Me Da Wikipedian

April 2024

With this edit, you reverted an IP editor who was editing their own comments, using an inappropriate edit summary about content removal. Then you left an inappropriate warning on the IP's talkpage about refactoring the comments of others (something that only you actually did in this interaction). I suggest you gain some more editing experience of your own before undertaking this sort of monitoring and warning of others' edits. Grandpallama (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ooops! I didn't realize that, though it was another IP. Sorry! @Grandpallama Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey, I wanted to let you know regarding this edit, that Wikipedia policy does allow users to remove comments from their own user talk pages. It is generally understood that removing comments (not refactoring or editing them) from your own talk page indicates you have read them. Similarly, you should not restore removed comments. I agree with Grandpallama above that you should become more aware of policies (and don't be afraid to Google policies if you're not sure) before monitoring other users. GSK (talk • edits) 22:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Too many errors

Your error rate with warnings, reversions and noticeboard reports is unacceptably high. Please slow down and check your work before doing any of these three actions. Some recent examples:

• This edit is a breach of WP:TPO. Don't remove other people's talkpage messages without good reason.
• This edit removes a valid reference and restores a spam link.
• This edit restores a nonsense edit to an article that had correctly been reverted by someone else.
• This edit which replaces unsourced info with other unsourced info, which was then followed by this inappropriate warning.
• This current warning to a school IP address seems to relate to an edit made in 2022?
• This RFPP requested indefinite semi-protection for "persistent vandalism" on an article with no recent vandalism at all.
• This edit warns someone against "introducing factual errors" for an edit which was correcting vandalism.

You also have numerous valid reports and reversions of disruptive users, and thank you for those. However it's important to remember that multiple incorrect reverting or reporting is itself disruptive: it drives legitimate editors away, wastes time on noticeboards in clearing inaccurate material and (per some of the above) reintroduces low-quality material that had correctly been removed.

This also isn't the first time this has been raised re your edits. So, in short form: please stop and double check every proposed edit involving a reversion, a warning or a noticeboard report. If your proposed edit is not soundly based in policy and double-checked for accuracy, don't make it. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah oops.

The first and second edits no idea what I was thinking.

The third edit I just saw a lot of content removed with no explanation and reverted it. Should have been more careful.

For the fourth edit I didn't realize you shouldn't warn for older vandalism.

The RFPP, I just saw lots and lots of vandalism message reverts but it doesn't like seem like anything was outright vandalism

The last edit i though was vandalism since there was incorrect information which was then reverted to correct information. Didn't realize that was already there and only partially reverted by that editor. Oops!

All in all sorry and I will try to be more careful. Sorry for wasting people's time @Euryalus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

And now you are trying to manage a possible edit-warring situation when you have only been editing for two weeks? I think you should spend less time trying to do administrative tasks and reverting other editors and just do some article improvements so you can better understand Wikipedia policies and guidlines. You have to earn respect from your fellow editors through demonstrating competency, it's not just given to you when you registered an account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving To Inappropriate Titles

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to 300 (number). This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop per WP:BOLD. Please explain your reasoning. Mine is that the article is basically entire about the range of numbers not just 300. What is yours?@CambridgeBayWeather Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Consistency and long term stable title. All the others are in the format "number (number)" and have been that way for some time. If you think your title is better then follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay done....@CambridgeBayWeather Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Vijay

Pardon me, but the removal was explained when the edit war started.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point, sorry. @Skywatcher68 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries. You're relatively new and presumably learning as you go; I've been here almost 18 years and still defer to more experienced editors regarding certain subjects. :-)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

jaymaster05 edit

I have added content on the Jack Abbott (The Young and the Restless) article, but it has been removed due to not being provided a source. How do I provide a source I order to keep my added content on this page? Jaymaster05 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability would be good places to start. How this is helpful@Jaymaster05 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect reversion and warning

Hi. This was not an unexplained content removal. The IP editor was removing an advertising link, and explained that in their edit summary. Please check these a little more carefully before reverting or warning other editors. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It was unexplained content removal, as they removed "Its tower has collapsed. As of 2018, the mansion is offered for sale.". However you are correct about the reference, I thought I removed that but apparently not@Euryalus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The tower collapse component is unsourced and a legitimate target for removal. Alternatively it could have been retained but tagged as unsourced. The rest was an advert for a local realtor which was appropriately removed as linkspam. The issue is not the lack of sourcing for the tower collapse, it is that you warned another editor for "unexplained content removal" of the realtor ad when they did in fact explain the content removal in their edit summary. The problem with this kind of error is that incorrect warnings discourage editors from wanting to contribute. The Wikipedia rules for editing are complex enough as is; imagine how discouraging it must be to follow the rules and get reverted and warned anyway.

