User talk:Biografer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biografer, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Biografer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Great Idcactus3535 SFC VGCP (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great Idcactus3535 SFC VGCP (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What happened here? --John (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John: What exactly? I archived links which were dead. The article shouldn't have been nominated prior to archiving or replacing dead links, otherwise its not verifiable.--Biografer (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, no problem with that of course. It's just that you also undid a lot of copyedits by me and others in the process. Most likely way this usually happens is you were inadvertently looking at an earlier revision. It's mostly fixed again, I just wanted to let you know what you had done The article was in a hell of a state for a TFA, wan't it? --John (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John: Yes, my apologies. There was an edit conflict. I started fixing some stuff a day ago, and saved it next day, by that time you already put some info. I saved the old revision because majority of times there is edit wars going on either way. One time I saved an article after someone's revert, that person didn't bothered to vandalize the article again. :) But to be honest, I only saw major revert after my edit, so I came in time. :)--Biografer (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Well, thanks for the apology. Please try not to do this again as you've created a fair bit of work for others. --John (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, isn't Wikipedia a collaborative project?--Biografer (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It definitely is. Here's another thing. Edits like this one are not minor and should not be marked as such. Please see Help:minor edit for details. --John (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @John:, but I thought that because I put them and therefore it was me who removed them, it shouldn't be a big deal.--Biografer (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Well that isn't the case. Read the link I sent you. --John (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ways to improve Naoshige Uchida[edit]

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Biografer, thanks for creating Naoshige Uchida!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please read WP:NACADEMIC and see if you can add to this article sufficient evidence for it to meet those notability guidelines. I'll return in due course and review how you've got on. It may be that this person is not sufficiently notable, in which case the page may be considered for removal from Wikipedia.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I did a small addition, but am wondering if you have any parameters for wcn. I seem not able to find it in cite book. It looks like its similar to isbn and lccn but have different numbers. Can you help? Many thanks in advance.--Biografer (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you should ignore 'WCN' and revert that last edit. I don't know what it stands for, but 02-200-208 is not unique to that publication. It seems to be some form of copyright statement (a bit like saying 'CC 4.0' for a creative commons licence.) So, no wonder it displays unknown parameter in red. See this example.
I appreciate you responding to my concerns so quickly. Rather than look for more evidence of his scientific researches, what a Wikipedia article needs is evidence that the person is 'notable' above and beyond that research. e.g. how have their results been reported in journals or the media; what national awards have they won? what impact has their work had? etc etc. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Well, one of his students got a Noble Prize, but I don't know where to put it. It definitely fits in description and proves his notability but under which section???--Biografer (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ways to improve Haibao Tang[edit]

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Biografer, thanks for creating Haibao Tang!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please read the notability criteria for academic staff ay WP:NACADEMIC. Can you find evidence that meets any of the criteria to demonstrate that Haibao Tang is anything other than a good researcher? The article does not show me anything, and so may well not be acceptable as a stand-alone article. I'll come back and review it again in a few weeks to see how you've got on with improving it.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New edit being removed?[edit]

Hi Biografer,

I'm sorry to be stupid, I am still trying to figure all this out.

I made an edit on a page and it has been rejected apparently, and I don't know why.

It was to this page:

In the episode synopsis for Episode 5, Lemon Scented You, I added a list of David Bowie songs that are quoted in the speech that Media makes to Shadow. I think this is useful information for people who may not be as fanatical about Bowie as I am and who might not have recognized all of the lyrics that were quoted. However, as you can imagine, I have no "source" for this information as it was based on 1) my watching the TV show and 2) my knowledge of lyrics of Bowie songs.

So, how do I get my edit to not be removed? I am just assuming it was removed for lack of cited source.

Thank you in advance for a newbie question.

