Jump to content

User talk:Fathoms Below/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Fathoms Below
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 15:58, 15 January 2023 (Archiving 2 discussions from User talk:The Night Watch. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, CollectiveSolidarity, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete 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. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

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! Greyjoy talk 22:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi CollectiveSolidarity! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 07:14, Sunday, April 17, 2022 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Incomprehensibility

I suspect that when you wrote "comprehensive prose and wording" on your user page, you meant to write something else. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by this. Please, can you be more concise with your statement? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Concision is indeed admirable. And comprehensiveness of prose is sometimes close to its antonym. Did you perhaps mean to write "comprehensible prose and wording"? -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you. I should be trouted for something silly like that. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I'm sure I've done much worse. (When sleepy, I even confuse "their" and "they're".) -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

IP 2603’s personal attacks

On the Multiverse of Madness talkpage, the comment starting with “You wanna know something really interesting?”, does it fall under WP:NOPA?--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Possibly. It certainly does sound rude. However, it must appear as a deliberate/straightforward statement or else the sysops may not consider it as a personal attack. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
"So you acting like some be-all-end-all authority on the matter, it's beyond ridiculous. I'm an anon user, yes, but at this point, even I can tell you to go sit in a time out."
Seems pretty direct to me CreecregofLife (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Go for it then. be bold. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Apparently, someone decided to tattle to ANI on me? By a newly registered user who apparently held a weeks-long grudge about a reversion I made, and then called my presence on the MoM talkpage "toxic" CreecregofLife (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Obviously the reporter is the anonymous IP. You had the right to condemn this personal attack, because this editor is making extreme accusations. I highly doubt that this newly-created account is from “someone else” in the IP’s household, and they should have never reported you when they started the personal attack. The editor should receive a warning, but please refrain from strong emotions. I try to always WP:ASG, but it is not a good look to have an outburst on ANI. I believe that you have improved from your past in edit warring, but others may not. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It’s just exhausting and angering to be having to keep defending myself like this, and then be condemned for having a “battleground attitude” and no self-reflection. Like, what am I supposed to do when they handcuff my arguments like that? Nothing I say or do matters. They constantly demand i self-reflect but have yet to reflect on how I’ve actually been treated. I’ve had multiple users come at me with petty underhanded tactics and personal attacks just because I tried to be reasonable with them, or in other cases saw through some bigoted arguments and they’re taken aback when they’re called out on it. I shouldn’t be punished for getting loud and angry. I didn’t resort to insults, I didn’t curse. They won’t even try to understand what brought me to that point because all they see in me is bad CreecregofLife (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi CollectiveSolidarity! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, WikiFauna, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Trouted

a rainbow trout fish

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: Please see this diff. Mistakes do happen, so... — B. L. I. R. 02:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve been trouted at last! I am so happy! Thank you! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hi CollectiveSolidarity. I find it strange to have to tell you this, but please refrain from blanking talk page sections like you did here, especially after others (myself in this case) have commented. Please be advised that repeating this behavior may result in loss of editing privileges. Thanks, FASTILY 06:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Quite ironic on my part, but I understand. It will not happen again. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi CollectiveSolidarity! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Rewriting File Information, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi CollectiveSolidarity! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Archiving sources, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


DYK for Frankie Saluto

On 21 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frankie Saluto, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Frankie Saluto was a member of the Ringling Giants, a dwarf baseball team that raised money for charity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frankie Saluto. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Frankie Saluto), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Regents

Theresa wasn’t regent for her son, she was a countess in her own right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.192.18 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

But she was also was the acting as Queen of Portugal while her son was just a child, that is what a regent is. Next time, explain this in an edit summary. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Kevin Durant

Why you delete my edits for KD? Don’t you see that I have attached the reference? You loser please stop doing foolish things. Dreamkd (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You added commentary to that article, as Bagumba said on your talk page. To Quote Bagumba :
"While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum."
Also please do not call me a loser. That is a personal attack, and Wikipedia forbids that. Thank you, CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Murcielago SV production

