User talk:Koridas

Archives:

Archive 1: The first messages

GA reviews

Hi there Analog Horror, a belated welcome (I know you've been here for a while now, but welcome nonetheless)! I saw your username come up at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Talk:W_New_York_Union_Square/GA1. From a quick scan it looks like you've done two other reviews: Talk:Sabine Lake/GA1 and Talk:Bikram Choudhury/GA1. As you know, GA reviews can be taken on by any user. However, if you're a newer user, your reviews are likely to encounter additional scrutiny. Since we mostly edit under pseudonyms here, we build trust by demonstrating that we can competently improve the encyclopedia. If you're new to an area, you haven't had the opportunity to make that demonstration, and so you'll likely find users a bit less trusting of you. To ease their fears, I'd suggest expanding your reviews to clearly describe why you think the articles do or do not meet the Good article criteria. Your GA reviews so far are very short and only peripherally address the article. Whether that's because you read the article carefully and found nothing wrong with it (which is totally fine), or because you didn't perform a thorough review (not fine), I can't tell because you've not been around long enough for me to have a sense of the kind of work you do. I'd suggest you expand your reasoning on those reviews and consider asking for help with your next one (folks who have volunteered to mentor GA reviewers are listed here). There is a substantial backlog at WP:GAN and we need more reviewers to undertake thorough reviews of those candidates, so I appreciate your enthusiasm. But if you continue to leave un-detailed reviews, you may continue to receive pushback. I hope all is well. Happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Analog Horror, the pushback was sufficient that all three of your reviews have been unwound by various editors, and the nominations reinstated. At this point, new reviewers are needed for all three; please do not contribute further to them. If you do wish to do reviewing at GAN in future, I very strongly recommend that you take Ajpolino's advice and find a mentor to guide you, and—at least in the first few cases—that you not close any reviews before the mentor has a chance to go over what you've posted and make suggestions on what else might be done and how your analysis comports with the GA criteria. Also, at least until you've gained more experience, I'd suggest only one review open at a time. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the contributions you've made to my article. Mlajum (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stonks

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Stonks, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
• It appears to be about something made up, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Stonks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stonks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see you're relatively new but do have a number of edits so I'll spare you the templated notices. Edit warring is not cool, and if you've been reverted it's best to discuss the matter on the article's talk page rather than continue to attempt to re-add your content. I will not discuss the specific edit here because I would rather discuss it on the talk page where other interested editors can comment. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing CSD templates

Hi Analog Horror, I'd strongly recommend that you not remove CSD templates until you have more experience in the area - if you disagree with a tag, for now it would be better if you contested deletions instead of removing the tag outright. creffett (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The rules for WP:FOOLS.

Keep in mind that jokes should be in good taste. You don't want to make people upset. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 21:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:Jimbo Wales. – bradv🍁 01:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: I think it was intended as an April Fool's joke, and was mentioned here. I'm not saying it was a funny joke, but I doubt there was any ill intent. It may be a good 24-hours to recalibrate our vandalism-warning-ometers. I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)