User talk:MadScientistX11
Welcome
|
Request Third Party Opinion on Harmonica Hinds
I was not the original editor to add Harmonica Hinds to the article. It seems you may be defining "notable" as world famous. I would like to request a Wikipedia: Third Opinion unless you prefer more formal dispute resolution. I will abide by a third opinion. I will wait for your response before proceeding. Thank you.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk: Chicago blues". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Some bubble tea for you!
|
It is so nice to see when someone just don't give up but instead keeps on digging and fixing to get things right. Here's a refreshing beverage befitting a Mad Scientist. Good work! W.carter (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC) |
User:Betchplus
Just letting you know that there are two articles, "Scaled Agile framework" and "Simple Enterprise Agile" in play here.The discussion at the Teahouse gave me the impression that the user was only referring to "Scaled Agile framework".
- The article Scaled Agile framework was deleted and later restored to Draft:Scaled agile framework. The article has since been declined again at AFC review.
- The article Simple Enterprise Agile (See this cache version) got deleted by User:Peridon and he is not prepared to restore the article into draft space. See the relevant discussion here. The user wants this page undeleted, so that he can continue with his edits. NQ talk 22:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks I missed that. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Also Thanks
Appreciate the help. I'm beginning to get the feel of the structure thanks to help like yours. - Regards Kent. Kllwiki (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Glad to help! Thanks for the feedback. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Messages from Tea House Users
Hi again, I really appreciate you taking time to talk about open access - it's cool to hear from someone who has some experience here and knows what they're talking about! The big issue with ads (in my opinion) is that just their presence would hold sway over the site in some unpredictable ways. For example, it could mean that users here would be heavily tracked, and different pages would feature ads based on their topics. The affiliations themselves with different companies would make Wikipedia a platform for marketing interests just by principle, which is very much at odds with its neutrality.
And yes, I completely agree with the changes you'd like to see. Just browsing through the other questions at the Teahouse, there was someone who was so adamant that people changing his/her article or putting up banners was unfriendly or not collaborative. People do seem to mistake the open source, creating good information together attitude, with the egotistic social media tendencies of making personal content that are so prevalent on the Internet nowadays. And editors who have much more to offer in terms of contributing to the site shouldn't be weighted down with correcting these types of users.
Anyways, you have some excellent ideas and I'm grateful for you sharing them - it really puts Wikipedia in a favorable light for someone new like me! Nolmagia (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying to my question - I know you said your opinions were too much for the Teahouse, but I would be interested in hearing them. Could you possibly post on my talk page, or over email (or through any other means I missed)? Nolmagia (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I've prepared another biography page and will submit it later today. Be interested in your your comments. Many thanks for all your help. - Kent Lawrence Kllwiki (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I guess I got carried away with enthusiasm for the subject. I will perform the edits as you suggested. Again Many thanks. Kent Lawrence 173.175.207.85 (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Again thanks. I made the changes and am now beginning to understand the impartial role of the voice in a good article. Kllwiki (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I submitted the page for creation and am editing that version. Kllwiki (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲水 13:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Yunshui 雲水 20:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Ray Charles
Hi! My name is Skyler and I'm a student at Cornell University. In one of my classes, we are required to work in teams and edit a wikipedia article. My group selected the one on Ray Charles and have begun making edits to the page. I noticed that you have an interest in music and I was wondering if you would like to check out our proposal and preliminary work and give us any feedback you may have, as we are all new to Wikipedia! Thanks! Skylerd23 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello
Hello my name is guywholikeshistory (Liam G) I also like WW2 and recently i have been working on the Tank Mounted Night vision of the Germans ( FG-1250) And i would like to know if you would help me because you appear to be a much more advanced writer/editor than me i only started 2 days ago and as some would say i am a Noob looking for help sorry for my lack of punctuation i wrote this in a rush i need to do some work
Guywholikeshistory (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The awkward squad
You're very kind with your compliment for our handling a difficult editor. I always wonder, usually too late, if silence is better than good manners and rational argument. Yet our duty is also to guide new editors, and silence is no guide. It's a dilemma. I have solved it with relentless politeness, and never, not ever criticising the person while commenting upon the behaviour.
