User talk:OaxacaGenius: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:09, 13 February 2021

Welcome

Hello Secretsgenius and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Nashville--Secretsgenius (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Pajonal has been reverted.
Your edit here to Pajonal was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://www.fallingrain.com/world/PM/03/Pajonal_Arriba.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were adding a link or reference to fallingrain.com, then you should be aware that this site is considered on wikipedia to be an unreliable source. More information can be found MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Fallingrain.com here (permanent). Please consider to use/find another source for the information.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a pleasure to greet you if I am trying to expand the article that in the Spanish language is more complete, I am sorry I did something very unconstructive, the story is only that it has few or no references, could you give me a help--Secretsgenius (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Rizzato

Please place his death in correct alphabetical order. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello WWGB a pleasure to greet you explain to me well that it is an alphabetical order greetings and excellent work

hello WWGB Another question I'm about to create this article about a Panamanian musicak artist in my workshop can you take a look--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secret - you might want to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules first. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest--2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Brant

This edit request by an editor with a partial block was declined.

Can he be removed? I don’t think that he's notable enough.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MikaelaArsenault: I am declining this ticket because I think it was posted in the wrong place. Please use this template on the talk page of the article you want to edit. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 vaccination programme in the United Kingdom

Those instructions are to help editors make updates. Please do not remove them, just leave them alone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Joey Mills for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joey Mills 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/Joey Mills 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.

Celestina007 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Celestina007

but the article exists in Spanish language, besides, there are articles as poorly academic as this Josh Richards--Secretsgenius (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your readditions of a non-RS

Hello. Happy weekend. I see you've restored a deleted non-RS. It was deleted because Showbiz411 is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. This was explained in the edit summaries. The removals were appropriate. The readditions are not. You did not supply any edit summary. What is your reasoning, or was it a mistake? Wikipedia:USERGENERATED is rather clear on this. --2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your edits are very strange, surely you are not vandalizing and another create an account--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are entirely proper. Read Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. Furthermore, I explained the basis for my deletions in my edit summary. You, on the other hand, provided no edit summary explanation of your reverts. Which you should do, when reverting another editor. Obviously I am not vandalizing anything - all you have to do is read the English Wikipedia content guideline that I pointed you to, and to which I linked. Someone has perhaps spammed WP with inappropriate mention of this self-generated blog. Perhaps they were confused. Perhaps they have a conflict of interest. I don't know. But whatever the reason, that material is not appropriate for the project. There is nothing "very strange" about my edits - I don't even know what that means. And "strangeness" is not a reason to revert proper deletions. Kindly revert yourself. Thanks.--2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are someone anonymous, because you do not create an account and give them greater confidence in what you do about it, sorry your edits are very strange you are withdrawing references in paractically several articles give us an explanation of what you are doing.--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a precise explanation. In my edit summaries. And above. The deletions are appropriate because Showbiz411 is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. For the same reasons, you re-additions violate wp policy. Editors at wikipedia need not use a user name - if you think they do, you are quite mistaken. Yes - this problem plagues many articles. There are more articles that it plagues. Terrible. But it is not an RS. It is not an appropriate reference. I have already given you the Wikipedia content guideline a number of times. Now, please revert yourself, or else we can of course ask an admin to look at your edits, and indicate whether your deletions because the edits "look strange" and are "on many articles" and I choose not to adopt a user name are ill-founded. Which, as I have told you, they are. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of weeks ago someone started a discussion at RS/N on whether Showbiz411 is a reliable source or not. You gentlemen might want to consider reopening it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I opened it. Out of an abundance of caution, though I did not really think there was an issue. Nobody seemed to care less. It was archived. But given that, having taken that first step, the content guideline is clear. So I applied it. This editor, who seems new, is not arguing that it is an RS. That's not the issue. He just thinks IPs are not allowed to edit. Or to edit many articles. Or to be "strange." Whether it is an RS has not been an issue in dispute. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know a lot about the subject, please create an account so there will be no misunderstandings--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case - I've already explained this to him. Can you please? I can't seem to get through to him. As I said, he thinks the problem centers around the fact that I am an IP. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

