""Sinfonietta Rīga" maija vidū noslēgs sezonu" ["Sinfonietta Rīga" will close in the middle of May]. LA.lv (in Latvian). 30 April 2014. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
• "„Sinfonietta Rīga" aicina uz sezonas noslēguma koncertu". riga2014.org (in Latvian). Rīga. 30 April 2014. Retrieved 26 June 2018.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• "Concert: Escales Musicales Evian 2013:17 mai - Album photos - Atelier Photo du Léman". gerardruizphotos.canalblog.com. 17 May 2013. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
• "«Sinfonietta Rīga» noslēgs sezonu ar koncertu Lielajā ... | TVNET". TVNET (in Latvian). 1 May 2014. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
• "Kamerorķestris Sinfonietta Rīga noslēdz panākumiem bagātu sezonu" [Chamber Orchestra "Sinfonietta Rīga" successfully concludes season]. old.iksd.riga.lv (in Latvian). Retrieved 26 June 2018.
• "Čelist Maxim Beitan i pijanist Domagoj Gušćić zaslužili ovacije" [Cellist Maxim Beitan and pianist Domagoj Gušćic earned ovations] (in Croatian). 11 August 2017. Retrieved 26 June 2018.
• Ramiro Palmić (11 August 2016). "Mašta i kreativnost: Uz koncert latvijskog violončelista Maxima Beitana" [Imagination and creativity: With the concert of Latvian cellist Maxim Beitan]. Novi list (in Croatian). Retrieved 26 June 2018.
• "Maksims Beitāns tur vārdu" [Maksim Beitan kept his word]. zz.lv. 23 March 2016. Retrieved 26 June 2018.

(External links)

• Max Beitan General Management
• Site dedicated to Max Beitan
• FAI
• Escales Musicales
• Official YouTube channel
• Viva Cello
• Television Interview with Max Beitan from RSI TV

I should say that normally you would only need one external link to the main official website of the artist. I trimmed the list because some were clearly unsuitable (eg YouTube, Wikipedia) or seemed primarily promotional or unnecessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This link shows the Earwig comparison at the time I removed the copyright violation. The Wikipedia article is shown on the left and the source is shown on the right. The highlighted text on the left side of the page has been copy/pasted from the highlighted text on the right. It's a useful tool and in this case clearly shows the copyvios. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Cwmhiraeth, I rarely use Earwig myself, so I hadn't appreciated that it's possible to do that. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jim,

Sorry for bothering, 2 years ago, we've post the article about PCCOOLER which is our brand and company's name. I actually had read COOLERMASTER DEEPCOOL COSAIR... all of similar companies' articles before I made the post we do not wanna use wiki to promote our brand or any products, we just wanna do the same thing like what 78other similar companies did just wanna add as introduction which let people know when did we build the company and what our company do. Sorry for the miss understanding. We would really like to make revised, and fit all of wiki rules for posting you have talked about "paid contributor template". I was wondering, how can this work? If we do not do promotional things do we need to pay and how can we pay?

best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwongpcc (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackwongpcc: By putting a "paid contributor template" you are only disclosing that you are being paid by your company. You can create an article about your business, just make sure to put that template on your userpage first. As for payment, Wikimedia Foundation might be able to assist you with that. :)--Biografer (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer how can i reply you. Sorry it is difficult to find the reply box.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwongpcc (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackwongpcc: By coming to my talkpage and posting here, you are replying already. :)--Biografer (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer thank you for your help! Biografer is it better that somebody else to post our article is better than I post it, 'cuz I work in our company. Can we send the draft here and make sure it is ok to post before we post in public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwongpcc (talk • contribs) 02:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackwongpcc: Sure. You can post a draft on my talkpage and I will take a look. Unfortunately, I will be on vacation starting tomorrow, so I wont be able to check it till Monday of next week.--Biografer (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer Thank you! What time is it in your place now? I will edit now and post here hahahahah... Hope you have very nice holiday!

@Blackwongpcc: It is almost 10:00 pm in Minnesota. What time is it in yours?--Biografer (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer sorry for late reply. We are at morning time 11:08 am. See below. Take your time, it is too late for you, you can reply me when you are back ... have a good night

This article contains promotional content. Please help improve it by removing promotional language and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic text written from a neutral point of view. (March 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

PCCooler(Chinese: 超频三) , Registered Brand of Shenzhen Fluence Technology PLC(Chinese: 深圳市超頻三科技股份有限公司) established in 2003 in Shenzhen, Certified GMC Manufacturer^[1] and offer radiator and heat sink for Computer and LED light industry. ^[2] PCCooler has more than 50,000 square meters production areas and over 500 staffs, including over 200 technical staff.