Khern0203 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)khern0203Reply[reply]

@Khern0203: Click "View history" and then look at the reason why the person reverted your edit. It said that it was because it was unsourced and trivial. Hope that helps.--Biografer (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Surreal Barnstar Hires.png The Surreal Barnstar
Thank you for your recent "welcomes" for new editors! You've been very proactive about this and I think you deserve the recognition. Cheers! MX () 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg

I hope you like it :)

The Stray Dog Talk Page 23:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheStrayDog: Thanks! Goats are one of my favorites!--Biografer (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome Biografer[edit]

CooperMorgan (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou Gowtham Siddhaarth (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your welcome too! Jy Houston (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Jy HoustonReply[reply]

Ready to submit the Steven Jones page as work continues.[edit]

Working diligently to be informative, encyclopedic, and adhere to formatting standards, I submit this page for peer review while learning much about all things Wikipedian. This living person is immensely productive, creative, interesting, and has a career of collaborating with many other talented artists in the entertainment industry. This page will grow in perpetuity. Zaltru (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shanti Celeste page[edit]

Thanks for the welcome, Biografer. Could you kindly check out my first page (Shanti Celeste? Many thanks! Urbanfel123 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Urbanfe1123: Now it looks good. But still needs more sources.--Biografer (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hello, dear User:Biografer; hereby this badge is awarded to you just in recognition of your tireless work on welcoming new users. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 19:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanksalot for welcoming :) PoetVeches (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


please read and check the dates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157: Well, first of all, the links that you posted here are not verifiable (except for Social Democracy one).--Biografer (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why only the socialdemocracy one? 2001:8003:117E:6D00:4D16:66C5:793E:541E (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157: Actually, I looked again at Social Democracy and its a blogpost. Blogs and social network sites are not a reliable source. Official website could be used as external links but that's about it. You should look for alt-left mentioning in CNN, BBC, New York Times (definitely not Daily Mail, since those just spread gossip, according to our policies).--Biografer (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png Cheeseburgers are not healthy Richboy Brooks (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richboy Brooks: That's maybe one reason why I don't eat them in either real or virtual life.--Biografer (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

Just saying thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia! Good Wall of the Pyrenees (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User you welcomed...[edit]

Earlier, you welcomed this user. Be aware of accounts like this one - particularly with usernames containing food terms and symbols - they're socks of Gabriella~four.3-6. Home Lander (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Home Lander: So far the user didn't harmed anyone here, but I might know what you mean. By the way, even I will welcome them its still your "job" to see if they are socks or not. I'm not a part of sock puppet investigation unit, so forgive me.--Biografer (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just mentioned it to you so you're aware of them. Home Lander (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Home Lander: Wow. Such a quick response. Thanks. By the way, just welcomed this one, but again, her contributions are at null so far. Tell me if you will see any activity from either of the two accounts. Thanks.--Biografer (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I could be wrong but that one doesn't seem her style - they're a little more out there - like the ones at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Gabriella~four.3-6#Naming habits. The first account from yesterday was already blocked as a sock. Home Lander (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Home Lander: Amazingly just stumbled on her: Look What You Made Me Do (talk · contribs) Seems to be out there in my opinion.--Biografer (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That one isn't matching her behavior, though the username is clever at the moment. Home Lander (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Home Lander: What about this suspicious edit by her?: diff.--Biografer (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't seem to fit her style. A checkuser was just ran on her accounts earlier and no others were found, so we hopefully will be good for today. Home Lander (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for a warm welcome![edit]

Hello Biografer & thank you for the warm welcome! I am starting to feel like a real Wikipedian :-)Iha777 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for welcoming[edit]

Thanks again for the welcome, I think I have my first page done and I attempted to move it to be an article but maybe I shouldn't have done that? There is a banner at the top of the page to merge edit contents from the draft page to the article page. I may have done the wrong thing but don't want to move it back and cause more issues! You can see the page here and the banners at the top, if there is something I should do please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpauley (talkcontribs) 19:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kpauley: Great job! There is nothing to worry about. You can counter the merge by simply discuss it on the article's talkpage, but I don't think it will be merged since its already over 15 thousand bytes which is more then enough for a stand alone "level C" article.--Biografer (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very funny sport you have, putting a new-user-welcome message on a talk page of a user contributing for about ten years in various languages... --Polarbear24 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Polarbear24: How funny indeed. :) But then explain to me why your talkpage was empty? Don't people ever talk to you?--Biografer (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess because I'm perfect ;-) so they just send flowers.--Polarbear24 (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Polarbear24: I guess not. You just was in hiding from the rest of us. Like really, how many people come to Wikipedia a day (includes registered and not registered users)?--Biografer (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing signatures[edit]

