User talk:Steve2011

User talk:December21st2012Freak

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

That means you Coldplay Expert! User:December21st2012Freak/Talkheader

---

Below is an ad. The user may or may not have any affiliation whatsoever with the ad's subject.

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #197

July 2009 Messages

December 21st, 2012

On December 21st, 2012, The Sun will align with the center of the galaxy, causing the earth to wobble, causing tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and more. An asteroid might hit earth. The earth might end. Do you wikipedians rather go to another earthlike world rather then staying on earth? --December21st2012Freak (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the earth will line up with the sun and there may be a small amount more chaos than usual but I don't believe that the world will end. If an asteroid were to come close to earth, they probably will have developed technology that will repel the asteroid. That theory you believe is full of HOOEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry if I was a little impolite. In short, don't worry about that stuff.) Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, On April 13-14, 2036; Asteroid Apophis, the size of a small mountain, will hit Earth. December21st2012Freak (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They probably will have tech that repels asteroids then too (Don't use the talkback template either, I have this on my watchlist). Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious, if the world were to end on 12/21/2012, wouldnt the press or the gov'ts be all over this and prep? PS... thats my birthday :O Tdinatale (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The World might end on that date according to here. December21st2012Freak , (The world will end in 2012...) 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're gunna be screwed from an exploding population and/or global warming anyways.... I plan on moving someplace tropical, learning spanish fluently and growing my own food for that matter. But I question.. the sun being blocked out for 40 years? meh.... Tdinatale (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC) .. Even if it does happen, the great dying occurred and the Cretaceous–Tertiary_extinction_event occured.. historically speaking, it didnt kill everything. Tdinatale (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the 2036 asteroid you were talking about has a low chance of an Earth impact. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/apr/HQ_08103_student_asteroid_calculations.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdinatale (talk • contribs) 01:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

But in 2029, Asteroid Apophis will pass very close to the Earth and possibly hit it. December21st2012Freak , (The world will end in 2012...) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but I wouldn't quit my day job just yet. lolTdinatale (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You do know that the sun earth and the centre of the galaxy lines up every year on December 21 right???? Because it does. Not so special is it happens every year--Fire 55 (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow i'm born in December whoop whoop. but the world won't explode hopefully —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lori07 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Earth? Earth? What the hell's that supposed to mean? There's no such thing as earth. Stop making up gibberish, you infantile fools, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Earth is the planet we live on. December21st2012Freak , (talk to me, or else...) 23:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Bertrand

I have declined your CSD of Jennifer Bertrand (originally at Jennifer bertrand) as the notability has been claimed. She is the host of her own show and a winner in a reality TV series, which establishes her notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

M. Moses

u might want to reconsider your speedy deletion tagging. --L I C 03:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Steve2011. You have new messages at Barista Girl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barista Girl (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of warnings

Hello and thank you for your work in reverting vandals. However, the edit you made here is actually true: Users may remove warnings if they'd like, hence it is a way of showing that he/she read the warning. ZooFari 00:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009 messages

What I don't like

My page being edited by a guy who believes the world is going to end in 2012. If you ever do it again, I'll make your world end a bit sooner. With kind regards, 62.235.138.10 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is why I know the world will end in 2012, see this video. December21st2012Freak (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is why I know it won't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfp7FbsnsbU 62.235.138.10 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you were a bit too harsh

Hi. I think you were a bit harsh issuing that vandalism notice. This edit was not vandalism for say but maybe a name correction or a bad edit (which is not vandalism). Just to let you know. FireCrystal (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a second instance: this reverted edit on the Cold Spring Tavern article was not vandalism but a helpful correction to an incorrectly spelled name. :) Please remember (and maybe re-read) these guidelines: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just concerned that you were mislabeling it vandalism when it could be reverted to the last good edit (and not marked as vandalism). Only people that are knowledgeable about the person would know the correct spelling of the person's name and would then call it vandalism. So identifying something like that as vandalism when it may be a correction is pretty much in bad faith. Why are you saying that I should read those two policies? I respect them both. Could you please explain specifically what I done? I was, in no way, in bad faith here. Also, with new users I try to actually help them when I can and I respect them because I was new to Wikipedia once just like everyone else. I'm sorry if I misunderstood after all this. No worries. FireCrystal (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FireCrystal, it seems as if I confused you, and I'm sorry for that! My comment was intended to be aimed at December21st2012Freak. I don't think you did anything wrong; I was just noticing a separate instance of mislabeled vandalism and decided to add my note to the similar section that you had started. (In the case that I'm discussing, the misspelling could be checked by visiting the reference.) Dreamyshade (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, what's funny is I did not even know you were someone else entirely than this user until now so I feel pretty stupid. It all makes sense to me now. I was too fast to respond. So no problems. :) FireCrystal (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's OK! I understand. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Steve2011. You have new messages at 98.248.32.178's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User talk:98.248.32.178

Users are allowed to remove comments from their own talk page, see WP:UP#CMT. While there may be edit warring by the user elsewhere (I haven't looked), removing posts and warnings from their own talk page doesn't qualify for that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• And actually, the IP was trying to AFD the article, not realising that they couldn't. It wasn't even vandalism. Black Kite 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please look again

The edit which you characterized as vandalism [1] was a good- faith attempt to revert what appears to be spamming [2]. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Please be more careful in reverting other editors edits. If their edits aren't simple vandalism, then you really shouldn't be reverting them and warning them with twinkle. Several of your reverts are of edits which could possibly be, or even likely are, in good faith. Take a look at WP:VAND and make sure that the content you are reverting meets that description before doing so. Prodego ^talk 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Sample