PcCooler
超频三

Industry	Manufacture
Founded	2005
Headquarters	China
Products	Radiator and Heat-sink
Website	http://www.pccooler.cn

@Blackwongpcc: "It seems like we still have some promotional content", I would like to delete all of links or content which you think is not proper to post as public. Just let me know which one should I delete. :) Thank you for your help!!! Please feel free to contact me in any time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwongpcc (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackwongpcc: So far I managed to repair dead links that you gave me and removed sentence about the factory. Its already says that it was established in 2003 in Shenzhen, so there is no reason for a second sentence mentioning its location. Also, I will suggest to add this link there: http://www.en.pccooler.com/development/index26.html and expanding it with honors: http://www.en.pccooler.com/government-awards/index24.html. It will make your article less promotional and more notable. You can also mention this: https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/chinese-cement-firm-to-invest-in-chhattisgarh-116040900373_1.html (for notability). PS: I probably wont be able to respond till Monday and even then I probably will be too busy with other articles since I come home from work around 7:30 or 9:00. Weekends are the best days when I will be able to look at your updated article. Have fun. :)--Biografer (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackwongpcc: that's ok, got it no problem enjoy your holiday :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwongpcc (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackwongpcc: I will be back tomorrow, but am wondering if you have Skype or not. Jim is not very talkative, but I am. Besides, I need to ask you a favor...--Biografer (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@biograger how 's your trip ? are you back already??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwongpcc (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PCCooler(Chinese: 超频三) is manufacture and provider which offering high standard and stable quality of high efficient heat dissipation solutions for desktops, laptops, servers and ultra-high power LED. It was founded in Shenzhen in 2005. PCCooler’s factory employs around 800 people and has a construction area of 50000㎡. PCCooler has made numerous miracles in this field, becoming famous brand and the leader of heat sink innovation.

Hi Biografer. I noticed you added a blastingnews.com reference and a biographybd.com external link to Biswanath Basu [4]. Biographybd.com is an unreliable blog, and blastingnews.com has a article submission process that puts their articles in question as reliable sources. For basic information about who appears in what films, I'd guess that blastingnews.com is on par with the gomolo.com reference that was already in the article. Ideally, neither would be used, but I realize it's extremely difficult to find better ones for Bengali cinema. I removed the external link and left the rest. Let's discuss if you disagree or want clarification. --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz: Nothing to discuss. All is fine. Just one thing: Why you called my link addition as "link spam"? You could have just call it "dubious link"...--Biografer (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You're correct. "Unreliable external link" would also have been better as well. Not acknowledging it in the edit summary made it look like it could have been added to promote the site. --Ronz (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Biografter. You were nice to me in the past so I'm hoping you'll be able to help me again. In a good-faith attempt to improve a page, I ended up making an embarrassing mess. I couldn't figure out how to revert my mess either. Also, I don't know why there are spam links included with this message.^[1] Please help.Yestertempest (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yestertempest: Sure, did just that. The issue was that you put cause: inside a bracket. Instead it should have been |death_cause=. I also filled-in bare refs and removed a duplicate of a photo (don't know why it was placed there again in the first place).--Biografer (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I could count on you for non-judgmental assistance. Thanks, friend.Yestertempest (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Biografer, my favorite go-to guy. I am trying to create a new category. ^[1] Did I succeed or is there a step I'm missing? Thank you.Yestertempest (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yestertempest: To be honest, you didn't. The category page is blank for some reason, for now. Besides, there is no need for such category, because there wont be that many people which did or would die from this rare desease.--Biografer (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've found more than two dozen notable people who have died from this disease so far. Yestertempest (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then go right ahead. Wish you luck!--Biografer (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It worked! I still lack the confidence to do more than minor edits, so I thank you for your kind support.Yestertempest (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a load of cock . Adam9007 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: I figured. That is why I encouraged him to create something that wont get him blocked. Something tells me that he is here to contribute but because of our scary username policy some people can't. :(--Biografer (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biografer!

Thank you for your kind and welcoming message.

Quick question, why is it required to "sign" an edit? I understand that editor "A" would want to speak with editor "B" about a hypothetical edit that editor "B" did, but can't editors be already tracked via the "View History" tab in wikipedia, regardless of them signing their edits or not?

P.S.

- Sorry if I sent this message in an improper way. I am not sure how to make a new title page, so I just edited this "Usernames" title and added "Sinveil Response" below it. I apologize for any inconvenience that this might cause.

