Jump to content

User talk:Killiondude: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Coopachup (talk | contribs)
144 edits
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 332: Line 332:
Hi I would like to know how to add a template to my user page like for an example, I’d like to add a template to my user page stating I’m a fan of the ravens but I do I get the template to show on my user page? Thank you. [[User:Coopachup|Coopachup]] ([[User talk:Coopachup|talk]]) 21:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi I would like to know how to add a template to my user page like for an example, I’d like to add a template to my user page stating I’m a fan of the ravens but I do I get the template to show on my user page? Thank you. [[User:Coopachup|Coopachup]] ([[User talk:Coopachup|talk]]) 21:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
:Hi [[User:Coopachup|Coopachup]], it looks like you can find the Ravens [[WP:USERBOX|userboxes]] at [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football/American]]. You copy and paste the template (the code with brackets: <code>{{}}</code>) onto your userpage. Hope that helps. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude#top|talk]]) 03:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:Hi [[User:Coopachup|Coopachup]], it looks like you can find the Ravens [[WP:USERBOX|userboxes]] at [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football/American]]. You copy and paste the template (the code with brackets: <code>{{}}</code>) onto your userpage. Hope that helps. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude#top|talk]]) 03:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Revision as of 05:06, 7 October 2019

Your sysop access

Hello Killiondudue, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Level_1_desysop_of_Killiondude. Please contact the Arbitration Committee regarding restoration of access. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 22:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone my block. My sincerest apologies. Saw you were blocked as compromised and then unblocked yourself and the edits to the mainpage etc. Sorry --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor, no worries. Thank you for unblocking :) Killiondude (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the ArbCom motion at Special:PermaLink/870454925#Return_of_tools and the request at WP:BN your access has been restored. Please be sure to review Wikipedia:Administrators#Security and consider activating WP:2FA. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 23:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologize, SandDoctor, you did the right thing. The hacker could have still been in control of the account; it hadn't yet been confirmed that Killion was himself again. One of the things the hacker did while in control of the account was to block me! I'd thank you for my first block, Killion, but I know it wasn't really you. 0;-D What a madhouse for you to come home to! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad there aren't any hard feelings. Felt kind of silly after that. But as Melanie said, the Trump article is now being watched like a hawk by editors and the media alike, 3 admin accounts (yours included) were compromised, who knows how many others are so-to-speak sleepers. Bit crazy right now. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Killiondude. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks, Risker (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creat a new article

Hi, I am trying to creat a new article named "MJ Freeway". I have sources https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarabrittanysomerset/2018/09/20/mj-freeway-makes-a-comeback-with-10-million-in-series-c-financing/#728d53060098 http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/24/how-techies-are-profiting-from-the-booming-pot-business.html http://fortune.com/2013/03/21/yes-we-cannabis/ http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2014/02/13/marijuana-an-industry-shaped-curiously-enough-by-compliance/ https://www.wired.com/2014/04/high-tech/ http://money.cnn.com/video/smallbusiness/2013/03/21/sbiz-marijuana-software-business.cnnmoney http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/04/07/medical-marijuana-industry-growing-billion-dollar-business/2018759/ http://www.inc.com/profile/mj-freeway https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/233877

Will you please help me to create this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayur Bhatt Shiv (talk • contribs) 11:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mayur Bhatt Shiv, you probably want to go through the Article Wizard to help you create a draft that will be reviewed by a volunteer. Killiondude (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFUND for Tamil Rockers

Hello, I noticed that you had closed AfD for Tamil Rockers which had one comment and was deleted without discussion, but you had noted that WP:REFUND applies. I was redirected here at REFUND and would like to contest the deletion. The pirate group is significantly notable and has been widely mentioned in print for its activities by the industry. Hence any referencing is matter of sourcing and subject is notable. [1] from New Indian Express, [2] from Times of India . Please undelete. Srikanth (Logic) 03:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why your request was redirected, but I've responded over there and undeleted the page. Killiondude (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coalizione_del_Volere Soft Delete

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coalizione_del_Volere

Hello, I am sorry I was late to the party (I took a break from editing because of life obligations) for this page and I am working on cleaning up the main page for this article. I noticed in the delete discussion that other commentators were saying they found no sources but I found a bunch. How can I get this page back up and with sources without violating any Wikietiquette? Thanks Ricksanchez (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricksanchez: I have undeleted the article. Feel free to make any changes, but be aware it could be nominate for deletion again. This is especially so if no changes are made. Let me know if you have any questions. Killiondude (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will work on it over the next few days Ricksanchez (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swan Oyster Depot