Usually it is a successful approach. Sometimes, and this time is one such, the disenchanted editor performs a final foot stamping flourish, and we lose a possibly decent article along with them. If I were interested in the topic I might attempt to create the article myself. Fiddle Faddle 15:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- The ironic thing is I do find the topic mildly interesting and when I first saw the initial question my first thought was that I was going to offer to pitch in and help create the article. But when I read the question more carefully and then saw some of the interactions I thought better to just back off. I think the best thing to do in these situations is what you did. But, I know my limitations, I'm just not that patient. I may take another look later and if he's just given up perhaps I will take a shot at it. It would be a nice resolution I think if after all that the person goes back on Wikipedia and sees that the article now exists ;-) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've looked for sources for her. There are loads of ghits but nothing that qualifies as much of a reference. I can usually put a stub together at least with a few decent references. This one is, at present, beyond me. The most notable thing about her is the manner of her death, and yet there is no data about it. Fiddle Faddle 17:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
N142pb is trying again -
Hello MadScientistX11.
The response to my "Save page" was the following message in red.
Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in.
Yet all of my info was still there looking like a regular entry. Maybe the note was generated in response to my Ctrl/U and everything else worked. But, in case not, I logged out and here we go again.
I received a number of welcome comments from you yesterday. Thank you.
Before I make any responses and enter a discussion, it is time that I try to understand the Talk mechanism before I reach my frustration limit.
I got here by first clicking on a userid/Talk button in one of your comments on my Talk Page. There are many comments on that page. I don't know whether I am weird or not, but I have never participated in a "blog". However, my perception of the few I've looked at at is that they are a conglomeration of comments usually associated with one topic. A Talk Page seems to be either a multi-topic blog or else a compendium of individual blogs. I kept being puzzled by where to append my question or comment intended for you. (BTW, I just made a major mistake by trying to underline my next few words the way I would in an email, by tying Ctrl/U. Fortunately, I was able to recover with no loss of data.) Finally, I saw the tab "New Section", clicked on it and here I am.
I am going to sign off shortly with 4 tildes and clicking "Save page". If I understand this now, you will then receive a notice and this will have been appended to your Talk Page. I am then going to my Talk Page and try to figure out how to respond. My puzzle has been how to direct an answer to you from there. I am finally getting it through my thick head that by making an edit in any section, signing it and entering "Save page", you will be notified without my doing anything else. If I am grossly in error, please let me know. N142pb (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- First, I understand why you are confused. I had the same questions and it took me a while to realize how communication works here. I was trying to think of an article to point you to but I can't really think of one. Most of them go into lots of detail on things that aren't all that critical. What you need to know are just a few basics so here is my attempt. One thing to keep in mind is that for better or worse Wikipedia uses the same technology for articles as for discussions. For example, when I created a new section on your talk page I just used the same wikicode I would use to create a new section in an article. So in the following when I say "a page" it can mean a Talk page or an Article page. Whenever a page is modified a notice will be sent to anyone who has that page on their wp:watchlist. You can check your preferences there is a "watchlist" tab. Whenever I edit a page my default is that the page I edited gets added to my watchlist. The way the notification system works is it sends you an email (if your preferences are set to enable that). Then IF you go and look at the page that was modified it keeps the page on your watchlist. If you don't go look at the page it is no longer on your watchlist. So when I edit your Talk Page you should get a notification. Similarly since I edited your Talk page if you just start typing underneath the new section I created on your talk page then I will get a notification. The time you wrote something that I think was directed to me on your talk page I never saw it at first because your talk page was no longer on my watchlist. That gets us to the second way besides a watchlist to notify another user and that is by using their name via some wikicode. I usually use the following {{ping|USERID}} That or something like it was what the other editor used so that I would get a notice that someone was talking about me even if that discussion was on a page not on my watchlist. I'm going to take a break and post this but I think there are a few more things worth saying, so I'll make another post shortly. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- A few more points. Regarding errors there are essentially two things that can go wrong when you edit a page. One is that your session can time out. That's just a normal Internet thing that can happen on any site where you edit text but it probably happens more frequently on Wikipedia because there are so many people editing the system at any given time. Sometimes you are just SOL when this happens. Some times, most I think, you at least get back to the editor. When that happens you can copy the edited text, cancel that edit session, then go back and re-edit and paste in the change. The second kind of error is more frustrating. The version control on Wikipedia is different than many collaboration tools. It's an optimistic kind of locking that lets people have occasional edit conflicts. If I start editing page P then you also edit P and you commit your change to P while I'm still editing then when I go to commit my change I can't do it because if I do I overwrite your changes. There is an error system that you fall into in such situations that IMO is the worst thing I've used on Wikipedia. It tries to show you the two alternate edits and where they overlap and give you a suggestion for how to merge them but I find it so confusing I've never used it. Instead I just do the brute force solution, copy my text, cancel the edit then go back and redo it. Again, remember all this applies to ALL pages, whether they are wp:talk pages or wp:articles
- One thing that is mostly specific to Talk pages is a Wikipedia convention for how to indent text. If you start a paragraph with a colon at the very start, before the first word, Wikipedia will indent the article. Every extra colon means an extra level of indentation. So if you look at the wikicode here I started this paragraph with: ":::One"
to give three levels of indentation. If you've ever used tools like Notes this is infinitely more primitive and kludgy. I'm going to stop here for now. I hope I'm in the right ballpark and not just babbling, let me know if that is useful and if you still have more questions about talk pages vs. articles, communication, etc. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Very helpful! I believe my problem was that I started this with an email model in my mind. If it said "reply" instead of "edit", maybe I would have understood more quickly. (BTW, I do understand why it will continue to be "edit".) Now that I've got this pretty well straightened out, I will start replying to some of your individual comments about the article. Oops, I almost forgot to "sign". 174.50.170.216 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good. One more thing, it's a good idea to make sure you are logged in before you make any edits or comments. That way what gets recorded in your signature is your user ID rather than your IP address and the same for the record of any edits you make. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Very helpful! I believe my problem was that I started this with an email model in my mind. If it said "reply" instead of "edit", maybe I would have understood more quickly. (BTW, I do understand why it will continue to be "edit".) Now that I've got this pretty well straightened out, I will start replying to some of your individual comments about the article. Oops, I almost forgot to "sign". 174.50.170.216 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- One thing that is mostly specific to Talk pages is a Wikipedia convention for how to indent text. If you start a paragraph with a colon at the very start, before the first word, Wikipedia will indent the article. Every extra colon means an extra level of indentation. So if you look at the wikicode here I started this paragraph with: ":::One"
to give three levels of indentation. If you've ever used tools like Notes this is infinitely more primitive and kludgy. I'm going to stop here for now. I hope I'm in the right ballpark and not just babbling, let me know if that is useful and if you still have more questions about talk pages vs. articles, communication, etc. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- A few more points. Regarding errors there are essentially two things that can go wrong when you edit a page. One is that your session can time out. That's just a normal Internet thing that can happen on any site where you edit text but it probably happens more frequently on Wikipedia because there are so many people editing the system at any given time. Sometimes you are just SOL when this happens. Some times, most I think, you at least get back to the editor. When that happens you can copy the edited text, cancel that edit session, then go back and re-edit and paste in the change. The second kind of error is more frustrating. The version control on Wikipedia is different than many collaboration tools. It's an optimistic kind of locking that lets people have occasional edit conflicts. If I start editing page P then you also edit P and you commit your change to P while I'm still editing then when I go to commit my change I can't do it because if I do I overwrite your changes. There is an error system that you fall into in such situations that IMO is the worst thing I've used on Wikipedia. It tries to show you the two alternate edits and where they overlap and give you a suggestion for how to merge them but I find it so confusing I've never used it. Instead I just do the brute force solution, copy my text, cancel the edit then go back and redo it. Again, remember all this applies to ALL pages, whether they are wp:talk pages or wp:articles
Don't You know that you can count me out... in
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey MadScientist, this is Jethro. With a small team, I'm developing and will be piloting a new mentorship space on Wikipedia called the Co-op. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring 1 or 2 editors during our pilot that is planned for next January. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching based on how an editor wants to contribute, and it's not some huge commitment to teach comprehensively about Wikipedia. Your experience helping editors out at the Teahouse, getting articles started in your sandbox, and generally improving articles will be useful. We fully expect many editors to come to the space with an article they want to write or improve. If you're interested, please sign up here and we'll keep you posted when we have an actual interface to work with. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have, of course, so let me know if there's anything about the space you'd like to know more about. Much like the Teahouse, the only way we'll know if our project is useful is if we can get folks to help teach. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invitation. I want to think about it a bit more before committing but I've been looking at the proposal. One question I have is how we would be paired up with people to mentor? If I did it I would prefer to work on certain kinds of subjects. People wanting to edit articles about topics I know something about and am interested in. That includes: philosophy, psychology, cognitive science, military history, game theory, computer science (especially but not limited to AI), and Information Technology. But I would be bored working with someone who wanted to create or edit articles for their high school or some celebrity or sports person. Would we have some input on who we got teamed with or would it be random? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hey MadScientist, sorry for the late reply-- had to be away from editing for a bit. The method by which we are matching editors to mentors is less focused on specific article topic and more focused on editing skills (e.g. writing an article, uploading images, navigating the communication conventions, etc.) That said, newer editors will have a chance to identify topic areas they might be interested in, and to the extent that it is possible, we naturally think it would be great to match editors up topically. Of course, I can offer no particular predictions on the kinds of interests editors will bring into the space, and the priority is for these editors to get the help they need first. For our pilot, mentors will be able to select certain areas for which they wish to mentor based on these broader skill areas. I think the idea of expanding this to topical areas is a good idea, and something we may consider expanding once our pilot is complete. Does this answer your questions? I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- That answers it. Thanks. I'll think about it a bit more.Happy thanksgiving. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I decided to give it a shot and signed up on the talk page. If possible, I would prefer if you can team me up with someone who is working on something technical; actually not just technical really more nerdy, I'm also a history buff, especially military history, just something other than doing someone's school or business page -- but I know these things are complicated enough and understand... even if I get teamed up with someone whose dream in life is to polish Kim Khardasian's Wikipedia page I'll give it my best ;-) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- That answers it. Thanks. I'll think about it a bit more.Happy thanksgiving. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hey MadScientist, sorry for the late reply-- had to be away from editing for a bit. The method by which we are matching editors to mentors is less focused on specific article topic and more focused on editing skills (e.g. writing an article, uploading images, navigating the communication conventions, etc.) That said, newer editors will have a chance to identify topic areas they might be interested in, and to the extent that it is possible, we naturally think it would be great to match editors up topically. Of course, I can offer no particular predictions on the kinds of interests editors will bring into the space, and the priority is for these editors to get the help they need first. For our pilot, mentors will be able to select certain areas for which they wish to mentor based on these broader skill areas. I think the idea of expanding this to topical areas is a good idea, and something we may consider expanding once our pilot is complete. Does this answer your questions? I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
IEEE Computer
Please send me an email. I have the article from Computer; if you send me an email, I'll send a response email with the document attached. Nyttend (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Got to get better in a little while
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Technical Barnstar |
| For helping a new editor fix his links. Crossark (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hey MadScientist. I've posted some initial information and discussions points about the space for mentors here. Give it a read, ask questions on what's not clear, and feel free to add suggestions to the topics I've brought up about mentoring so far. I just pinged a bunch of people at once for this; I understand that sometimes it doesn't go through, so I wanted to make sure you were aware. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, and one more question
Hi, MadScientist!
Thank you so much for your reaction on my request in teahouse to help me with placing my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sterndmitri/TheChurchOfNativity into the mainspace.
I have read all you wrote about links carefully, and tried to provide some. I kindly ask you to check it. Anyway, I found a few only to cite. The article is just my translation, and, probably, the lion's share of the information is from informational desks placed in the church, so that's difficult to judge whether the information is from printed sources at all. How do you think, does the article have a chance to be accepted now? At least, I am inclined to think that this is better than nothing about the church.
One more question. I am not a native speaker of English, so I can make mistakes sometimes (moreover, writing these articles is the way to improve English for me). The subject of the article is about christianity, religion and all that kind of stuff, I'm not well in it even in Russian, to my shame. I do actually have an adopter, but in fact he has not been checking this article for a few months, but I am convinced deeply that Wikipedia is a voluntary thing, so that's probably not such a crime.