Sinveil (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sinveil: You don't need to sign an edit but you do need to provide an edit summary. The reason for it is that people who are lazy to check in "view history" don't do it. It also benefits editors who check "recent changes" (such as myself). You are required to sign your "posts" though.--Biografer (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can believe you creat an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idcactus3535 SFC VGCP (talk • contribs) 17:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content removed by Scarftail is due to the fact that this list is currently limited to 50 ranks. The new rank he added pushed the previously rank 50 entries out of the list. -- ferret (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: OK. Am a bit confused. At first he added Mario Kart 8 and claimed that this is the only thing he did. Then he removed the other 2 games. I don't understand how can this be a good edit if he removed 2 games and didn't even mention it in the edit summary? Why can't we create a 100 list? Like, Battlefield 3 and Red Dead were and will be top grossed games, wont they not?--Biografer (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He added a new game and adjusted the rank numbers. This made the multiple games at the end of the table Rank 51. So he removed them, since we currently limit this table to 50 ranks. Since his edit summary wasn't evident enough, I've taken the time to clarify to you. Remember to assume good faith, an incomplete or unclear edit summary doesn't make an edit bad faith. If you feel the current limit on the table should be readdressed, feel free to make a talk page post. -- ferret (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: That is why I said "What's up with content removal?" not "Hey! Stop vandalizing". So with that said, I did assumed good faith. :)--Biografer (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: OK, I posted the info on the talkpage, don't know what the answer gonna be...--Biografer (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. So we add the {{UAA|wait}} tag to the report, it goes to WP:UAA/HP for a week or more, and must then be reviewed again to see if the account has since become active before removing it. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. I’ve also asked a question there about one of your other reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Thanks for an explanation, I will try to avoid useless reports in the future. Sorry for any inconvenience, but regarding Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal., that is the thing. How do I know if he is a suspected suck puppeteer or not?--Biografer (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the name makes a clear reference to another Wikipedia account, I don’t know how you could know. There are some WP:LTA types out there who use similar names each time that get picked up on by one of the bots, but other than that sort of thing there really isn’t a way to know if they have no edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.--Biografer (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much point in blocking longer than 31 hours for most IPs as they are dynamic. The user has already shifted to another IP (which I also blocked), and will probably shift again before the block finishes. Likely will have to protect the page if they bother to continue. -- ferret (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Yeah, this editor is very well known to me. As long as I have been here he was bombarding this project for an unknown to me reason.--Biografer (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And already rotated to two more IPs, so I've protected the article. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I'm wondering what is up with all those IPs? One dude is constantly edits Mega Brands but anonymously, the other edits Saban Entertainment but either as an anonym or as a registered COI editor.--Biografer (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same person, at least behavior in edit summaries suggests so. Drmies did some range blocks. -- ferret (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Oh, so he is aware? Good. Can you please take a look here: Why is this guy screaming?--Biografer (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just for emphasis, doesn't seem directly related to the IPs. -- ferret (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange way of emphasizing, but oh well.--Biografer (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Drmies (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the block length template says 31 hours. How should I understand it @Widr and Drmies:? Either way, good job, am proud of both of you.--Biografer (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Widr blocked the IP for 31 hours; I blocked the range for a bit longer. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This disruptive editor, thewolfchild, is really ruining my Wikipedia editing plans. Can you please back me up in support of having the plainlist? I linked to ~100 photographs of Meklin, and she wears ribbon racks in exactly zero of them, including photos taken long after the war. (Plus I did not include russian-language videos where she was speaking, not wearing ribbons) It is incredibly obnoxiuos that someone with clearly little or no knowledge of the topic is getting in the way of article development - wolf ended up removing important information like her native name, mission numbers, and punctuation in his/her rush to revert my edits. Even another user expressed support for having the plainlist since it is a comprimise between fighting between different icon formatting. I want to including infomation about Meklin's media apperances in the article, like that she was featured on the cover of Smena in 1943, in KP when she was declared a hero, and in Ogoniok, and in a documentary interview, but I had to request it to be locked to prevent wolf from messing it up. Now wolf is outraged that I switched ribbonracks in the infobox to plain bulleted lists and got really angry...can you please give me some backup here? I want to write these articles, but I do not want to deal with such a person on a regular basis, and it would help so very much if you came in support of the plainlist. Thank you for you help, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you this is a RAOK or Random Act Of Kindness Luke825015 (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Disambiguation Question
	Because there was no current Wikipedia article (not yet), I added an *external* link (IMDb) to a *disambiguation* page. Then I doubted myself: are external links appropriate for disambiguation pages? TheDetails (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDetails: No.--Biografer (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit edit made changes to author (changing between first/last and author) and accessdate. I consider the change to author nonsubstantive, but the change to accessdate seems substantive. I was wondering why you did that. Please {{ping}} if you respond. I don't have this page on my short watchlist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin: I don't think it's a big issue. I clicked on a link, it came out a bit updated, so therefore a different accessdate is justified. I do understand though that you might have assumed that I vandalized an article because the previous editor did just that. But I must assure you, I am not him and this is my only account. :)--Biografer (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to give my best. If I'll have questions I'll not hesitate to come back to you. -- 4evayoung77 (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a guy threatening to block me, said I am vandalizing. I did edits and did make mistakes on putting in sources and other mistakes. he could have been nice about it and helped me since he says he is here to help people. If I correct my mistakes and add my sources I am now afraid of this guy. What do I do? Joaskren (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC) @Joaskren: Sorry for a late reply. Firstly, I apologize on behalf of the project that an admin mistreated you. There is a possibility that he forgot WP:Don't bite the newcomers, please forgive him. Second, what you did in edit summaries is a no-no. You must provide an accurate edit summary, sometimes to a tiny detail, because you might get blocked and even banned for not doing the stuff their way. So, as for what you should do... Well, you can learn, take a look at my edit here for example. I provided a short but accurate edit summary, and suggest you to not edit for now, and learn from my edit summaries and always provide them. True, there are some editors that don't do it, and we skip them, but its rare when we get so angry over it. :)--Biografer (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Anna Hakobyan. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Hmmm, confused, where did you see duplicated arguments? I think I just organized categories (if that what you were referring to but I didn't duplicated them. I also don't think that I removed something in the templates...--Biografer (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit the page and click preview, you will see a message that {{cite news}} is calling |accessdate= twice. Somewhere in this edit you duplicated the access date. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Thanks, sorry for causing an issue. Also, I think templating my talkpage wasn't a good think to do. I was here since the Dodos, so am far from being a noob.--Biografer (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a big deal. As for the templating, its just an easy way to share the info... Didn't mean any offense. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up. Not sure what you mean by "here since the Dodos" but you've been here less than 2 years. Also, you made a mistake that had you simply previewed the page, wouldn't have happened. I'm not ripping you a new one, just pointing out a small mistake. If you want to get all upset because I used a template to notify you, then good luck my friend. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: I'm not upset. Thanks for the tip. Usually people templating new editors (like 6 months old), that what I meant by that "I was here since the Dodos". :)--Biografer (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping out Bulahyatain (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pilosella aurantiaca is displaying "Lua error in Module:Autotaxobox at line 151: attempt to index a nil value." That happened after {{taxobox}} was replaced with {{Speciesbox}}. Apart from that, editing the page and previewing shows two sinister warnings at the top:

