User talk:Renamed user 35h9b24b933rhb: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:07, 5 March 2021

TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername

Hello! I am a Wikipedia user with an overly-lengthy username. Sorry.

Welcome to my talk page! To leave me a message, simply click here, or click the "New section" button in the upper-right hand corner.
I make an effort to read every message I receive, even if I don't reply.

(Don't worry about formatting said message to appear like the others; I hope to manually archive all messages after a month or so.)

Timeline

2019 (10 Threads)

April (1 Thread)
May (1 Thread)
June (0 Threads)
July (0 Threads)
August (2 Threads)
September (2 Threads)
October (1 Thread)
November (2 Threads)
December (1 Thread)

2020 (?? Threads)

January (0 Threads)
February (0 Threads)
March (2 Threads)
April (0 Threads)
May (1 Thread)
June (0 Threads)
July (0 Threads)
August (1 Thread)
September (0 Threads)

↓↓Click to jump to current year.

2019

April 2019

Welcome!

(From creffett)

“

Hello, TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

”

— creffett (talk)
13:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

A cup of tea for you!

(From Dreamy Jazz)

Thanks for your contribution to Adam Neely. I have addressed it by putting the relevant sources closer and also removing the quotation marks, as it wasn't a quote (but was mentioned in sources). Thanks for picking up on it. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Twinkle?

(From MJL)

“

Have you considered installing Wikipedia:Twinkle? It'd make your anti-vandalism work a lot more streamlined. Also, your username is a work of art.

”

— –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖
01:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

(From Dave | Davey2010)

	The Special Barnstar
	You deserve a barnstar just for the username alone!, Keep up the great work! :) –Dave \| Davey2010^Talk 11:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hilarious Wiki Username!!

(From Vid2vid)

“

Hello hello @TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername: - pretty funny, fun Wiki Username!! Are you based in San Diego CA USA Earth still? Look forward to meeting you at future meet-up / meeting / events that James and DrMel put on. Peace!

”

— Peter aka Vid2vid (talk)
03:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

P.S. Suggestion for your UserPage - re Random Article feature.. ;-)

(From Vid2vid)

“

Hey, PS, on your UserPage you have text mentioning the "Random Article" feature of Wikipedia - why not make that a regular hyperlink like this, pointing to Random Article? :-D

”

— Peter aka Vid2vid (talk)
03:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Jacksonville Gem and Mineral Society

(From Bearcat and DGG)

“

The only thing I ever did to the page was add an uncategorized tag because it had turned up in the uncategorized articles list, so I didn't really do anything all that substantive to it.

For future reference, normally, the only person you're strictly required to notify that you're nominating a page for deletion is its original creator. It's not strictly wrong to notify other contributors as well, but there's not always much point in doing that across the board — sometimes you'll hit people like me who really only tagged the page for maintenance and never had anything to do with its actual content, and sometimes pages have had so many past contributors that you'd be doing nothing but notifying people for hours and hours. So it's better to be strategic: besides the page creator, you might want to consider notifying people who have obviously contributed to the article a lot (e.g. somebody who's edited the article 20 times), but you don't have an obligation to comprehensively notify every single editor in the page history. Hope that helps a bit.

Love your username, by the way. Very, very true!

”

— Bearcat (talk)
22:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

“

and, just for your future guidance, If you think there might be objection to a deletion, just notifying people, though necessary, has a limited effect, because the current practice with speedy deletions is that almost all of them are deleted within at most a few hours. The safer course in such situations is to use PROD. This was not necessary here--the original contributor had an obvious coi, the further changes were inconsequential, and there was indeed no real case for keeping the article--but keep it in mind, because PROD is not used as much as it should be.

Keep up the good work.

”

— DGG ( talk )
23:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

(From DPL bot)

“

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Underground city, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,

”

— DPL bot (talk)
07:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

(From MediaWiki message delivery)

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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

CNN v. Nunes

(From AlanM1)

“

I tagged CNN v. Nunes as CSD R3 with Twinkle, in which the description reads "Redirects as a result of an implausible typo or misnomers that were recently created" (i.e., it says nothing about page moves being excluded). I've confirmed it is not linked to by anything other than the mention at the Teahouse, and it is fundamentally wrong and not likely to be useful. Does it really have to go through RfD, or is there another CSD that's appropriate?