If i aroused some interest in yourself with my article, you may kindly run through it, paying some heed to my mistakes. And I've got another article about an ancient chronicle and an icon to publish it into the mainspace. With the help you rendered me I can do it on my own now I guess, but it seems to be of the same problems with language. So, if it sounds interesting for you, I can give the link.
Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterndmitri (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.
Last week you left me some fantastic feedback about references and on establishing notability for my submission on Michelle Anthony. I wanted to sincerely thank you for taking the time to do this - it was really helpful advice to get me where I need to be with that article. Thank you so much for taking the time. Jim Dougherty (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
|
Excellent comment at the Teahouse regarding subarticles! — Keithbob • Talk • 22:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
Happy Lucia!
"Good Morning" MadScientistX11:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia!
13 December is the day when Swedes perplex the rest of the world by showing up way too early in the morning dressed in white tunics, candles in their hair, singing and bringing saffron buns and breakfast in bed to nice people. Hope you have a bright day!
–
w.carter-Talk 00:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
One more "Thanks"
After skimming over your talkpage, I think you'll be drowned in thanks here soon, but I firmly intended to leave one more from myself. I am glad to finish my article Znamenie with your help kindly rendered me. And it was truly nice and interesting to deal with you too.
I plan to continue improving my English with Wikipedia later on, and intended to make up an article dedicated to the same field (about some monastery, or about a pagan sanctuary here in Novgorod - haven't decided yet). So, if you find some interest in it - i'll be glad. Have a nice workweek! --Sterndmitri (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Sterndmitri: thank you back! Feel free to contact me any time if you get stuck or have a question. Happy Editing! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Follow on to your response to my question about avoiding deletion of subpage
When you build the URL and then delete sandbox (toward the end of your response to me) aren't you removing the protection from deletion?
Is there restriction on number of sandbox subpages?
Isn't the box as a template just replacing all the URL parameters leading up to and including sandbox/ in the title of the subpage?
I'm trying to get a handle on this and I appreciate that you have taken the time to add to the basics. Thank you. Janvermont Janvermont (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Just FYI: the concept of wp:user pages was something I found very confusing when I first started editing as well. That's why I tried to provide a fairly lengthy response. So the first thing to understand is that when you create a new user page the way I described your sandbox is still there. You are creating a new user page when you do that. Just like creating a new file on your desktop, it doesn't change the sandbox or other files to create a new one. I always like to use examples. Look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:MadScientistX11/ Those are all my user pages. Some of them are programming stuff that shouldn't be touched unless you really know what you are doing. But some of them are articles or parts of articles that I started and got distracted or for some other reason didn't finish but don't want to throw away what I've done because I may go back to it. For example this page: User:MadScientistX11/ConcurrentComputingAdvantages is something I wrote for the article Concurrent Computing but haven't merged in yet. BTW, if you look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Janvermont%2F&namespace=2 those are all your user pages. I think the "protection from deletion" that you are concerned about is because you were working within the AFC process or something, to be honest I'm not sure but for normal wp:user pages which includes your sandbox there is no chance of stuff getting deleted unless you violate one of the copyright restrictions as I described in my first message. One more thing: while you can create many user pages for the most part what people do is to just use their sandbox: work in the sandbox, transfer to the live encyclopedia, then replace the content of the sandbox with content for the next article. That's why it's called the sandbox it's meant to be your main temporary work area but never to have anything permanent or published. Hope that helps. Feel free to reply back if I'm still not getting to what you need to know. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
To delete user pages
Add {{db-u1}} to the top of the page.
New follow on to your response to my follow on
I'm sorry to require so much input. I am missing some concepts. I don't completely understand my user space. When I signed up my purpose was to create an AFC. I was advised to do it in the sandbox. When I submitted it and it was denied some nice person transferred it to a draft space and every time I clicked on sandbox it took me to my draft page From that time on it seemed that I no longer have a user page.. If I try to put into the search slot user: Janvermont, it always came back and said to me no such user page exists.
So I only thought I had a talk page and an AFC workspace. Should we clear up this misunderstanding before I can apply your suggestions?
Many thanks, Jan Janvermont (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)