Thanks for the Condescension. But no, the edit wasn't a mistake, and maybe if you actually took the time to compare histories you'd realize that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.236.2 (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! [midnight comet] [talk] 19:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome :) December21st2012Freak (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: William Edwin Rudge

Hello December21st2012Freak, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of William Edwin Rudge - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguously promotional. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

...for the barnstar. It'll look good on my shelf. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome. December21st2012Freak (talk • contribs) 02:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't

Please don't edit another user's talk page such as you did here. This is especially the case when the user has placed a request for unblock at the talk page. Thanks.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Luke adam hudson

I have removed the comment that you left to User:Luke adam hudson on my talk page as I think it would best in this situation to leave him alone and I do not think your comment was helping the situation. I also removed your {{talkback}} from his talk page as the comment no longer exists on my talk page. Normal use of the {{talkback}} template is to indicate a comment left for an editor on your own talk page, not somebody else's. While I can not stop you from leaving another comment on his talk page, I strongly suggest that you do not as I don't think it is necessary. Continuing to argue with him will not help matters. I have already warned him that he may be blocked if he continues to post his "article". I don't think leaving him another warning is necessary since he has done no further edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the help here. Regards Tiderolls 00:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome. December21st2012Freak (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't quite get far enough back. :) Dureo (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome. December21st2012Freak (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy deletion

Hi there. I noticed you tagged Tanario King with the {{copyvio}} template. Please remember that the template is for those cases, where copyright violation is unclear. If it's evident as in this case, use {{db-copyvio}} instead which will place it in the category to speedy delete it. Regards SoWhy 07:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha

I deserve a right trouting for this. Soz :P it was an automatic reflex. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! wadester16 01:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not ever do this --O extremenho (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting the page blank on my talk page I hereby award you The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Practical Joke

I just love your practical joke I clicked on that link ,found a strange page (I thought it was some kinda mistake)I went to my talk oage and checked out it's history That's when I realised it was a joke :))--Notedgrant (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox

I'm confused over the point of this as the sandbox is not going to be deleted and why bother to warn a user, and one that hasn't edited since May, that the page is about to be deleted. While a nonsense warning is unlikely to bother an experienced user it may upset a new user. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Trouted

LOL! I hope I didn't cause any trouble. The sandbox was the best place I could think of to test out Twinkle. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Interested in contributing to a discussion?

Talk:2012_millenarianism#Formal_discussion_on_page_name Read the arguments from all sides here and tell me what you think... Shii (tock) 15:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. December21st2012Freak , (The world will end in 2012...) 16:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion nomination

Do you actually mean to nominate the Sandbox for deletion (meaning that there wouldn't be a Sandbox any more), or are you just testing something? If it's a serious nomination, please explain the reason for it or withdraw it, because honestly this isn't going to happen. If you were just testing something out, please let us know so we can delete the MfD. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2009 messages

speedy deletion of Who settled in wilmington after the native americans?

Plip!

• You tagged this as blatant advertising. What was it advertising? I deleted it anyway because it was nonsense, but I would ask you to please slow it down and try to be more accurate when tagging for speedy deletion. Thanks--Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping to revert all of that vandalism on my userpage. It's amazing that I didn't have to revert any of it because you and a few other people kept beating me to it. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are Welcome. December21st2012Freak , (The world will end in 2012...) 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

Why did you revert my edit on Black Eyed Peas the link didn't work so I fixed it. --72.129.18.152 (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:75.47.128.26

I'm very confused. How are this user's edits vandalism?...and why are you edit warring over the warning? --Onorem♠Dil 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the sandbox history, I'll agree that it's not good use of the sandbox to simply add the same information over and over, but I wouldn't call it vandalism...and a templated warning does little to let them know what's wrong with their edits. --Onorem♠Dil 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Hi there! You recently reported an IP at AIV with the following rationale.

• 75.47.128.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On Wikipedia:Sandbox;. User keeps adding the same information on Wikipedia:Sandbox and not letting people edit it. December21st2012Freak , (Wanna Chat?) 01:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP had not been sufficiently warned, please make sure you are familiar with the criteria for blocking vandals. Ask me any questions if you have them. ceranthor 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP was edit warring earlier and keeps adding the same text on the Wikipedia Sandbox. And, When I was warning him, he erased the warnings of his page. December21st2012Freak , (Wanna Chat?) 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I assumed that the admin who declined your report had checked out the page history. My apologies, I'll contact him/her immediately. ceranthor 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My error entirely, and I apologize. I am trying to multi-task, and should have been more thorough and either made time to check history, or not commented at all. I am sorry for any delay regarding this due to my insufficient diligence. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

New message bar

Hi, can you please remove the new messages bar on your userpage per WP:SMI? Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 19:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done December21st2012Freak , (Wanna Chat?) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. :) Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 19:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You got me

As a newcomer to editing (though I am a long-time user) you got me pretty good with the "you have been banned from editing for vandalism" notice in the sandbox.--Nyctc7 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SB

Please don't do things like this. Regards, Javért ^❤ 03:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not really protected at all... December21st2012Freak , (?!?) 03:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And it cracked me up. Abce2|This isnot a test 03:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that, but pretending to be an admin is generally frowned upon. Regards, Javért ^❤ 03:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm...it was meant as a humorous thing.Abce2|This isnot a test 03:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And, I also have this on my userpage,

This user acts like an administrator on the English Wikipedia but really isn't one.

December21st2012Freak , (?!?) 03:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...