Hey, You've moved the above to the mainspace after it was declined by another user without making any changes. I agree with the declining rationale that it's more like an advertisement. Would you be able to reconsider your decision? RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 08:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1: I read the article and talked with the originating author on IRC (#wikipedia-en-help) about what changes needed to be made. I disagreed with the decline; it seemed to need clean-up but not entire outright rejection. Can you point out specific phrasings that still exist that you disagree with? We can move this to the article talk page if you'd like. Killiondude (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Killiondude, I think it seems generally written in the wrong tone. I'll start a discussion at the article talk page on that. Can I suggest in future you discuss with the person who declined the article regarding your concerns? I'm also aware that IRC helpers shouldn't really be expediting a review and we don't normally intervene in on-wiki issues advising the helpee to request assistance at appropriate on-wiki channels. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 22:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rhino. I think you're making too much of this. Without proof that it is currently promotional, there is no issue. I've been an admin for nearly a decade and a member of #wikipedia-en-help for longer. Yes, we help users on-wiki. Killiondude (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Killiondude, I see the reviewer has located more specific content for me and despite you being an admin, I still believe that you should discuss what effectively mounts to a concern about Thier actions in Declining the draft with them before overturning it. And I find it very commonplace That we tell reviewers that 'we do not expedite reviews'. I'm going to ping the reviewer so they can see this discussion. @DGG:. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 07:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about being an admin does not concern overturning the review, it reflects the quantity of experience I have on Wikipedia and helping users with their drafts. The expedition was because I saw a topic that seemed notable and, while not perfect, seemed to be ready for the mainspace. Yes, DGG was able to provide specifics while you did not. Thank you, DGG! Killiondude (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Killiondude, I thank you for improving the draft after concerns were raised both before specifics were given and after but in future,I would have preferred that discussion happened first or a note was left at the users talk before overturning it as it's hard to see what was said when the discussion happens off-wiki as Im sure you know. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 23:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease lecturing me both here and on IRC. Your condescension is rank. The user didn't ask me to approve it; I did not ask him if I should expedite it. I did so on my own volition because it looked like a mostly good article. DGG is a great guy and I get why he declined it. I disagreed, discussed with the user about NPOV and encyclopedic tone, moved it, and worked on it. I think our discussion here is done. The article talk page is where we can continue to discuss the current state of the article. Killiondude (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For this. Much appreciated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're too kind. :) Killiondude (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, you're the one that helped me, you deserve the credit here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SVU: Season: 2

1. do You usualy watch SVU? Yes or No?

2. Would it b Posible for You to Answer my Questions about any Episodes?(TomMarvoloRiddle123 (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Deletion review for Mike Schmitz

User:Arbitrarily0 has asked for a deletion review of Mike Schmitz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 16:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question; Why does the main page get blanked a lot?

IsraeliIdan (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83[reply]

Article alterations

Hi, Im the IP editor that is trying to make edits to the Spokane article that people keep wholesale reverting like its nonconstructive vandalism. As I said in the edit summaries, I am more than happy to discuss my edits in Talk to work and cleanup that article together. Although that Doug guy must have just glossed over what I said and took my invitation to talk as being belligerent because he just did another total revert of the constructive, good faith edits that I spent some time and effort making and then criticized me for not reaching out to talk. By doing that last revert, I was trying to give people another chance to look over what I did and revert only what they find objectionable instead of deleting all the other work I spent time doing. In the edit summaries you said you disagreed with "much" of what I did-that means you must have not disagreed with some; so I was wondering why you didnt take the effort to either fix or work with it or only revert what you objected to so I know what is causing the hangup. Although its been reverted twice, I suspected the first revert by Bruce was the standard knee-jerk reaction to an IP editor and assumed it was vandalism because I didnt make an edit summary, so I dont think these changes are as controversial as they may seem.