As I mentioned above there are plenty of legitimate vandal reversions and warnings in your edit history, which is great. FWIW your strike rate for good edits is also significantly improved, with fewer questionable edits. But the error rate is still too high, and it seems to be because you are working too fast and not taking time to check what you revert and why you revert it. In what I hope come across as constructive advice, I'd ask you again to please slow down and check and re-check before reverting and warning your Wikipedia colleagues. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Well no in their edit summary they said that they removed a real estate listing (the spam link) nothing said about the sentence at all. So maybe it was justified to remove the sentence too, but definetly still unexplained why they did that @Euryalus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content at Adam Newman

Hi. I noticed you removed storyline content at this article. I have WP:BOLD reverted it. While sources are important, this article is about a fictional character, and many Wikipedia articles about characters, films and such don't cite sources for everything related to the storyline/plot. I think it would be better to leave it as there is substantial content there. Cleo Cooper (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really know a lot about this. But don't need some way of knowing where this info came from/if it's true@Cleo Cooper Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe from the other sources within the article, I guess. But I don't think it's worth removal it all. If we take a look at articles about other films sections like plot/storyline aren't sourced, as it's assumed that it comes directly from the work (primary). Cleo Cooper (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll do it

I'll go report the user who keeps changing it to "op die" Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Already did @Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Ha! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Your welcome. Thanks for your help as well @Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Btw do you use Twinkle? You're just as fast as me at reverting vandal Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Not saying that I'm better Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Also at some point I started just patrolling their contribs @Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We're really similar. I just started reverting and monitoring Recent Changes through a filter 4 days ago. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing it for a few weeks but still. What filter, just curious. I use [1] @Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This: [2] It doesn't really count as "Monitoring Recent Changes", but it's still pretty good. Gets most of the vandalisms. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

btw, what if we were wrong about reverting those edits? If you read the whole sentence, the IP user might be making a useful edit (however they did not say what they were doing). Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The "Very Likely Have Problems" and "Very Likely Bad Faith" are subsets of "Likely Have Problems" and "Likely Bad Faith", so there is no point in having those. In addition, a lot of those edit will have already be reverted, so maybe use that as well so it disappears once reverted. I also have it so that Extended Confirmed edits don't show up as those are very unlikely to be vandalism. I like your idea of also adding the faith prediction though. Also realizes that my "Registered" filter defeats the point of not having EC editors edit show up so removed that. So maybe something like [3] would be good@Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: If you are neither Myrealanmm, Me Da Wikipedian, or someone that was involved with this, do not change the article from "op die" to "of the". It was a mistake that Me Da Wikipedian and I made, thinking "op die" was vandalism. "op die" translates to "of the". Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked April 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. May I ask how I was edit warring @ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Me Da Wikipedian, sure. You have joined the following edit war with two reverts that added factually incorrect material to the article:

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Given the history of warnings above for similarly problematic patrolling quality, I believe that a 24-hour block was the simplest and mildest way to make this stop.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops! That was totally my mistake (well actually only [9] [10] were even me but...)! I recognize that and I am sorry, and will try to improve. In this particular case it seemed like vandalism, considering that a user replacing something with "op die" is usually not a good edit, and I didn't look at the content too much considering that they had already been reverted and warned repeatedly by another user. I think that in general, after that first 5 issues at the very beginning, most of my problems have been not fully looking at the context (ex.didn't see a ref was a spam link and saw no edit summary so reverted, saw someone adding "op die" and didn't see it was in another language, etc.) I will work on that in the future.

I think that my quality has been improving to nearly okay, am I incorrect. @Euryalus mentioned that I should aim for at least 98-99% accuracy. Removing my first 13 reverts, which I had a terrible 61-62% accuracy on, I have had accuracy near 97-98%. Am correct that I am improving and nearly there?

P.S. I wasn't really edit warring. From reasoning WP:Edit warring, reverting vandalism is not considered edit warring. Considering that I, and another user as well, thought that we were reverting vandalism, I don't really think we were edit warring, considering that edit warring is, as far as I can tell, only edit warring if deliberate. I'm guessing I'm missing something though, please tell me what.