Why are you edit warring on the sandbox?Abce2|This isnot a test 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, or reverting other people's edits. December21st2012Freak , (?!?) 19:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome. December21st2012Freak , (?!?) 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Based on your username. What's happening on December 21st 2012?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11iCmzGnOI8 Regards, December21st2012Freak , (?!?) 23:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll look at it after I've finished some statistical work.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OMG, we are running out of time.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 04:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I watched it again. In ways, it is a very good video. Cheers.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 07:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Best Barnstar

		The Lord Spongefrog, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Czar of Kasan and Astrakhan, Czar of Poland, Czar of Siberia, Czar of the Tauric Chersonese, Seignior of Pskov, Prince of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volkynia, Podolia, and Finland, Prince of Esthonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigallia, of Bialystok, Karelia, Sougria, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria and many other countries; Lord and Sovereign Prince of the territory of Nijni-Novgorod, Tchemigoff, Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Jaroslavl, Bielozersk, Oudoria, Obdoria, Kondinia, Vitepsk, and of Mstislaf, Governor of the Hyperborean Regions, Lord of the countries of Iveria, Kartalinia, Grouzinia, Kabardinia, and Armenia, Hereditary Lord and Suzerain of the Scherkess princes, of those of the mountains, and of others; heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Dittmarsen and Oldenburg Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for making it in the first place and for actually takeing me seriouslly.--Coldplay Expert 23:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Lord Spongefrog is not be a-authorizin' this gildet' template in his name. Walk t' plank, ye misguided vagabonds, and to Davy Jones' locker! Lord Spongefrog, (I be t' Czar o' all Russias!) 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

it was in fact a productive edit - someone used a terrible translation service to attempt to add information that was not originally in english and that they did not take the time to format into anything even close to proper language. it was therefore not appropriate to be included in the article.

a minor concern with your sig

I'm sure it's only intended as light-hearted humor, but I'm not sure it's such a good idea for someone leaving vandalism and speedy deletion notices to have "talk to me or else" in their signature. New users who are not so familiar with how things work here might actually take that seriously. In the interest of avoiding biting the newcomers, you may want to reconsider. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it to this: December21st2012Freak , (chat) 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I hesitated to l even leave that message because some users can get awfully huffy about such things. I went to get you a barnstar to thank you for your understanding, but as I live in Alaska, I had some trouble and unfortunately your barnstar was eaten by a bear. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats pretty funny!--Coldplay Expert 00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009 messages

New Section

I am about to delete one of your userboxes.--Daniel L. Barth (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

how do you get the little button that shows what your doing on you user/talk page? (right now it says huggleing)--Coldplay Expert 01:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Netalarmtalk 20:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Welcome. December21st2012Freak ^chat 21:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey i did it too!--Coldplay Expert 21:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the two reverts on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Welcome. December21st2012Freak ^chat 13:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hershey bar revert

The 5 pound Hershey bar is available in their Singapore store, but since Hershey shut down its web sales you can't order it from them. The anon you reverted was trying to do a good deed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hershey_bar&action=historysubmit&diff=308963887&oldid=308963838 You didn't check that the anon's info was accurate - you reverted the article to inaccurate. - 173.19.201.156 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit was from a long time ago. December21st2012Freak ^chat 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2012 Link

You might want to give this a read. Even the Mayans say, what 98% of most believe, that the 2012 thing is just there to scare the ever-living-bejesus outta of people. Just a thought. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This will make D212012F very mad but I think that this whole thing about 2012 is just like Y2K.--Coldplay Expert 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing warnings...

Hi, I tried to update some information on here but was given warnings...I'm not quite sure why as the editing was actually to do with myself!

Moonmonkey31 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no warnings on your talk page, it is empty. December21st2012Freak ^chat 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Userboxen

This concerns me. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I belive that D212012F made that only for fun. Not to say that he endorces vandals in any way. But what do I know? im just a Talk page wacher.--Coldplay Expert 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it's a bit DENYish. It promotes and grants recognition of the completely wrong type of behaviour expected by fellow Wikipedians. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Reverted Edit

That user posted vandalism, which I reverted and warned him of. Why did you post that revert warning on my page, then remove it? --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 22:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was non needed warning on his talk page, and, I saw that you were an experienced editor, Huggle gave you a warning, and I reverted on your talk page. December21st2012Freak ^chat 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool. Thanks for your efforts, and take care! --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 23:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar For all your efforts to keep the wiki clean, I hereby award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Enjoy! --[midnight comet] [talk] 01:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, and, when will you make me WOTD? December21st2012Freak ^chat 01:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem! You deserve it. About WOTD - WOTD is done; next week I'm going to start a new award program; a spinoff of WOTD. It will feature some users who received WOTD in the past and some users who haven't received it at all. --[midnight comet] [talk] 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Just wanted to justify you, do you like testing in the user warning sandbox as a hobby. Coz it looks like that you're using the talk page very frequently.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 03:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, testing obscure warnings that you probably will never use is not really that exciting. If in doubt, give 'em the standard {{uw-vandalism1}}.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I award you...

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Pepperpiggle, award December21st2012Freak the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for all the Huggling you did on User talk:Wolfkeeper. I tried to revert the vandalism too, but you beat me to it every time. Keep reverting! *Pepperpiggle**Sign!* 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. December21st2012Freak ^chat 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

cool

I just want to say that your user page is alswome, and I was worndreing if you could sign my gustbook. regards--Orangesodakid 00:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

just to show how cool I think your user page is, here is a barnstar

		The Excellent User Page Award
		for having a excellent user page (that was kind of redundent) regards. --Orangesodakid 00:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

regards --Orangesodakid 00:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

TS

"Thankyou for participating!"