My changes to the article mostly amounted to standard cleanup, fixing some typos, taking out some duplicate or unnecessary references, fixing dead and archived links, updating things and took out some info that has become less relevant over the years-especially in the Government section-updating the info for the 2012 election and replacing it with the 2016, etc. Im going to go redo the changes I made to the Spokane article and give a detailed description of these changes to make it easier for anyone to undo whatever anyone finds objectionable without doing a wholesale revert of what Ive done so I can figure out what exactly what is so controversial about those changes I made. Feel free to discuss these changes here; I will reference the discussion in the edit summaries so others can reach out too. I honestly don't think I would have been reverted and treated this way if I was editing as a registered user and I think this encapsulates a lot of the reasons people, mostly editing under IPs initially get put off of editing or contributing completely to the Wikipedia community. Thanks. 2001:5B0:4FD1:A378:18FB:F54D:609E:A090 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two people reverted you. Once may have been because you looked like you were vandalizing it. I reverted because I disagreed with your changes. It seems like you want to help. That's great. However, it also seems like you're biting off more than you should. For instance, duplicate references don't need to be removed. It helps build the evidence for a fact if there are multiple sources cited. I'll reply more at the article talk page. And yes, if you were a registered account you'd be treated probably the same way based on your actions. In short, though, you were reverted by a third editor and you ignored that and continued. That's generally frowned upon and could lead to a block. Killiondude (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to help make the article better, I’m not a vandal. Bruce reverted apparently because I didn’t do an edit summary, and he never reverted it after I made one, and Doug because you (the second person) reverted it for some unspecified reasons. So I was reverted twice (excluding yours) for nonreasons, not doing an edit summary and another because two people reverted me (which would have never happened I suppose if I made an edit summary. The only person that has actually voiced objections because they don’t like the changes has been you, and I’m wanting to see what you don’t like so I can fix the issues because you never said anything.
It seems you didn’t like me taking out some references and taking off the A star from what you’ve written. Which ones did you want to keep and why? I know references are important, that’s why I didn’t delete any references from the article except a dictionary reference for the phonetic spelling of the city name, one from a commercial website selling flowers and a reference in the Lead that was referencing information where we already had a reference on the Education section so I took it out because there’s ideally not supposed to be any refs in the Lead if there doesn’t need to be. I know multiple references are good and there are exceptions to having references in the Lead but generally one is good enough if it’s a non controversial fact like when Whitworth move to Spokane. If you do want to keep that Whitworth reference, let’s at least put it where it belongs-in the Education section, because the Lead is supposed to be just a summary of the article with few citations.
Now, about the A star icon. I feel this is what you were really concerned about, not the few references I took out in the Lead or broken links I fixed. And if I saw someone take off the thing that shows the article earned a high quality rating from the Wikipedia community, I’d be torqued perturbed too. But I believe this isn’t something bestowed on the article from the community. I know it’s rated A-Class on the quality scale, I wasn’t disagreeing with you there. I took that off because I don’t think putting an icon in the corner is an actual thing the Wikipedia community has come up with, someone clearly made that because they wanted to differentiate it from other good articles and whipped it up. If it was an actual thing, it would be replacing and be similar to the “{{Good Article}” tag. But it’s not, it’s a table and someone can easily stick an image of an F-16 or whatever in there to change it. Someone made that on their own and stuck that there. I could have done that. There are no other A class articles with an icon near the Good Article one. If you can find one, I’d want to see it. If we want to earn a new icon in that top right corner and not just make up our own standards on this page, we have to get this on article to FA so it gets the barnstar.

2001:5B0:4FD1:A378:F489:96C6:827E:FBBE (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Spokane, Washington#Mass changes by IPv6 user Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Im back at square 1 again and I really dont know why. Please help me understand, I want to understand. I have tried to make good faith edits and was 100% reverted because I didnt write an edit summary. I did that and I was reverted because someone didnt like all of my edits and didnt make any effort to either fix what they didnt like or only revert may have been contentious so we can make achieve consensus and progress. I put it back (Ill admit, maybe I shouldnt have...) because I believe that most of those edits are typo, deadlink, and MoS and fixes that we can all get behind and invited people to have a discussion about the cleanup edits to hopefully give the opportunity for collaboration in working the issues out together and that was met with some stonewalling until it happened again...another 100% revert. This time it looks like it is because I am 'guilty' I guess of trying to make a cleanup edit of the something I thought needed cleaning up before when I visited this page, again with the person giving no specifics so I can understand which change that was and what I/we can do to fix that concern. That is why I opened up this Talk thing in the first place. So lets talk and see if we can fix some of the legit concerns I raised about the article.
I thought the idea of this website was supposed to be a collaborative effort, but from my perspective, people are very touchy and possessive of this web page. I would like to point out that there is still room for improvement of this article, and that the web page is supposed to be a living document of sorts and not an archived piece, where nothing can be deleted-some things lose relevance over time (like that that 2012 election which happened almost two election cycles ago that I updated).
I dont even know if its worth it to try to help the page and I will try only one last time to reach out before I give up and just forget about it forever because I have more productive things to do with my time than try to reason with a brick wall that doesnt give any ground. Since I have been sort of demonized as a wrecking ball for what I think are only a couple of the changes I made, I am going to try to reinstate some of edits that I believe are truly only minor and uncontroversial (typos, deadlink fixes, update election with Countywide results, etc) and I would like to ask the de-facto keepers of the page which edits that were supposedly being reviewed before the latest revert are allowed to be made and what edits arent. I dont care whats happened in the past or who did what, all I care about going forward is what we can do together to improve the article to make it that much better. Please dont sensationalize and whip things up into a frenzy if I make an edit. Please keep a level head, and please dont take things personally and be professional.
On second thought, how about you review the past edits and put back any non controversial ones and for some of the rest tell me the reasoning why you won’t allow them to be changed. I’ve expressed my thoughts in the edit summaries but I haven’t heard back from anybody else on why we should keep some of the things I took off. Id like to know. Also...I cant get this off my mind and this irks me the most...may i suggest using this Spokesman article instead of the business website/blog reference that we are using in the Lead to tell readers about the strain of lilac that the city is using only in Spokane?? [3] >>> [4]. Surely we cant have a enterprise business website to site a fact on what is supposed to be an free to use, free of advertisements encyclopedia. Thanks for considering it.