Thank you and sorry for (yet again) wasting people's time. @ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Am not sure I said anything about percentages of accuracy, perhaps this was someone else? Either way ToBeFree has good advice below. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the term "edit warring", I'd be fine with calling it "unintentional disruptive editing", perhaps "persistent unintentional disruptive editing". Please note that WP:3RRNO's exception number 4 is usually about more obvious cases of vandalism, though, even if we assumed that it was vandalism. Whatever it was, I hope that preventing it for 24 hours isn't entirely unreasonable.

Your accuracy may very well have improved and that's good! I didn't check all recent contributions to see if there's more of this or if it was just 1% of them. But the warnings above are from April 2024, that's the current month. For the block decision, the number of good contributions wasn't a factor. The absolute amount of disruption, not the relative percentage of it, led to the decision. This doesn't mean that the relative percentage is irrelevant; of course it is relevant in general. If you edit very infrequently and just make one bad edit per year with none good in between, that would also lead to a block after a few of these contributions. In that case, the block would even have to be indefinite because no short duration block would prevent it from continuing.

I am unsure which advice I could/should provide at this point; I think the 24-hour pause might really have been the best way to cause whichever change is needed. I don't intend to monitor your contributions afterwards or whatever else; I just stumbled upon them at WP:AIV, took quick action to stop disruption and moved on. If the 24-hour block is agreeable and you're fine with just letting it expire and moving on afterwards too, then I think that's the best approach.

It's all good. My personal time wasn't wasted; I volunteer to look at such situations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I meant that me (repeatedly) reverting good edits, after which somebody must re-revert them, tell me and explain it to me, and remove the warnings, is probably annoying to do. The block had already expired by the time you replied so...advice already taken there.

"The absolute amount of disruption, not the relative percentage of it, led to the decision." - Would that mean, theoretically, if I revert 1000 bad edits in a week, but also 10 good edits, that you would concievably block me. Alternatively, if I revert 10 edits in a week, and 1 is actually good, is that better?@ToBeFree

To Euryalus, that's a good point, I feel like I remember you saying that if I make mistakes more than once per 50-100 reverts or once per hour, then thats a problem and I need to slow down@Euryalus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Well less error is always better, but everyone makes a mistake once in a while. :) Anyway, I see the block has expired so welcome back. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Did you in fact say that, did someone else say that, or am I completely making things up here. @Euryalus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I didn't say it. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Me Da Wikipedian, I understand the desire for exact numbers or criteria, but they don't exist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Your additon of stub on Bapu Zimidar

Hello Me Da Wikipedian,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is easy to do via the StubSorter tool, and is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No, but wow! Will do in the future. @Turtletennisfogwheat Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism vs Antisemitism

Hi there. It is now more accepted to use Antisemitism instead of the outdated 'Anti-semitism'. The latter was a term created as a pseudo-scientific explanation for the hatred of Jews, often associated with the Nazi ideology of racial classification (https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/spelling-antisemitism / https://www.adl.org/spelling-antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism). Thanks 81.108.69.245 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, I was mostly just saying that we should be consistent with other "anti-(insert thing here)" stuff, whichever way we chose to do it Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ObsessedWithStarship II

You are being very disruptive, even if that's not your intention. You cannot move cases at SPI. Only SPI clerks and CheckUsers may do so. Even patrolling admins, like me, cannot move cases. I've reverted your move. Also, stop writing in the section of SPI reports that is reserved for clerks, CUs, and patrolling admins. I keep moving your comments, and you persist anyway. Thanks for changing the refs to diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry I didn't know.

I moved the case because I realized that I had mixed up sockpuppet/sockmaster. Who can I ask to move it then?

Sorry about writing in that section, didn't realize I couldn't write in it if replying to you.

@Bbb23 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

In this instance, it would be better to wait before moving it, depending on the CU results.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry. Assuming that the sockmaster considering it was created first@Bbb23 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 86.152.206.111 (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) You deleted my post on the presidential badge which I added as a stupid joke. I don’t even know why you were on there but it’s pretty cool you are such a great mod. Check out schaffrillas productions as he is pretty funny and if you watch the sans and papyrus free birds video you will get it. Hope you have a great life and thanks for helping Wikipedia.