Warning: This page calls Template:Taxon info which causes a template loop (an infinite recursive call).

Warning: This page calls Template:Taxobox/core which causes a template loop (an infinite recursive call).

The logic is a bit hard for me to follow and I'm hoping you can fix it. My guess is that a fairly minor tweak to some parameter will fix it, but if it requires work on the module let me know as I may be able to help if there were a specification of what was needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Well from my view, its missing {{Automatic taxobox}} which I tried to create and am failing in doing so. I know that user @Plantdrew: knows how to do it. :)--Biografer (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been fixed; the problem was that you had mixed up what belongs in an automatic taxobox in an article, and what belongs in the underlying template used to generate the article's taxobox. Template:Taxonomy/Pilosella only requires |rank=, |link= and |parent=, and a little bit of code ({{Don't edit this line {{{machine code|}}}). If you change something with a manual taxobox to a speciesbox/automatic taxobox and the taxonomy template doesn't already exist, there will be link when you save or preview the article that helps you create the taxonomy template. Any serious mistakes in a taxonomy template will put it in an error tracking category, where I or somebody else will soon notice it and make any necessary corrections. Plantdrew (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Biografer (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no justification for your reversion of edits I just made to Carly Melin. Would you please take this to the article talk page before reverting again? 173.162.254.121 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you claim the sources I use are not reliable. I cited legitimate news sites in the Minnesota area, the Hibbing Daily Tribune, the Grand Forks Herald, and Minnesota Public Radio. These are reliable sources.173.162.254.121 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but according to our policies they are not. We don't use Hibbing Daily Tribune or Grand Forks Herald. Have you seen other articles using them? Show me one, please.--Biografer (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hibbing Daily Tribune is the leading daily newspaper in the Minnesota Iron Range. I suspect there are many articles of interest to the Hibbing area that cite them. The Grand Forks Herald, established 1874, is one of the oldest newspapers in North Dakota. In fact, it was publishing for 15 years before North Dakota became a state. I direct you to the article Pat Owens which uses the Grand Forks Herald as a source. The article Tom Rukavina cites several sources from the Mesabi Daily News, sister newspaper of the Hibbing Daily Tribune.173.162.254.121 (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles that cite the Hibbing Daily Tribune:

• Elcor, Minnesota
• Julie Sandstede
• Joseph E. Tofalo
• Iron Range Historical Society

Some articles that cite the Grand Forks Herald:

• Marilyn Hagerty
• Nicole Linkletter
• Heidi Heitkamp
• St. Michael's Hospital and Nurses' Residence

But you asked for only one... 173.162.254.121 (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation, it has been noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebrinus (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in order to block a username as promotional, we need to know what it is promoting. If you believe a username is a business name, we need some evidence of that, such as the user editing about the business or its products, or a Google search showing it is the name of a business. While it may be true that some all-caps usernames might be the acronym of a business or organization, it isn't the case that all of them are. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Well, I once greeted an editor with a promotional username, and whole hell went loose here. People told me that not all businesses have websites in Google, etc. So, when I see all caps, I assume by default that it is a business.--Biografer (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly true that not all businesses have a website or internet presence, but the user with the name would still need to actually be editing about their business/organization to warrant being immediately blocked. If the only suspicion of a promotional username is all caps, you should discuss it with the user first, before reporting. This doesn't apply to names that are obviously business names("Acme Corporation", "Corner Store LLC", and so on). Others may feel differently, but that's how I look at it. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your move. Please don't make WP:TWODABS pages without obtaining consensus for the absence of a primary topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: And where do I ask this question?--Biografer (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to do would be to propose a page move through Wikipedia:Requested moves. The procedure is laid out there. bd2412 T 23:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biografer,

regarding your suggestion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 20#Template:Infobox settlement - this will be very easy as Andy said. It is all going towards one template for territorial entities, whether labeled district, province, region, state, zone or something else and independend of existence status (existing, former or proposed). Infobox settlement is transcluded on ~ 500 000 articles. It seems the name "settlement" confused some voters, and there is now also a debate on the name "settlement", some propose "populated area" - but some of these might not be populated anymore or never have been populated.

But back to the merge. Have you seen the table in the merge discussion? I post it below for reference. Since that was added, no oppose votes anymore, but some support votes. You have not voted yet, could you do so?

Usage of infobox templates for articles in Category:Administrative territorial entities

Namespace	Category:Administrative territorial entities by type	Category:Former administrative territorial entities	(Current)	Category:Proposed administrative territorial entities
Category	Category:Countries	Category:Former countries		Category:Proposed countries
Template	{{Infobox country}}	{{Infobox country}}	{{Infobox country}}	{{Infobox country}}
Category	Category:Country subdivisions	Category:Former subdivisions of countries		Category:Proposed country subdivisions
Template	{{Infobox settlement}}	Two infoboxes are used: {{Infobox former subdivision}} - less than 1800 transclusions[6] {{Infobox settlement}} - at least 79 calls by other templates (wrappers cf. Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement), ca. 500 000 transclusions	{{Infobox settlement}}	{{Infobox settlement}}

77.11.75.84 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The 79 in the table is now down to 55. 77.11.75.84 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is a massive 260KB. You should find this page useful. - wolf 00:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		A delayed thank you for your warm welcome to Wikipedia editing for me! I am very thankful as this has encouraged me to contribute more to this amazing community. Muffington (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	You Are Awesome
	Thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. Now I will leave on on yours! EJSuper (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any lists of needed articles write that are checked for notability before they are published? I got dragged into this by one of those Women in Red project people, but the lists of missing articles their project makes don't specify notability. Any suggestions?FromRed2Blue (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FromRed2Blue: Do you mean you need someone who will check your article for verifiability? I will be glad to help.--Biografer (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the article to our standard form, and indicated notability in the proper way according to WP:PROF, by the citations to his work. I also cited the material to the only accurate source for his degrees and positions, his official university CV. If you're going to do more academic bios, you might want to look at the changes I made. (Not that it's perfect--not all the awards are significant), but at least it shows notability DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Thanks, but since when did GS became an RS?--Biografer (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GS is a RS for the number of citations to his articles, as in WoS and Scopus. (they give different numbers, because they include different sorts of things as articles (and each of the three includes, and how they calculate it, varies significantly over time)--as a rough guide , GS number are between 1.5 to 2.0 times higher that WoS, though it depends on which part of WoS is being used and also on the subject field. . (and GS is also a reasonably RS to the authors and titles of the article if for some reason this cannot be determined from the original). GS is not a RS for which papers he actually wrote, because it gets names confused, but for that matter, so does every database. The evidence for what someone wrote is an official academic CV, because people do not make mistakes in that. (it generally gets them fired if they do--and in 12 years of reviewing these articles, I've found only 1 substantial mistake, a claim to a PhD which was apparently never awarded.) DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fernando Cutz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fernando Cutz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alessia Pannese is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessia Pannese until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biografer. As you may have noticed, I reverted your move of Alexander Rossi to Alexander Rossi (racing driver). A requested move discussion in May 2016 resolved that the article about the racing driver should reside at Alexander Rossi. If you believe that the article about the racing driver should reside at Alexander Rossi (racing driver), you are welcome to start a new discussion at Talk:Alexander Rossi. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As one of your fellow workers on scientific biographies, I really appreciate your work in this field--we have a great deal to do until we reach the completeness of coverage in other fields in Wikipedia. So I hope you will not take it amiss if I mention a few details:

In writing scientific biographies, the general term for a university is, for example, Harvard University, not the Harvard University. (there are a fee exceptions, especially in the full legal name that appears in diplomas, but normally as everywhere else we employ the most common form-- a good guide is the title of our article.

In describing what someone did, we normally use the simple past tense: not, "he had studied", but "he studied". I realize you know multiple languages, much more so than I, so I'm sure your are aware that how events in the recent past are expressed tends to be very language -specific and even style-specific within an individual language. I, for example, know a little Russian, but I know that I am not capable of getting tense and aspect right consistently.

For two events in one year, its usually " in April that year," or "that year" not" in April of that year" or "in the same year"--or even better, a construction such" as in 2045, he became both....".

I know these are just fine points of conventional style, but it is the conventional style and it helps to have it consistent DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Thanks. Yes. The thing is is that when I wrote "University of X" somebody corrected me and wrote "the University of X". As for degrees, I don't see an issue. Both Doctor of Philosophy, PhD and Ph.D. are used in our articles. What do you mean by fee exceptions?--Biografer (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more exact: For universities who are named after a particular place, the title if it begins with the word University needs to be preceded with a "the", and it is written, "He received a degree from the University of California"; it is correct also to write with a capital "The", as "He received a degree from The University of California" but it usually is written with lower case. For a few universities named after places whose title beginning with the place, it is can usually be written as either "He received a degree from California State University" or "He received a degree from the California State University" or He received a degree from The California State University", though the first of the 3 is more common. The best known special case is The Ohio State University, which is always written in that form, with a capital. For universities not named after a place, "the" is never used. "He received a degree from Yale University" not "He received a degree from the Yale University".

For degree names, you are right that Doctor of Philosophy, PhD and Ph.D. are all correct--there is also a UK form, Ph D. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Got it. Another thing, and this is probably because you edit articles from a mobile device... Is it possible for you not to put spaces in places where you removed specific error? Because I seen in some of your edits the comma was jumping couple spaces ahead of the whole sentence, making it look a bit odd and not grammatically right.--Biografer (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

actually not mobile, but problems with shortcuts.: . I'll watch out for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terry Fulmer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westchester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are recipient no. 2275 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A short description is important IMO. Any particular reason why you removed that in this edit? I've restored it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: And I will possibly remove it again and again, depending where in the project I will be. There is a reason for it, but nobody here want to listen to it. Everybody agreed on its importance but nobody seen its flaws, but I did. The flaws that I see with it is that it doesn't help us in any way. It creates disruption in Recent changes, in fact, after introduction of short descriptions (which are no different from their cousin {{Persondata}}), I quit visiting Recent changes. The purpose was to curb down vandalism, but it doesn't do it. In fact, I see vandals attack articles now with short description more then the ones that don't. What's the point if it doesn't do anything but rather the opposite? As for mobile devices, I personally use it, but the descriptions usually don't help me or anybody else to navigate through this forest of articles. Categories, on the other hand do. Your restoration of soon-to-be depreciated template is a path to an edit war which I don't see the point of. I was thinking that people after a year or so will get sick and tired of inserting them, just like it was with Persondata, but people like disruptive editing, they love edit warring, and do everything contrary to the views of their fellow Wikipedians. You might say that there is consensus on it? Yes, but at the same time people who opposed got either silenced or their views were ignored. It was a one way discussion from what I read, a contrary to our discussion policies. Either way, I have many articles to write here. At least, I do something to improve the project with article quality/quantity not just inserting stupid templates.--Biografer (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a consensus then your deletion of SD might go against you. Can you tell me clearly why SD is bad, with proper links please. A lot of articles, Pro-wrestling related has short descriptions and most people there are in support of adding it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I know, but only through editing we can change consensus view and this is what I am trying to do. People are in support because they are blinded by Wikimedia Foundation view. It seems like we as editors have nothing better to do then to add Short descriptions and discuss them at every bloody talkpage. As for links, as I told you earlier, I quit going to Recent changes after those short descriptions started to flood the patrol section. I can however show you one instance where that description is not short at all: Caterpillar Inc. The SD there is as long as Persondata, what's the point? As for the discussion of it, it was somewhere in the Village pump (technical), but I don't remember where. As for consensus, there was a consensus on inserting {{Italic title}} into every article that is about a book, movie or species of animal. Some editors realized that an infobox generates the same thing just fine, so they removed it, without major consensus discussion, nobody complained about it. Why its such a big deal with SD?--Biografer (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biografer,

You tagged this article for speedy deletion, for valid reasons, and I deleted it. However, you didn't notify the article creator of the tagging which is typically a step in CSD page tagging.