Hello Steve2011. Thankyou for participating in my recent RfA. I appreciate it. As you know, it failed (probably due to my own interference), but...there's always next year, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Del Rosa

Thanks for fixing my edit to Del Rosa, San Bernardino, California. House1090 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Welcome. December21st2012Freak ^{Halloween is coming} 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

UBX links removed

I've removed 2 links to your userboxes from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Vandalism and /Misc. This & This If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. Netalarmtalk 23:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

another barnstar

for signing my user page here is a barnstar (BARNSTAR)

The Orangesodakid Guestbook Page Barnstar

---

This user has signed orangesodakid's signature page.

regards --Orangesodakid 23:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Images for upload pages.

A few tips that you might find helpful:

• Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions.
• The project's discussion board is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.
• Alternatively you may like to contact one of our experienced members for help. They are: User talk:Steve2011/header

Draft:Bryan Mealer

Could some AfC reviewers please have a look at this draft and the rationale used to reject it. Thank you very much. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If the article was on "Muck City" I would accept it too. But it says little about the author. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

More details on his life would be good to include. Doesn't he meet criteria 3 and 4 of the creative professionals notability criteria? His most famous work was adapted into a film as is noted in the entry. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

?FloridaArmy (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Jacob A. Eaton

Why isn't this long serving state legislator notable? I don't understand why the references are objectionable? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy: I'm not saying this was the reason for declining, but is there any independent and reliable verification (eg. official legislature records or similar) of his service? The first two sources don't seem to state that, from what I can see at least, and the last two are primary. Other than that, perhaps you could ask the reviewer what they had in mind, as I'm only guessing here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I found some and added them User:DoubleGrazing. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, with those improvements I've gone ahead and accepted the draft. Curbon7 (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Four months cheeseburger gift

Hi AFC reviewers,
Anyone in their free time, may look at the last four months backlog pending drafts. A cheeseburger from me 🤣. They are:

• Draft:'alam al-mansûr
• Draft:Evkaf Administration of Cyprus
• Draft:Clothes in Poland
• Draft:Coastal Television
• Draft:Mark Ginzburg.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing accepted AfC drafts

What is the policy or consensus on marking accepted AfC drafts as reviewed right away? Should they be left in the queue for another NPP reviewer to check? WP:NPP says "When drafts are approved at AfC and moved to the mainspace they will be checked again by new page patrollers in many instances." I always just leave them for another reviewer but is there an actual policy on this? There is always a fair number of unreviewed accepted AfC drafts at WP:NPPEASY so I wonder if allowing this would help reduce the NPP backlog. C F A 💬 17:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The best practice is to let an NPR review the page after it's accepted, but there is no firm policy or requirement to do so. Granted I generally am dealing with borderline drafts as it is, but I almost always un-review a page after I've accepted it so that someone else can take a look. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW (and I realise this has nothing to do with any policy): if I'm confident that it's a clear pass, I let it stay patrolled, mainly so as not to put more pressure on NPP which is even busier than AfC. If I feel it's borderline, or I'm not sure if I've interpreted something correctly, I un-patrol it after accepting, to get a 'second opinion'. I have quite a high pass threshold (too high, probably), so I tend to do the former more than the latter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Because this is asked here multiple times a year, I've added the section Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Marking your own AFC accepts as reviewed. Folks should feel free to iterate on it. Hope it helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks NL. I agree with what you've written there. -- asilvering (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible Misunderstanding of Rejection

I was reviewing drafts, and came across one with the notation: I have to reject this without prejudice to accept when there is a line of notability. I mean if this goes to AFD, the possible outcome may be to delete or draftify as WP:TOOSOON. I partially reverted the rejection, because I think that there was a good-faith misunderstanding by the reviewer of when Rejection should and should not be used. As I understand it, the whole point to Rejection is that it is with prejudice, so that a draft which is too soon for significant coverage should be declined for notability. It is my understanding that rejection for notability should be used in hopeless situations. I use rejection for notability mainly when there was an AFD, and there is no reason given to think that the situation has changed, or if there is no credible claim of significance, so that A7 would apply in article space. I have used the latter on what are really social media profiles. So do other reviewers agree that this was a good faith misunderstanding of rejection? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Rejection is essentially us saying "no way, no how, please stop trying". If the subject is a "not now, but feel free to try again in the future" then the draft should not be rejected. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That is what I thought. So maybe the guidance for reviewers needs to be clarified, since this was a good faith error by a reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The guidance on rejection is pretty clear, but I'll add bold to "uncontroversially". I hope you contacted the rejecting reviewer? -- asilvering (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

More Rejection Questions

I will also ask a question that I have probably asked before, and that is what if any procedure should be followed if a draft was rejected and the originator wants it reconsidered. I will also ask another question that I know I have asked before, and that is what options reviewers have if a draft was rejected, and is resubmitted tendentiously. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If they want it reconsidered, the submitter is welcome to ask the reviewer (or a different reviewer) or raise the matter here. If they continue to resubmit without talking to anyone and ignoring the rejection notices, then it might be a candidate for MfD or (depending on how disruptive they are being) the user is topic-banned from the subject. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I have a template that states that, {{rejectdraft}}, and was wondering if I had the sense correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware of this discussion because I thought Robert had removed the rejection status of the draft. Though I regret my incorrect application of the rejection, which was intended to prevent the user from resubmitting a WP:TOOSOON draft, I believed that wasting other reviewers' time would not resolve the issue. However, I forgot that a shared problem can be solved as many people understand things at least if not obvious, in different ways. Thank you @Robert McClenon for the correction and I would want to clarify that my mistake was intentional, not due to a misunderstanding. That's all I have to say. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