an IP with strange intentions remove material from various articles explain all their contributions. I ask you a question? What do you really do? You have never been noticed for removing references--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Secretsgenius:, the fact that he's an IP should not have any bearing on his argument. But I would also counsel you, the IP editor, that in the absence of a discussion establishing some consensus on this, editing as if there is can be considered disruptive if you do enough of it; it won't matter how in the right you are ultimately found to be. The fact that you went ahead and did it after the discussion died doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does not give you the right to edit that way.

Perhaps you might want to start a discussion on one of the articles' talk pages? Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Daniel. I'm not sure why we are seeing this differently. I made deletions to x articles. In each case, I left an edit summary. Explaining the deletion. Writing "Showbiz411 is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED." Secret reversed y such deletions. Zero edit summary. I was unaware of his reverting me until you left word with me at 4:04. I then opened up discussion on his talk page at 4:07. I did not engage in any article edits thereafter. Secret, however, even after I opened up discussion, kept on reverting my prior edits. As here,[1] 14 minutes later. What are you seeing that suggests that I "went ahead and did it."

I'm simply waiting for him to understand that I am allowed to edit, as an IP. And that Wikipedia:USERGENERATED is a wp content guideline. And that reverts of non-RS refs are appropriate. Especially when they involve BLPs, as many of these do. And that his feeling that something is "strange" is not reason to revert. These are the issue this editor has raised. I think you know, as with (thank you) his view that IPs are not editing properly and therefore it is OK to revert them, this other views of his are without basis. Perhaps if you could gently inform him of that, it would be of assistance. --2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the right thing to do before removing any references from the articles that I edit, ask if it is possible, do not do it the way you have been doing--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to edit as an IP. You have a mistaken impression. Perhaps Daniel will chime in and assure you. In the meantime, you may find this - though it is only an essay, not a guideline or rule - to be of interest. Wikipedia:IPs are human too. So simply get it out of you head that the fact that I am an IP gives you a right to revert me.

Also, you again use the word "strange". Now, you say I have "strange intentions." My intention is to edit in accord with Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. That is not "strange". It is appropriate. What is inappropriate is you reverting my edits. And adding back a non-RS. That is a violation of wikipedia rules. So, no, don't revert a proper edit because you find it "strange" or assume with no basis that my "intentions" are strange.

I do not know what you mean when you write "What do you really do?" I explained above what I am doing, and why.

I also do not know what you mean when you say "you have never been noticed for removing references." That makes no sense to me. But it certainly is not a reason to revert me.

Again - you seem to not understand the rules here. I have laid them out for you. Repeatedly. As well as why my deletes are proper. And your reverts, inserting inappropriate material, is a violation of our rules. Please fix that. I don't see a need to bring this to others if that can be addressed. I've been very patient I think trying to explain this to you, as perhaps you are a new editor.

And it is perfectly fine for me to make those proper deletions on pages that you edit - most of which have blp implications to boot, without asking your permission. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, please. This isn't going anywhere. I implore you both to step back for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 :And it is perfectly fine for me to make those proper deletions on pages that you edit - most of which have blp implications to boot, without asking your permission. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08|2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08|talk]]) 04:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 ::Both of you, please. This isn't going anywhere. I implore you both to [[WP:COOL|step back for a while]]. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
-:::I'm happy to. But please - as the editor misunderstands some things (as I outlined above), you could help I am sure by providing him with guidance. He seems less than interested in hearing from me, even when I provide links. Perhaps he would hear you better, and I am sure you are better at explaining things. Otherwise, he will just one day later suffer from the same misimpressions, just like his "IPs can be reverted if I feel their edit is strange" misimpresison.  Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08|2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08|talk]]) 05:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)