Hi CollectiveSolidarity, One of the sources I referenced is an actual Lamborghini historian, (However, I can delete the other two sources, which were taken from two people who are not historians) who is extremely knowledgable when it comes to these types of cars. As the reliable source section states, "media must be produced by a reliable source" I'd say John Temerian is considered to be a reliable source when it comes to these types of things. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROCKSTAR HELLA (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I would take your word for it, but per WP:RSPYT, sources from YouTube should not be used at all. If you could find a reliable source that is not from YouTube, then you can include it in the article. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Alright! Let me see if I'm able to find something not from youtube ROCKSTAR HELLA (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

I'm not recalling how to go about it, but the WMF will pay subscription fees for sites like that. We also have a forum just for newer editors called The Teahouse. The volunteers there will be glad to help you find those resources. 174.212.229.61 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me this. I have not asked any questions at the teahouse yet (I prefer to read the Manual of Style) but I will ask if this service is available. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were so new. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
There is also something called the Wikipedia Library that gives access to library databases. There is a minimum amount of participation to become eligible though; I am not sure what it is but the Teahouse would know. I am also willing to help if you want but the Teahouse is more official. Elinruby (talk)<

Steep

It isn’t really an editorializing word, you know, just an adjective. I didn’t revert you because people revert too much, and I don’t have actual objections to “major” except that it might possibly be a bit trite. I don’t think it’s an improvement but it’s also not wrong, basically. But ok, I did want to talk to you about it a little. If you somehow graphed the violence of the war over time, whether based on deaths, or missile strikes, economic costs, or whatever, the graph would go sharply up, so in this case the word is actually objective.

I like the way you are thinking; when I edit for neutral point of view I sometimes use an edit summary that says “removing adjectives”. I am just at loose ends for a moment and so taking the time to point out to you that while editorializing uses adjectives, not all adjectives are editorializing.

I realize that I probably sound like I’m overthinking this. Welcome to Wikipedia ;) One of my self-assigned wiki missions is keeping that article small enough to add on to still, because the war isn’t over yet, so I have been giving quite a bit of thought to its wording, especially in the lede, shrug. I hope this friendly quibble is coming across as a friendly quibble as it is intended to, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia;) Elinruby (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand. But next time, please do not include such a long section over a minor revert. It comes across as condescending. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t revert it. And I was trying, apparently too hard, not to sound condescending. In any event, have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Oromo expansion

Why do accounts like this seem to always revert edits and do their worthless moderation without actually reading the content? Are they bots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:CB02:1C79:146E:722B:2C2B:5CC7 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I perceived that the Oromo migrations article had still not adequately addressed its lack of citations and original research. Your reason for removing the tags was that they were “too old”, which does not necessarily mean that they should be removed. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
But weve put effort into using multiple references over the course of the last couple months. So I need to create an account? 2601:280:CB02:1C79:146E:722B:2C2B:5CC7 (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The page currently heavily relies upon the source “Pankhurst 1997”, which is why I maintained the tag. Some other additions did not have adequate citations as well. You don’t have to create an account to help with the article, but I would recommend it. Just remember, you can use only one account while editing, so don’t use your IP again if you create one. Doing so would be considered sockpuppetry. Cheers! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi CollectiveSolidarity. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY 02:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Fastily! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

United States

Hi. Apologies for being harsh in an edit summary. The rollback will create lots of add-backs, and these were some of them which should stand well. Kind of a mess which editors will have to compare to see what good edits were removed. Thanks for your patience. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Ha, we crossed in talk page message. Very appreciated, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Mobile editing is a bit quirky with rollback, so again, my apologies for misclicking! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I've never edited on mobile (and only looked on Wikipedia once on it, when someone was showing me a page) so can only imagine how hard it would be in some situations. You were only being vigilant, commendable. I also have to assume that many of the scores of edits rolled back by someone else were very good ones, and hopefully many will be returned either by the original editor or by people checking the edits. Nice to meet you along the road. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Rash of edits again....and one very unique addition

this and this make me think something is funny. 15+ years never seen this.Moxy- 01:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy Perhaps an investigation must be taken. It does appear to be awfully suspicious. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Exit the Gungeon has been accepted

Exit the Gungeon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Added your guestbook on Jack's list

Hi... I have added your guestbook here on your behalf. Feel free to undo it. Happy editing Volten001 ☎ 16:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

September music

September songs

Thank you for improving articles in September! Yesterday, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it. And today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting new user name! . How about mentioning that one for WP:QAI? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Fathoms Below,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fathoms_Below/Archive_1&oldid=1133800808"