User:SafariScribe - Please don't dig yourself into a hole. Your mistake may have been intentional, but it was due to a misunderstanding. You thought that there could be a temporary rejection. I did remove the rejection of the draft, but I also initiated this discussion, because I thought that it illustrates a good-faith misunderstanding. It appears that you were acting in good faith, so it was a misunderstanding. Please do not dig yourself into a hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This does raise a suggestion. If a reviewer declines a draft because it is too soon, it would be helpful for them to include advice as to when to resubmit it. For unreleased films, for instance, I advise the submitter to update the draft and resubmit with Reception information when the film is released and reviewed. In other cases, other instructions can be given on when to resubmit. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

AFCH Error

Just recently, when I logged-in, I got a pop-up message showing some sort of AFCH Error, and i misclicked on the pop-up disabling my ability to review. Somebody help me understand what is happening. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I am getting the following message as pop-up:

AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "Ken Tony" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there. If you wish to disable the helper script, click here. If you have any questions or concerns, please get in touch! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 13:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ken Tony: are you saying that you didn't know that you need to be approved to use that tool, or that you believe you are but for some reason the system is not recognising that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I've been a reviewer since 2021, but I haven't been very active on the project lately. I never saw this pop-up when I used to be active, so I'm just curious about what's going on. Have there been any changes to the criteria for reviewer rights while I've been away? What should I do so that I can start reviewing the drafts again? Regards. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 14:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like your name was removed as inactive yesterday [3]. I think you just need to request to be restored to the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Mgp28 (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Or just post here and I"ll take care of it. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Whiiiiich I've now done. Ken Tony you should be good to go. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Primefac. Really appreciate it. Besh wishes! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Nitish Rajput

Are any admins here able to check if Draft:Nitish Rajput is G4able after the AfD three days ago? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we need a new user right for non-admins to see routinely-deleted pages ('routinely', as in not redacted etc.) when doing reviews. Would be really useful esp. in AfC & NPP work; could even be bundled with those permissions, perhaps? Or alternatively a tool that can compare an existing page with a specific deleted one to check for similarity. (And maybe a yacht, while I'm wishing.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles for sea-ation? S0091 (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll check, but just for the record a draft is not G4-able if the article was deleted at AFD. That's kind of the whole point of the draft space. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The article was G4'd, but I will reiterate that the draft should not be deleted just because it's the same. That being said, it does make it more relevant that the issues in the AFD are overcome (since it's not a total rewrite). Primefac (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

My reading, FWIW, of G4 is that it does apply in draft space, but not if the draft was draftified ("It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)."). If it's a recreation of a substantially same content as was deleted following AfD, then it can be G4'd.

Having said which, I have seen different admins both accept and decline G4 requests in the draft space. Perhaps the wording of WP:G4 could be clarified? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

While I believe the G4'd version in the article space should have been deleted as a G4, it is different enough that I do not think the exception to the exception as stated applies; the draft is different from the deleted article (i.e. it was not just copy/pasted) and also was created more than six months after the original AFD, by a different editor. I believe the point of that subclause is to avoid someone copy/pasting an article about to be deleted to the draft space immediately before deletion so that there is a copy available (not just creating a new page after deletion). Primefac (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We're thinking about adding auto detection of this to Special:NewPagesFeed via phab:T327955. It was mentioned by a developer the other day in Discord. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Where are explanations of "declined" and "rejected" for drafts?

I can't find it again but this was one concern of someone asking a question in the Teahouse which I found in the archives.

The person was told about the difference and said they had tried to find information on the distinction but couldn't.

If I'm asking in the wrong place, I don't see a better one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Good question. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Rejecting submissions which says when to reject. The only info on the differences I can find is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Draft decline or reject help which has almost no incoming links and isn't part of the AfC documentation. We probably need a concise statement, linked to the reject template, to explain that decline is for topics that might well be a proper encyclopedia article and reject is for topics that are just not the kind of thing covered in our encyclopedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I usually find a way to use really good Teahouse or Help Desk responses. If I can find one, I think I know where to put it so it can be seen by new editors.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the better move would be for teahouse hosts to stop bothering to correct people when they say their drafts have been rejected. It's a difference that matters to us as reviewers, but new people are going to keep calling declines "rejects" until the end of time, since it's a perfectly reasonable word to describe what has happened to them. We're better off just skipping to the part where we help them understand what they need to do to get their drafts accepted. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "reject" is the real world word for both AFC-decline and AFC-reject. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I still think it's a good idea to give new editors a place to read this information before they ask, and when I find a really good description of each in the Teahouse or Help Desk archives, I'll copy it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

How's this: "Reviewers may decline or reject your draft submission. If your draft has been declined, you are encouraged to take the reviewer's feedback into account and resubmit your draft using the "submit" button on the AfC template. If your draft has been rejected, you are not encouraged to resubmit and will not see a "submit" button on the template. Reviewers decline drafts if they do not presently meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Reviewers reject drafts only if there is no possibility that they will ever meet those guidelines; for example, if the topic is not relevant for the encyclopedia, or if the draft is spam." -- asilvering (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would not say ever. See WP:Before they were notable for some examples of articles that were deleted due to notability but later met the criteria (ex. Nicki Minaj). S0091 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I like it. I'll use what Asilvering with the clarification by S0091.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, take a look.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate drafts