If you use Twinkle and set up your preferences, this will happen automatically as long as you have checked each CSD box, so I encourage you to set up Twinkle because it saves a lot of time. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you removed hyphens from parameter names. Per this RFC, hyphenated parameter names are the standard. In particular, you replaced |url-status= with |urlstatus=, which resulted in an unsupported parameter error. I know that the cite templates are intricate and can be confusing, so I understand that it is easy to make small errors like this. Please take care when making changes to them in articles. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: As you have seen, the error that I made was because I was on mobile device at the time. I don't think you should make a big deal about one error, which I am sorry about that I didn't fix. In fact, I am in the process of removing some duplicity from the article, so this reference might disappear as better ones will be added. Thank you for understanding.--Biografer (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, but sometimes people have scripts that they use to repeat the same (erroneous) edit many times. That makes a lot of work for people who clean up such errors, so I have found that it is better to leave a friendly message to nip the problem in the bud. Thanks for the response. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Hermano Krebs. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanna make an addendum here since I read the edit summary after reverting: the community would prefer that per the harmful sentence I described above, a rewrite is best done by just overwriting the text with new text. Hope this helps. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @JalenFolf: Hi, sorry for the vandalism-like edit, but if I would have been a vandal I probably wont even bother with edit summary. :) I had created it under a different name though. His full name is Hermano Igo Krebs, not Hermano Krebs, at least that's how it looks on his MIT page, ResearchGate, the Google Search and Google Scholar.--Biografer (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I had also reverted a cut and paste move attempt as well. I would ask you to go to WP:RMTR to request the page be moved, but since I am a page mover, just ask and I'll make the page swap. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf: OK. I posted page move request as you told me because the page name should be Hermano Igo Krebs. --Biografer (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, where can I report vandals to administrator?--Leo0428 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo0428: here--Biografer (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you! I'm from it.wikipedia, are vandal alerts used here?--Leo0428 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo0428: We use User:ClueBot NG for obvious vandalism such as page blanking, etc.--Biografer (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't understand. :P In it.wiki there are a lot of talk templates for vandals, are they used also in en.wiki?--Leo0428 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo0428: Yes. here.--Biografer (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nobuharu Asahara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Rodgers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Native American Artists Edit-a-Thon

Hello Biografer. You are invited to attend a Native American Artists edit-a-thon at the Minneapolis Institute of Art (Mia) on Saturday, November 9, 2019, from 11am to 4pm. In celebration of Native American Heritage Month, join in honoring Native American artists whose work is represented in Mia's collections by creating or enhancing Wikipedia articles. Date: Saturday, November 9, 2019 Location: Minneapolis Institute of Art, 2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis Please register here

Thanks for your (mostly) useful edit of the Wikipedia page for Gabriel Rosenstock, poet -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Rosenstock. However I'm puzzled by your removal of 5 External Links -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Rosenstock#External_links. Surely the inclusion or not of a link is entirely subjective? Or do you have meaningful objective criteria for what is and what isn't an acceptable link? Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Stefan Grzybowski (jurist), which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Stefan Grzybowski (jurist), which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Piotrus:  Done I don't think that WikiProject templates will defend a specific article against deletion, because its what's written in the article that might raise concern. However, just be patient. :) I was in the process of doing just that, just needed to go to bed. :) And yes, I do need your help with DYK. How and where do I submit it? I read the ru7les but I don't see a submission button anywhere on the screen.--Biografer (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added a link to disambiguation page.

John James (poet) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Prince of Homburg

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Callahan (guitarist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Callahan (guitarist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dalcha Lungiambula is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalcha Lungiambula until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Akbar Nikkhah is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akbar Nikkhah until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Wacław Brzeziński, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Trying to reach you for the second time about DYK. How do I nominate it there?--Biografer (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the previous ping. How, well, go to TT:TDYK and check the instructions at the top of the page. Ping me again if any of them are unclear. In summary, you just create a nomination subpage, and link it from the relevant 'date' subsection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Did that, but its now red. :(--Biografer (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you only completed the final Step 3 of the instructions (link the created nomination page). You did not complete step 1-2, which is create the said nomination page. Please see the steps at [[7]] or this step by step guide (which has 5 steps, and in this, you only completed 4 and half of 5). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks. How does it look now?--Biografer (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! If there are any issues, a reviewer will ping you and likely leave a message here, otherwise it may take a few days (or weeks) for another volunteer to review your entry and accept it. I hope many of your interesting entries can appear on the Wikipedia's front page! Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved the nomination to the correct place. --evrik ^(talk) 17:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Wacław Brzeziński at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik ^(talk) 16:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sanne Knudsen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability not established; sole source is not independent