2001:5B0:4FC1:D048:558D:70E3:B539:AF6F ([[User talk:2001:5B0:4FC1:D048:558D:70E3:B539:AF6F|talk]]) 00:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch on the Spokesman article. You wrote a lot of text here and I went searching for a replacement link without seeing your suggestion. I am calm and have been. Maybe you're reading too much into it? I've just been busy this week and couldn't sit down to give you a solid reply. You took on a huge task and tried to do too much with what seems to be your first foray into editing a Wikipedia article. With the removals, you should probably see WP:DEADREF. We follow those steps, in order, to try to rescue old links. You were not reverted because you didn't use an edit summary. It seems you may not have read why others disagreed with your edits. It's unfortunate that it seems you enjoy writing a lot of text but not reading others' replies/comments to you. The best thing to do at this point would be for you to propose changes on the talk page of the article, linked above by another user. Killiondude (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking my suggestion for the reference. Like I have been saying, I have been trying to engage in discussion here, but it seems nobody has been willing to listen so far. I doubt it will help if I go to the Talk page of the article, since nobody cared to engage with me here and this is as good a spot as any to discuss the article but I may try. I was mainly talking about Excelsior who seemed like he lost his head after he reverted the last time and assumed a bit of bad faith even... 00:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

User:175.120.192.10

Hi,

I saw that you reverted the changes the IP 175.120.192.10 made to Foreign relations of Azerbaijan. This IP seems to be an LTA of this person. I'm making an LTA page for the user because he's gotten to the point that it is irritating and he's starting to cause major disruption, and I think User:175.120.192.10 should be blocked as an obvious sock.

Thanks, Rockstonetalk to me! 19:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well, the IP didn't edit again after the block expired so either they gave up or moved to another address. Killiondude (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

You might want to revoke talk page access for Special:Contributions/213.205.242.170. Marianna251TALK 12:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. E^pi*i batch (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (Retro is my main account.)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Rispin Mansion at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kind bot. Killiondude (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Rispin Mansion

Hello! Your submission of Rispin Mansion 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! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TKAM

For interested parties, I noticed that To Kill a Mockingbird has been semi-protected for nearly eight years. :/ Killiondude (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edge cities

Hi Killiondude, I invite you to research what constitutes an edge city, which is a common and recognized term in the field of urbanism. It is not a "city" in the traditional sense, nor "city", an incorporated political unit. It is a recognized area with a concentration of commercial, entertainment and other facilities, usually in a suburban environment. There are slightly different definitions by different authors and academics, however Garreau established five rules for a place to be considered an edge city:

  • Has five million or more square feet (465,000 m²) of leasable office space.
  • Has 600,000 square feet (56,000 m²) or more of leasable retail space.
  • Has more jobs than bedrooms.
  • Is perceived by the population as one place.
  • Was nothing like a "city" as recently as ~1960. Then it was just bedrooms, if not cow pastures.