I came across Draft:Philip Blood and Draft:Philip W. Blood while checking on the licensing the imge used in the main infobox of each. These drafts appear to be identical except for their titles. They both also been submitted to AfC for review and declined. Are they both needed? Should they be merged together? The creator is the same person, and they might've mistakeny thought they needed to create a "new draft" after the first one they created was declined. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

In this situation, I like to WP:BLAR the worse draft to the better draft. If they're equal, BLAR it to the better title I suppose, which would probably be Draft:Philip Blood, since the middle initial is an unnecessary disambiguator here since there is no Philip Blood in mainspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Same page creator, so I would also just redirect to the "better" one. Might also be worth an {{AfC comment}} to indicate there's a duplicate page with history. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Flojaune Cofer

I have been queried with my decline of this draft on the submitting editor's talk page, and I may be in error. If I am please tell me kindly. It may be a case of "Never review when you are tired" if I am in error. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly there's an earlier version by Muboshgu – maybe he has some thoughts? But as a general rule if the only concern is notability and somebody challenges it, I'd just accept the draft and send it straight to AfD to find out. It's easier than arguing. – Joe (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not think this person is notable until/unless they win election in November. I only glanced at the new edits and it needs some cleaning up. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe Thanks, Joe. I feel it is a little late for me to do that, and I will not participate in any AfD on this one if it comes in the immediate future.

@Muboshgu Thank you also for your thoughts. Currently I do not see them as notable. Another reviewer may differ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, this is a good decline. Applicant doesn't meet WP:NPOL and it is unclear whether they would if they win in November (using Bearcat's "city of global standing" yardstick for municipal politicians, Sacramento is a difficult case). Maybe a spin toward their work as an academic, but who knows. I think you did a good job. Bkissin (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Navigation link broken

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation has a small navigation pane with "Top of page / Table of Contents / Bottom of page" links generated by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/header, added by User:Timtrent in October 2023. It seems to be mostly redundant to the {{skip to top and bottom}} that the talkpage uses, but no objection if anyone thinks is friendlier to have text as well as arrows. Might be useful to refactor to implement as a optional feature in that template? But the TOC link does not work on Vector2022 because the TOC is no longer a "section" of the article pane and it no longer appears to have the same anchor-name. If this feature is worth keeping, I wonder if there is a way to determine the skin at load-time (or use CSS to control it). Or what the value is in jumping to the TOC that is presumably right near the full top-of-page. DMacks (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks I use it, and like it, but don't feel strongly about it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

AFC to AFD

I accepted a draft which I solely know meets WP:GNG, however another editor interested in suspected WP:SOCKPUPPETRY i.e may be created by a sock (though I didn't see that, and judged the article by its merit not creator). I have to take it to AFD for a general consensus. Now when @Liz was closing the AFD as keep, she made the closing comment, "The result was keep‎. FYI: Please do not bring articles to AFD unless you are seeking their deletion. To me, I disagree that an article needing clarification shouldn't be taken to AFD. I think I learnt that from @Joe Roe. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on what? She's not necessarily wrong, you shouldn't be nominating a page for deletion unless you a) think it should be deleted, or b) are doing so on behalf of another editor/person (i.e. the subjet) who cannot do so themselves. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course, Liz is not necessarily wrong but given the context of the questioning editor. Sometimes editors can note their article when it doesn't meet the appropriate SNG, and I think taking articles to AFD is sometimes to reach an official consensus on the notability. For me, taking it to AFD sought to seek second opinion, because the editor in question is an established one. Though there are many ways of clarifying notability when it's being questioned, but the best sofar is via AFD (though I don't plan on doing that again). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe an alternative is to bring it here to get input from other reviewers if an editor has an issue with an AfC action you made. If you scroll up through this talk page you will see few requests for another opinion. S0091 (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion on SafariScribe's talk page for context. S0091 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning

AFD "procedural nominations" are appropriate under some circumstances, in my opinion. The most common use case I've seen is to stop WP:BLAR edit wars. Even if the nominator wants to keep it or has no opinion, it can be good to start them to force a formal discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis comes to mind as an example.

As for this particular case, I probably agree with Liz that it is better to let the editor that wants deletion do the nomination. If they don't care enough about deletion to file the paperwork, time can be saved by not having an AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Crocker Church

I accepted this today, though with a comment qualifying the acceptance on the talk page. Loads of local coverage, so it is probably enough to make it stick. Even so, I'd appreciate any thoughts any of you might have.

As a background you may wish to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Crocker (closed as Delete) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocker Cemetery (currently relisted), all three articles created by the same creating editor.

Should anyone see this as an AfD candidate I will adopt my usual neutrality as accepting reviewer and not take it personally(!). 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent, the Church seems notable. I have also closed the deletion discussion with the consensus to merge and redirect to the church. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you SafariScribe for closing this saga down 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple drafts by multiple (?) users

Took me a while to realise this was happening, and also the extent of it, so thought I'd flag up here for the benefit of others.

Three user accounts were set up yesterday, which clearly are somehow connected, whether operated by the same individual or different ones:

• Nagpuri writers
• Nagpuri authors
• Jharkhand authors

They're writing about "their grandfather":

• Draft:Shiv awatar choudhary (rejected)
• Draft:Shivawatar choudhary (shivaji)
• Draft:Shivawatar choudhary
• Draft:Shivawtar choudhary
• Draft:SHIVAWATAR CHOUDHARY
• Draft:Shivaji (rejected)

(There may be others – users or drafts – in which case please add.)

I don't know if this is a malicious or just a CIR issue, but it's clearly wasting reviewer time and causing confusion.