You're welcome, but please use the sandbox to make jokes/tests. Also trouting is for if I make a mistake, which as far as I know I did not. Thank you, have a nice day Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Putt-Putt Joins the Parade

I literally stated the reason: unsourced info. We can't find a source to cover this information. Therefore, it cannot be on the page. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:713C:E81C:D6EE:4041 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point, didn't see that. Thank you! Undid my edit! Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I forgive you. 🤗 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:713C:E81C:D6EE:4041 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Kolenda

Page edits Raulton4878 (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering why my edits are not neutral and are getting reverted. Some things written on Daniel’s page aren't relevant or true. Raulton4878 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You are removing sourced information that you disagree with. Per WP:NPOV, we need to represent all major sides. Whether you believe them correct is, sorry to say, irrelevant. Reliable sources disagree, and this needs to represented@Raulton4878 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

So basically your saying there isn't much I can do to correct this information? Raulton4878 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You can add sourced information to the contrary, if you can find reliable sources. But no, you can't just remove it because you don't like it@Raulton4878 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Where it say his spouse is, that isn't technically correct if you refer to the source information then is it? Raulton4878 (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

What did that mean?@Raulton4878 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Well the source say he had a divorce and then it say his spouse is the person who he is divorce from, so technically not his spouse. So can you remove spouse info but leave the bit in the bio? Raulton4878 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Great, so add a passage, sourced, saying he was divorced. And use the source correctly and you should be fine@Raulton4878 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: I think your revision on the page Flight of the Behemoth wasn't quite right. The name seems insane, but the IP isn't wrong, that is actually the full name of the song. I know, its nuts. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

FWTBT can't possibly stand for that. Not how acronym's work (I think). Don't really know though. Pinging @Joyous! since they reverted too for a 3rd opinion@Kingsmasher678 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Look it up. FWTPT stands for For Whom The Bell Tolls, the full title is:

F.W.T.B.T (I Dream of Lars Ulrich Being Thrown Through the Bus Window Instead of My Mystikal Master Kliff Burton) Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You seem right, if Joyous! agrees, let's revert (they were original reverter and are admin so...)@Kingsmasher678 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good :)

I don't blame you a bit, it seems like it couldn't possible be right. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections. Sorry for the error. Feel free to revert. Admin or no, I goof up sometimes. I would definitely include a cite, though, because the title is so weird. Joyous! Noise! 15:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Cool, I'll cite it and take care of it. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this whole talk page is filled with my mistakes:)@Joyous!@Kingsmasher678 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joyous!@Me Da Wikipedian

Done, mind taking a look? Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing! Joyous! Noise! 15:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like you did something with the cite web to mess it up. Will fix! Also, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page.@Kingsmasher678 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe its the template. Will not ping on pages also! Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No, ping on other places, just I already get a message when someone posts on my talk page. Posted on your page, you'll see that even without a ping, you get notified@Kingsmasher678 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I get that, just phrased it wrong. Also, I'll fix the cite. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ping

You do nhot have to keep pining me, the page is on my wHATCH LIST. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, didn't know@Slatersteven (and sorry if this is also on your watchlist) Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Overlinking at Rocket Lab

Regarding this revert. Please look carefully at what you have done, and contrast that with your edit summary. For example, in the single paragraph beginning The company was founded in New Zealand in 2006 you have added two links to Rocket Lab Electron, and in the paragraph beginning Two attempts have been made to recover you added another. This makes three links in that section alone. Now consider the rest of the article - similar problems exist. I should point out that having one link per section is not a requirement but a maximum, the actual gudeline reads Link a term at most once per major section, and the article has four major sections. I should not be finding more than four links to Rocket Lab Electron in the entire article (and this includes links through redirects such as Electron (rocket)), yet there are presently something of the order of eighteen.

These are the pages for which there are four or more links in that article:

• Curie (rocket engine): 4
• Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport: 5
• Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport Launch Pad 0: 5
• Peter Beck: 4
• Rocket Lab Electron: 16
• Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1: 4
• Rocket Lab Neutron: 7
• Rocket Lab Photon: 5

This list ignores redirects. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

So, first off, the article has 15 sections, not 4. Given how important electron is, it's not unreaosnable to hit the maxium a lot. There were 2 extra links to electron in the lead, 1 extra link to MARS Pad 0, I've removed them. Didn't see anything overlinking with the MARS link, the LC-1 link, the Neutron link, Photon link, Beck link, and curie link. If you have an issue with them, please explain. @Redrose64 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, the guideline states Link a term at most once per major section, please note the word "major" - a major section is one with a level 2 heading, and the article has three of these: History, Hardware and Facilities, plus the lead making four. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Person the note, "a lower-level subsection is major, especially when a preceeding subsection is especially long, when an article's structure puts most content under level-3 headings with level-2 ones primarily used for thematic grouping". These is no content under a level 2 heading not under a level 3. So then there is my number@Redrose64 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

