User talk:Handmeanotherbagofthemchips

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Handmeanotherbagofthemchips, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Introduction and Getting started
Contributing to Wikipedia
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Video games notable for negative reception

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Category:Video games notable for negative reception, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Hey there! I hope you're having a nice day. First of all, mani many many many thanks for your very polite welcome message! About the category i created, i did not make it as a test; rather, i thought it would be very helpfull to categorise notable bad games in there (with the notability creteria of the list of the same name, this essentialy means that the contents of that page and my category must be the same). Many thanks again, Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When I nominated that I didn't know there was an article associated with it--frankly, I think that the article is problematic as well. "Test" is what I chose to be diplomatic. I think there is a huge difference between "this game got some bad reviews" and "this game is notable for having received bad reviews", which I don't think is a case you can easily make. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:Hmm, youre kinda right about the article itself; While i support its existense, i think it could use some trimming. Still, the category i created was to contain all of said article's entries, as to aid navigation in certain circumstances; plus, it can be altered at a moment's notice if the contents of the main article change.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games notable for negative reception has been nominated for deletion

Category:Video games notable for negative reception has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. MrMarmite (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Ukrainian summer counteroffensive

Ukrainian military commander already said the offensive was delayed due to lack of manpower and equipment. Using a Ukrainian politician and western media as sources is not acceptable. 24.91.190.77 (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source backing your statement. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD participation

Hello, Handmeanotherbagofthemchips,

It's very unusual for an editor as new as you are to spend so much time in article deletion discussions. Since most of your comments are simply "Delete per nom", which shows you haven't really examined the article under question, please review WP:DISCUSSAFD which illustrates how to participate appropriately in AFDs. It would also help if you read the WP:PERNOM section of the very useful essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (actually, read the whole essay).

I don't want to discourage your participation, just encourage you to actually review the articles being discussed, analyze their sources and make a thoughtful contribution to the discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea how many dozens of times you added a useless "Delete per nom" to AFD discussions today. This is ridiculous and doesn't help a closer considering an AFD discussion. Please stop doing this or you might face a block for disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should you wish to, you can go back to your AFD comments and strike them by placing <s>Delete per nom</s> around the comments on AFDs where you haven't done your due diligence and evaluated the articles being discussed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Ηey there, thanks for reaching out to me, and sorry for the very late reply.

Please accept my apologies, because you are right. I, indeed, did not check all of the AfD submitions i voted on;, and, to my admittance, i thought it was more of a vote rather a discussion thing. At some point (though prolly not now because its 2:15 after midnight where i live rn), i will re-evaluate my votes, and strike out those who were made in-effect disruptively.

Again, thanks for reaching out to me, and please accept my apologies as to what i did. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, please note this, followed almost immediately by this and other edits. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do excuse me, but, what did i do wrong this time? On that article, while i did nominate it for wp:prod, another editor removed the tag and added stuff to the article; not only i didn't contest this, i also thanked them (with the thank buttonn that apears after the revisions). Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to excuse you, but that was just an ill-conceived PROD. The assumption is that you do a bit of due diligence before you PROD something. You didn't, and so another needless notification popped up on the page of an article creator, and someone had to go improve the article quickly before it got deleted. So I'm glad you thanked the editor, but the PROD was not, how do I say this nicely, well thought out, and I think User:Simeon saw that too. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not sure the right way to start here is to criticize and delete others while adding nothing yourself. Your learning curve affects others who are just plodding on in GF. A prosecuting attorney who's hasn't been to law school?

Maybe you want to rate articles? There are specific yes/no questions, you can leave a (polite) summary, and if you get it wrong, no big deal. Nobody loses anything. If you come across a clear stinker you can act, but generally you could just see what others can do. Just a thought, right now you are stepping on a lot of people's toes. Sammy D III (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, i'd be more carefull next time nominating a stub for deletion Thanks for this!

Smmy, this article rating thingy seems interesting! When can i see it? Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do this stuff and you'll probably figure out the process. Maybe start here? I think that most projects have similar pages. Good luck. Sammy D III (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, i think i got it. As a member of the classical music wikiproject, i'll se if they have something similar. Many thanks! Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Thank you for participating in AfDs, I've noticed that at Well Oiled (film). It's nice that you agree with me here, but I've seen in most other AfDs, you write [unfortunately], not enough notability present as of now. That's fine, but IMHO you could explain your rationales a bit more, such as in relation to WP:GNG or WP:SNG guidelines, IMO, for the more contentious ones. Thanks and have a nice day (or night)! :) VickKiang (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang Hey there, many thanks for contacting me.

Admittedly, you seem to be right. Since the thread right above this one was posted, i started taking a much better look at the pages nominated and the other arguments (especially the latter).

I use that specific wording to denote that my own voting explanation would not be so different than the others (and that's not always; when there is another argument for deletion or non-deletion, i post that instead.). However, it seems that i must, even if theese cases, provide a small personalised rationale, to break up the monotony. And that's what im about to do from now-on.

Again, many-many-many thanks for bringing this one up! Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's another week later and I see that you are still active at AFD. I would like to reiterate that the crux of the AFD process is to examine the article and sources, to do research to find other sources, and only after that to make a determination. That determination needs to include a justification for the decision. "... does not meet GNG" is a decision but one should say what it is about it that fails GNG. That usually has to do with sources, and with the relevant policy on notability. Thank you. Lamona (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona Ok got it, im gonna get even more descriptive in my votes in the future. Many thanks for the heads-up! Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some chips for you!

	Handing you a bag of them chips
	Love your username! Keep up the good work. ––FormalDude talk 02:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! You beat me to it! Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7 Dont worry, im always open for one more bag o'them chips ;) Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: munch-munch Hey, that was so good... Many thanks for the chips! Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Oedipus at Colonos (Mendelssohn)

Hello, Handmeanotherbagofthemchips. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Oedipus at Colonos (Mendelssohn), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Oedipus at Colonos (Mendelssohn)

Hello, Handmeanotherbagofthemchips. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Oedipus at Colonos".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Linkin Park. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Left guide (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]