I don't want to take this to ANI (yet), but I can say that if a passing admin were to see this and decide to block the three users until they provide some explanation for all this, it wouldn't be the worst thing IMO... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The three accounts are  Confirmed, and in a way that makes me think it's not just three folks editing on separate computers to do the same thing. I would suggest redirecting all of them to the best one (if there is such a thing) and leaving it at that. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Primefac. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutering the submission template?

A user placed AfC templates at User_talk:Ozzie10aaaa#Question_from_Créaturesastrales_(11:01,_26_July_2024)_(2), causing the page to appear in the pending drafts list. I wrapped the templates inside nowiki, but that didn't help. I tried to neuter them with : but still no joy. How does one stop the template working? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove it? You can wrap the template name in {{tl}} to preserve the meaning. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You only nowikied one of them, they double posted KylieTastic (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Resubmitted Rejected Drafts

I have asked this question before, and will probably ask it again. Do we, the reviewers, have any guidance about what to do with drafts that have been resubmitted by their originators after they have been Rejected? I know that the instructions for authors say that a rejected draft may not be resubmitted (and that is the whole purpose of rejection). But we also know that authors do resubmit rejected drafts. This is especially common with subjects who have fan clubs of ultras, but resubmission of rejected drafts is all too common. The draft that has prompted this is Draft:JackSucksAtLife, but I would like to discuss the more general question. Originators should not be resubmitting rejected drafts, at least not without having discussed with the reviewers (which they seldom do), so what should reviewers do with resubmitted rejected drafts? The reviewer can decline the draft, reject the draft again, go to WP:ANI and request a partial block, send the draft to MFD. In the case in point, I Rejected the draft on 2 November 2023, and then it was resubmitted and declined twice before another reviewer rejected it again on 27 July 2024, at which point I sent it to WP:MFD. Should the intermediate reviewers have taken the rejection into account?

I will also comment that this was a "special" case in that the reviewer could not accept the draft even if they wanted to accept it, because the title was salted in article space. So that raises another question, which is whether and how the reviewers should review a draft for a salted title.

I would like comments and thoughts both about drafts that are resubmitted after rejection, and about drafts of titles that have been salted in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You asked this two weeks ago, and I don't see the answers having changed much. As far as reviewing a salted page, if it's acceptable then either ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP or ask for it to be moved at WP:RM/TR, or ping an admin here (e.g. me). Primefac (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

As with many questions on this talk page, I think the answer lies in applying the project-wide principle that where there's disagreement, we seek consensus through discussion and remembering that the creators/submitters of drafts are just as much a part of that process as anyone else. Whether that discussion happens on the talk page or here or at AfD or MfD, it doesn't really make a difference. As long as it happens. Draft:JackSucksAtLife should never have got to the point of having six giant red banners on the top: before even the first decline, PantheonRadiance tried to start a discussion on the talk page about the subject's notability, but instead of joining it, subsequent reviewers just repeated the same boilerplate message again and again. When reviewers demonstrate that the way we do things here is to say the same thing over and over until the other party gives up, it's not surprising that submitters pick up the same tactic. – Joe (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I will start these replies to the comments with an apology to User:Primefac. I knew that I had asked the question previously, but had forgotten how recently I had asked it. I continue to feel, rightly or wrongly, that there are persistent unanswered questions about Rejection, and that there are persistent unanswered questions about submission of titles that have been locked. I am trying to think through why I keep feeling that the questions are not answered. I think that one reason is that there is a failure to communicate, and that seems to be what User:Joe Roe is saying. I have two specific thoughts at this time and will probably have more within some number of hours:

• 1. I see that PantheonRadiance did try to discuss sources. Their comment was ignored due to a shortcoming in reviewing, because they put their comment on the draft talk page, and reviewers usually don't read the draft talk page, and should be advised to always read the draft talk page as well as the AFC comments. In this case, part of the failure is that the reviewers, including myself, didn't look at PR's comments, and should have looked at them.
• 2. When submitters become tendentious, reviewers push back and become stubborn. The end result is that there isn't an article on the subject, whether or not there should be. When this happens, and this is a case in point, I think that it becomes necessary to find reviewers who have had no previous experience to start over and look at the quality of the sources, because the previous reviewers can no longer be impartial. The submitters don't deserve an outside look, but the encyclopedia, which should summarize knowledge from a neutral point of view, does deserve an impartial look.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

People have been suggesting for years that we move the comments (and maybe even the decline reasons) to the talk page, to better introduce newcomers to how collaboration on Wikipedia usually happens, and make things less one-sided. I don't know if that idea has ever been conclusively rejected? – Joe (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No apology necessary, Robert, I was in a bit of a mood and was probably harsher than I needed; I checked the archives and there's no obvious discussion about the matter going back two archives, so there's that as well.

To Joe's point, AFCH recently had an update wherein the AFC comments can be copied to the talk page if desired. That being said, the easy way around the "no one is participating on the talk page" issue is to add an AFC comment that says "there is more discussion on the talk page". That, and changing the mentality and work flow of AFC reviewers to actually check the talk page before doing reviews! Primefac (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Could AFCH perhaps be modified to alert the reviewer that there may be discussion on the talk page, if the talk page exists and has been edited since the last review? – Joe (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

AFC/R: Pending revisions?