Hello,

on my talkpage I have got the notice that you have kindly started a review of an article that I have added to the Good Article nomination list. But on the list I see a warning that you don't have created a review page as it is requested for GA. Would you please take a look on it, may it be an error? Thanks Dioskorides (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This was a mistake and I later got it deleted. hope that clear it up@Dioskorides Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your comment at User talk:ToadetteEdit

Please be patient. They have just been through a stressful RfA, and even if not, they volunteer their time here. It isn't their obligation to attend to you right away. Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 17:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I know that, never said they did. All I did was say I did it and sorry for not seeing it earlier@Asparagusus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That's okay. I just wanted to let you know. Happy editing! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 17:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 68.1.207.26 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why you trouted me. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

hrdr

AFD Voting

Slow it down.... You !voted in over 50 AFD in roughly an hour's time. All of them already seem to have clear consensus, but there doesn't seem to be any possibility you actually did an evaluation of each topic. It feels a tad gamey. I can say unequivocally that you did not actually evaluate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlus USA in the 1 minute gap before !voting there and the AFD you had just !voted in before. That article has over 70 references and is a complicated case. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but looking through just a few of them quickly I could see that they were realible. All 70 don't need to reliable to prevent deletion, just enough to demonstrate notability@Ferret Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, please let me know three sources from Atlus USA that show in-depth WP:SIGCOV of Atlus USA, and are not primary or interviews. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/09/17/perfecting-persona-how-atlus-usa-bloomed.aspx

https://web.archive.org/web/20150402172351/http://www.destructoid.com/anime-expo-08-atlus-shin-megami-tensei-panel-94038.phtml

https://web.archive.org/web/20031209003138/http://www.atlus.co.jp/about/kaisha_enkaku.html

How are those@Ferret Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Destructoid is a bit half coverage, half interview. In the end this is a panel about various games, not the company. Similarly, Atlus.co.jp is clearly a primary source... about the Japanese company, not it's USA branch. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but Destructoid definetly has part that satify your criteria. It's about games by the company. The atlus.co.jp is fair, if you want ill find another one Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those sources contribute to WP:GNG, so yes, I'd like you to find two more. Destructoid is not about the company and doesn't even mention it beyond saying Atlus did a panel. All calls at that AFD for the Keep votes to provide three clearly contributing sources have gone unanswered. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why Destructoid doesn't meet those guidelines. Also, whats wrong with interviews. Remove that restriction and theres like 10 or more Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Because that's long standing guideline at WP:GNG. Interviews are not independent from the subject, and GNG requires independent coverage. Even then, that interview is not about the company. It's one of their designers talking about various games. Please, participation in AfD requires an understanding of the notability guidelines, including understanding what a WP:Primary source is and what WP:Independent means. I asked for three sources that were not interviews or primary, and you provided an interview and primary source. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Primary source was an accident, since reliaze that was their japanese version. How's https://press.plaion.com/en/Atlus and https://www.mobygames.com/company/1971/atlus-usa-inc/ Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Plaion is literally a database of press releases from the company. Could you explain how you believe this constitutes significant in-depth coverage, even if we ignore the non-independence? MobyGames is an unreliable user-generated website. Even then, ignoring that, it's just a database entry. There is no coverage or discussion of the company. -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It is covering what the company does, which includes making press releases. And MobyGames I get. Will find a third in a bit Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Plaion's entry is written by the company. This is not coverage, nor independent. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point, changing my vote Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me???

Hi Me Da Wikipedian,

Why did you copy material exactly from my user page to yours? Why? That's not very nice.

This includes my userboxes (which I immediately recognized from the order of them), my topicons (almost in the same order as mine), my short description (OK, I get it. I lot of people are "A Wikipedian", The citation-needed template (which I purposely added a joke and it is the exact same in your user page). Why?

I mean, OK, there's no "copyright" issues, it's all just templates from this wiki. But anyways, it's not that nice to do so. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

In addition, the "A Button to My Talk Page" actually goes to my talk page, so there's more proof... Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, @Me Da Wikipedian, don't be a NOTHERE. Thanks. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 00:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with me liking some of your userboxes, so I added them. ooops about the bugs though Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the talk page button, I am a wikipedian too, and I removed the citations needed. Thats not WP:NOTHERE though. please read that page@Myrealnamm Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)