I'm happy to provide more sources when tagging an edge city, but you also need to understand what one is, before asking me to "please stop" tagging them.Keizers (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the linked article with the bulleted points above when I first undid your edit. Perhaps you would be less frustrated if you would have added the reference as you did in your latest bout. Killiondude (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Nizharadze

"birth info that's not cited from a reliable source" ? How it is not a reliable source? https://voters.cec.gov.ge/ is the official government website database of all adult citizens of Georgia. Can't you see the URL domain "gov.ge" ? It's the official domain of Georgian government. On the sub-domain: https://voters.cec.gov.ge/ You can check birth date with these two parameters: ID ("პირადი ნომერი"): 01033000017 and Last Name ("გვარი"): ნიჟარაძე. LeoKac 04:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi LeoKac! Thanks for your question, it's great. You can see at WP:PRIMARY that Wikipedia does allow for primary sources (government docs would qualify) as sources, but in this specific case, how do we know they are the same person? Can't there be multiple people with the same first and last name? It also appeared you posted some sort of social security number or government-given number. Regardless of how you got that number, how can we know it's the same person? (Also, please don't post that again, it is far too personal.) We need a secondary or tertiary source. Wikipedia can't publish original research.
Also, please make sure to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so that your username is linked to you. It's part of the signature policy. Thank you! Killiondude (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, how do we know they are the same person? When you enter the ID and Last Name, the website shows not only full name and birth date, but also the ID photo. Also it shows home residence location, city, street, and stuff. But don't get me wrong. This database is fully public, so we can not say that any of this information is private. Even the ID number is public, that's why I got that number, I did not hack anything or searched in any "black" illegal websites. I got the ID from official Georgian website (National Agency of Public Registry): https://napr.gov.ge/ . I can provide exact instructions how to get ID of all (minus some exceptions) Georgian adult citizens totally LEGALLY. So, that, you said that "it is far too personal", the answer is, it's not, because this data in not private in Georgia, it is totally public. LeoKac 05:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I see now for myself how you can verify it is the same person. However, a colleague pointed out WP:BLPPRIMARY. Wikipedia does not allow public records to verify person data. It seems this situation fits the description there exactly.
Also, please make sure to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so that your username is linked to you. It's part of the signature policy. Killiondude (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can provide third party sources too. For example: Website of National Parliamentary Library of Georgia: http://www.nplg.gov.ge/bios/en/00006763/

Website of Music and Drama Theatre (Tbilisi, Georgia): http://musictheatre.ge/index.php/GE/გალერეა/12-თეატრი-დღეს/დასი/132-სოფო-ნიჟარაძე

There you can see the birth date 1985. But I am curious, why Wikipedia does not allow public records to verify person data? Does this mean that official governmental public records are most likely false/inaccurate? LeoKac 06:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think those two links are good sources for this information. Feel free to update the article with those as references! To be honest, I am not sure that I've seen that WP:BLPPRIMARY before. However, I have a feeling it's because there may be more editorial oversight in secondary/tertiary sources. Not that governmental records are false, but that there is possibly more direct oversight for each entry in other sources. Like I said, I am not positive though. I'm glad you found those sources and we were able to get this resolved. Killiondude (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Trevor Bauer trade was confirmed to my knowledge of ESPN so I thought that the trade was confirmed so I edited his bio and I was given a warning about it. (My question is the subject) Coopachup (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coopachup. I replied at your talk page. Killiondude (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rispin Mansion

On 2 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rispin Mansion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, described as being "cursed", Rispin Mansion was variously used as a SWAT practice ground, a residence, a real-estate showroom, a ghost hunting site, and a nunnery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rispin Mansion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rispin Mansion), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Atascadero Printery

On 10 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Atascadero Printery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Atascadero Printery, founded by Edward Gardner Lewis, housed the first rotogravure printing press in the Western United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Atascadero Printery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Atascadero Printery), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The California Star
For the work in creating the article about the Atascadero Printery, and getting it onto Did you know on the Main page, I hereby present the barnstar. May it shine brightly for all to see and serve as a beacon to others so they may emulate your accomplishments. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly, sir. :) Killiondude (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The McClure Twins

Thank you so much!!! I appreciate your time more than you know.

LaWr123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaWr123. You are quite welcome! Killiondude (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a template to your user page

Hi I would like to know how to add a template to my user page like for an example, I’d like to add a template to my user page stating I’m a fan of the ravens but I do I get the template to show on my user page? Thank you. Coopachup (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coopachup, it looks like you can find the Ravens userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football/American. You copy and paste the template (the code with brackets: {{}}) onto your userpage. Hope that helps. Killiondude (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Killiondude&oldid=920009598"