As someone without Pending changes reviewer permissions, how do I respond to redirect requests on WP:AFC/R if they're not even accepted yet? Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You can reply as normal. Pending changes just means that logged out users will see an older, verified version of the page. As a logged in user you see the latest revision of the page, and can edit it as normal. Someone with PCR will be along later to go through the edits and approve/revert them. Also, you can always apply for PCR over at WP:PERM/PCR if you are OK with going through each edit and approving/reverting it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Calzone

Yesterday I made my first "difficult" accept, as opposed to the obvious WP:NSPECIES accepts I've done before. Its tone was very promotional, but it cited two sources that I thought were likely to meet WP:NCORP, so I accepted the draft and then cut the purely promotional parts out. I was planning to ask for feedback today, but I woke up to find it deleted under WP:G11. I knew it might go to AfD, and I thought it was only moderately likely to be kept, but I'm pretty surprised that it was speedily deleted. My CSD log says I've tagged 273 pages with G11; most were deleted, but some weren't, so I thought I'd worked out a decent sense of G11's limits. On the other hand, most of those were user or draft pages, so maybe G11 is applied less strictly there.

Like I said, I knew Mr. Calzone might be deleted, so I'm not bothered that it was. I'm just trying to figure out what to learn from this. As I understand it, a good AfC reviewer should occasionally see their accepted articles sent to AfD and deleted, but I don't think the same is true for CSD. Should I err on the side of declining overly-promotional drafts, even if they seem borderline-notable?

(Pinging OnlyNano and Jimfbleak in case they want to comment/respond.) jlwoodwa (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think so much of this comes down to individual judgement. As you say, the original version was very promotional (and remained in the history), and if the original editor had made no other edits, I would have blocked them as a UPE. I thought that it may be notable, but what we got was a classic company "this is what we sell" with a bit of history, and no real facts, like number of employees, management structure or financials. I agree that if notability were the only issue AFD would have been appropriate, but I felt that it met the threshold for G11; another admin might have taken a different view Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa:, sorry forgot this wasn't your talk page and I needed to ping Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Article submissions that need reviewing can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is also a useful list which is maintained by a bot.
• You might wish to add {{AFC status}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
• Several of our members monitor an IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect, and you are most welcome to join in.

Once again, welcome to the project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Guess who :) --Meaghan ^{guess who :)} 22:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I know your Midnight Comet. December21st2012Freak ^{Halloween is coming} 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dito--Coldplay Expert 23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Steve2011 ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey december, how ya doing? Just dropped by to say awesome contributions and vandal fighting (hec I may even give you a barnstar in due course!). Oh, and thanks for the vandalism (bet it was good to turn the tables) and guestbook signing. Oh, and BTW, I see your username is becoming a film. I am off to see 2012 by Roland Emmerich (aka the disater movie guy), bet he got the inspiration off you! Good to see ya. AtheWeatherman 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lo- wait, sorry. Wrong page, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if spongefrog will win...--Coldplay Expert 02:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009 messages

Red Star

Red Star Congratulations, Steve2011! It's my pleasure to award you November 2, 2009's Red Star for being hard working, kind to others, and for being an excellent user in general. A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan guess who :) 00:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You could also receive the next higher up award, the Orange Star!

Thanks. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 00:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohh so shiny! (dont worry myself, you'll get one soon!)--Coldplay Expert 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! MY EYES!!!!!!! Must get... Sigh, that will never happen.--Jakkinx Happy Thanksgiving! 01:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mutinus caninus

...ever read the comments? This is not vandalism, it is the correction of something that was not correctly translated from Latin. See malfunction report: User:ClueBot/FalsePositives#C.C3.BA_Faoil --Cú Faoil (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You have inserted "penis" which is vandalism. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Believe this individual is correct, actually. It correctly translates to "penis," not "tail." Hence, "penis" is not vandalism in this case. Ginsengbomb (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not every insertion of the word "penis" is vandalism. Consult the linked dictionary and WP:AGF. --Cú Faoil (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikicup

nice to see your on board. Now we just need LSF--Coldplay Expert 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Award

		Ezekiel 7:19 Guestbook Barnstar
		This user has signed my guestbook and been presented with a barnstar, so sign my guestbook now if you have not yet, NOW!!!--Ezekiel 7:19 Le†'s Go Buffalo! (sign)

Lord of The vulcans

Hi lord of the Vulcans you may be interested in formatting this page List of Sufi Saints of South Asia ..I think I made some errors there ;) can you help me please --NotedGrant Talk 07:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the...

I see your starting your own. Good luck! (Maybe we should change our colors so that way people can make out the diffrence between our two diffrent programs.)--Coldplay Expert 18:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I also want to be Wikipedian of the Day, because I am a great editor. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 18:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that you are going to give your first award to yourself?--Coldplay Expert 18:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I will give my first award to another Wikipedian, like an Administrator, or the Wikipedia founder, Jimbo Wales. I will not give any to myself. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I just noticed you and me joined only 4 days apart form each other. I also saw your stats and Im impressed. Ill consider you for the next award :)--Coldplay Expert 18:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell with that I'm a good editor too see.I corrected a link on CP's talk page today :D (Honest).D2012 thanks for pointing out that citation part in the article I'll try referencing it :)--NotedGrant Talk 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if what I posted about the banjo is not correct. I did that so I can mess up my music teacher. I don't want to finish this music homework that he gave me it is so not fair. Just leave me alone I will change anything that I want to. 69.141.204.226 (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Brooke

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, December21st2012Freak! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, 8, November 2009! Keep up the great work!--Coldplay Expert 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

Thank you. (Note that this is my alternative account, this is not a sockpuppet.) Lord of the Vulcans 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Same thing. "Alternate account" is just less offensive and more politically correct. By the way, I've figured it out. That "Lord of the Vulcans" was one of T'Shael's old signatures (remember that name that Katerenka used to be?), Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)