”

— —[AlanM1(talk)]—
07:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

“

Admittedly, I have next-to-no experience with CSD (I've only ever once invoked it, and that was for a blatant advertisement), but based on a quick look through the CSD Redirect possibilities, I don't see anything that would immediately allow for the page to be deleted. You could proceed with a RfD if you wanted, but I think it might be better to attempt to simply work out an agreement first.
Personally, I believe that as long as CNN doesn't appeal the eventual verdict, and Nunes doesn't sue CNN again in the future, then there's no real harm in keeping the redirect. There is a non-zero chance that a reader might search for "CNN v. Nunes"--especially considering how the current article has received 260 views within its first 12 hours of existence--and in that case I feel it would be better to redirect them to the article they were almost certainly looking for than to send them to a list of possible articles. (Of course, if there is an appeal or a similar lawsuit, we can always revisit this.)
I also noticed that other articles do something similar--Wade v. Roe, for instance, redirects to the correct case name Roe v. Wade--but I also see that there is no policy dictating that this must be the case. In any case, I'd be interested in hearing your view on the topic. (And on one level, if you really want to delete the redirect, feel free to just delete the redirect; this is a mere 72 bytes we're discussing, so this isn't worth getting into a massive debate about. I would just like to have a conversation first, that's all.)

(The reference I made to page moves being excluded, by the way, was actually mentioned on the "Contest this Speedy Deletion" box, as well as on the CSD listing itself. The latter describes this rule as existing "because of a history of improper deletions of these redirects. A move creates a redirect to ensure that any external links that point to Wikipedia remain valid; should such links exist, deleting these redirects will break them.")
(Also, sorry for the long wall of text--it looked a lot shorter in my notepad document.)

”

— TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername
08:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

“

I just felt it was a non-controversial bit of cleanup after moving the article to the correct title, with minimal chance of external inlinks (it being just hours old), and just the two internal links, one of which (the current events portal) I fixed, and the other of which did not need fixing. Like you said, NBD – just housekeeping, as I don't see the need for it, and it could attract incorrect usage in other articles if they write CNN v. Nunes and successfully link it instead of seeing the red link to tell them it's wrong.

”

— —[AlanM1(talk)]—
08:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

2020

March 2020

A cup of coffee for you!

(From Blue Rasberry )

Thanks for having a go at Neglected tropical diseases in India. That was a challenging article for me to try to sort, as I felt like it was 20+ unrelated articles in one. I appreciate anything you can do to make it more clear. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~Changes to Damir Mikec page in english~~~~

(From Zmajstrasni)

“

Dear,

My name is Damir Mikec, an Olympian shooter from Serbia! I always wanted to have all my medals standing somewhere online, so what is the best way than Wikipedia! So I took freedom to make my account "Zmajstrasni" and to edit my page and edit some of my missing medals from the biggest competitions in my sport, which I think they are important.

Thank you very much for your understanding and all the best!

”

— Damir Mikec
16:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

rcat shell

(From Jason Quinn)

“

I see you added {{rcat shell}} to the Wesley MacIntire redirect with the edit summary "as to my knowledge, this should always be included if any of the ... criteria are applicable."

When I last looked there was no guideline or policy saying that rcat shell must be used. Could you point me to what it is you basing your edit summary on?

”

— Jason Quinn (talk)
01:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

“

The best source I was able to find that comments upon this topic is Template:Redirect category shell/Comparison, which states that {{redirect category shell}} has certain benefits over individual rcats (such as a less-steep learning curve and automatic protection detection), but that ultimately "[t]here is no policy nor guideline with a goal to get editors to use the Rcat shell. So it is up to editors to decide which style is better for use."

My comment in the edit summary wasn't actually referring to a policy though; it was actually referring to my assumption that there was a general community consensus to use {{rcat shell}} over individual rcats, as I had actually never seen a redirect use individual rcats without {{rcat shell}} before. Given that I have never seen any official documentation of this consensus, though, I could very well be wrong. I apologize if the edit summary was slightly ambiguous.

”

— TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername:
14:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

“

Nothing much has changed then since I last looked into this. For the record there are some editors that are strongly against the rcat shell template, me among them. I think it is unnecessary cruft that adds no value but does add an additional layer of abstraction. There's unfortunately an extremely zealous set of editors over it. I suspect in part because it's an easy way to up one's edit count and some people think that way. It used to be that people would avoid adding the shell on just one redirect template though.

”

— Jason Quinn (talk)
13:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Username change needed [joke]

(From A a s i m)

“

Hi TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia for about a year. I want to let you know that you need to change your username to TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsernameBecauseTheUsernameIsExtremelyDifficultToChange. That way, you can become the longest allowed username on Wikipedia! If you do not change your username, well, someone else will change it to that. Nah, just kidding, nice username :)

”

— A a s i m
03:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links vs Advertize

What's the difference? Linking to any site may be deemed an advert. I've encounter this particular site and thought it was rather good, better than some of the WIKI write-ups.

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 </table>
 <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/08&oldid=990308610 -->
+== Links vs Advertize ==
+What's the difference? Linking to any site may be deemed an advert. I've encounter this particular site and thought it was rather good, better than some of the WIKI write-ups.