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kablammo (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Silvia Fresco has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim of notability that would be WP:NBIO or Wikipedia:Notability (academics) that would rise above the basic details here of being a physician sourced exclusively to website listings of professional boards.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Silvia Fresco is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvia Fresco until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biografer. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella: And where did you got the impression that I have COI? I have no COI with anybody. I just write articles on notable individuals, just like you and everybody else here does.--Biografer (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Michel Gervais (dancer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating additional unsourced biography articles, please read and follow WP:BLPSOURCES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Edits like this and this and this are not minor, so please stop marking them as such, as it can have the effect of hiding significant changes to the article. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michel Gervais (dancer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Gervais (dancer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dwight W. Reynolds has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability fail.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sanne Knudsen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanne Knudsen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dwight W. Reynolds is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwight W. Reynolds until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent additions has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Per the COIN discussion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Norma Goldman, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 19:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Stefan Grzybowski (jurist), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 19:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Scope creep. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Arthur Steindler, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creep^Talk 19:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Richard C. Bates, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 21:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Degang Chen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sky High (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Juliusz Brzezinski is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliusz Brzezinski until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biografer,

Thank you for creating Rick Carley.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

We need independent references that have substantial writing on this subject or his work.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Miranda Daucher has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article subject does not appear to meet WP:COLLATH, WP:NHOOPS, or any part of WP:ATH, nor WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Levivich 15:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Vern Walker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article subject does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Levivich 15:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Indignant Flamingo hadn't notified you of the SPI they filed, which involves you. It can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishae. SQL^{Query me!} 21:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Can I somehow convince a community that I am a different person now? All I wanted is to write articles on notable academics, and support this project with my contributions. Please, can we discuss it on the talkpage rather then UTRS? I promise I will use this talkpage civilly.--Biografer (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, sockpuppetry was not the best answer, but I really had no choice. I sent 2 e-mails within 6 months of an interval to UTRS begging them to unblock my Mishae account, but the response came negative. I tried to wait exactly 6 months before creating this account, and while I do have remorse for doing it, all I wanted to do is to help a project. Please unblock either this or my Mishae account, and I will be glad to be an honest member of the community. I do hope that community can forgive and forget, and unblock me.--Biografer (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Biografer (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During the duration of those three years, I managed to create many articles on notable academics, which I hope the project will keep. While the last couple weeks were rather stressful for me here, I would like to continue to edit here and be a good and honest contributor. I think Wikipedia will benefit from an editor who writes articles on notable academics. I have an article right now, which was about to be published if not for this block. :(--Biografer (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I was prepared to block you even if you hadn't admitted your socking. There is no way you are going to be unblocked after deceiving the community yet again. Your comment that you "had no choice" is of course false. You could have waited and renewed your requests to be unblocked. I have no idea if you tried, but you also could have appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Instead, you evaded your block and created, from what I've read on the master Talk page, yet another sock. No matter how constructive your editing as Biografer has been, socking is inexcusable. And your editing here as Biografer has not been as wonderful as you paint it. You've been blocked three times. The last block was for a week and talk page access had to be revoked (sound familiar?). I suggest you withdraw your unblock request and reflect about your approach to editing Wikipedia for a very long time before even considering requesting an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What's the chances? Yes, I remember the block that was for a week. What another sock? This was the only one. Like really, Bbb23 I do feel ashamed that I needed to evade a block and create a sock, what other words do you need to hear from me?--Biografer (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I haven't edited in 6 months" would be a start. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: OK Lets imagine that I will wait six months, without sock puppetry and other block evasions. Will it be possible for me to file an unblock from this account not Mishae? On the other hand, I will be glad to wait six months and appeal to Arbitration Committee, but I suspect that it would like with UTRS. :(--Biografer (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should appeal via UTRS on the Mishae account. Since that's where you should appeal, I'm going to revoke TPA since this talk page discussion won't have further impact. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ruth Parriott has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. TheImaCow (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Norma Goldman, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biografer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Norma Goldman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fellows of the Soil Science Society of America has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Selcuk Adabag has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem to meet notability criteria for academics.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Myles K. Mart (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LusikSnusik (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Harry Shamoon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable academic. No independent sources provided to establish notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jdcooper (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]