Why did you overwrite someone else's talk page message and change their signature to yours in this edit and this edit? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Does it matter who warn those vandals?--Biografer (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Also, you didn't answer the question. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? (scoff) Either way, if you demand my explanation, here: I realized that I inserted contributions of a different editor. In order to fix it I decided to override my previous edit. Since I can't remove the warning templates (because of your rules) I thought it was OK to just change the signature (otherwise the warning is dated to say, September 13, and my fix to my welcome message is September 15). See a problem? But to be honest, I am not required to answer your inquiries.--Biografer (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't explain why you changed someone else's signature to your own. Unless you can explain that, I am going to block you for running a poorly-written, unauthorized bot. I haven't blocked you yet because I'm waiting for an alternate explanation. Since you don't seem to have one, I will probably block you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait... are you saying that you thought someone might be confused because your welcome message was newer than the warning? And then you removed someone else's signature and replaced it with your own because you thought that would be less confusing? I'm beginning to think that you're not running a bot; you're just disruptive. If you change someone else's talk page message again in any way, I will block you. Is this clear enough for you? Do not change anyone's talk page messages ever again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

An Iranian baby cat, for you. Take care of it please. We love cats. :)

The Stray Dog Talk Page 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheStrayDog: Thanks, but user NinjaRobotPirate doesn't like my edits and threaten to block me if I will continue. And... I can't. I made some errors in Special contributions and am planning to fix it. Yet, he thinks that I am being disruptive. :(--Biografer (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: Hello dear user NinjaRobotPirate, please be nice to him. As I know you are. He probably made mistakes, everyone does, so if you found out them, let him know and then instruct him to fix it. I believe he does. This is a society and we appreciate the active users like him here. Thank you both. The Stray Dog Talk Page 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyone makes mistakes. I'm sure I've made many. The problem is that Biografer is removing other people's messages and changing their content, against our talk page guidelines. I am frustrated that he has continued to do this after I warned him to stop before; the problem, I think, is that I was not explicit enough. In trying to be more explicit, I think I did come down a bit too harsh. I apologize for that, Biografer, but, really, you need to stop editing other people's talk page messages. The basic rule is that what someone wrote can not be changed by anyone else. This includes removing what they wrote, changing their signature, changing the time stamp, or any other edit. On your own talk page, you have more latitude. On your own talk page, you can remove old messages or archive them. That's fine. But anywhere else, you must leave alone other people's talk page messages. Beyond that, I don't have a problem with the edits. I hope that this clears up any issues, and I apologize again for the harsh tone of my previous message. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: OK. I wont change signatures or anything like that, but I still need to fix that welcome message because there are contributions of another editor that I accidentally put from August 25 to September 15 to the anonymous users and didn't realized it soon enough. Like, I am not thanking them for their contributions but for contributions of someone else. That doesn't feel right, so I decided to replace it with the one that actually mentions their contributions, that's all. Sorry if it was disruptive.--Biografer (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Is there where I write back to you? There is a lot of info to figure out. Thanks for welcoming me and the articles on how to do things! I appreciate it.

@Hahahenny: Yes, but do it on the bottom. I will be more then happy to walk you through the process (as its rather complicated for the new editors). Also, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). :)--Biografer (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take a look[edit]

Thanks for your welcome. Please take a look at this [1], [2] and [3]. Thanks Jordi Lemebel (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jordi Lemebel: Well, the source is reliable according to Wikipedia. What do you see in it that is so unreliable?--Biografer (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's Thebestwinter the one who said it. See reference [1]: (the source doesn't seem reliable, "fun facts" really?). Jordi Lemebel (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jordi Lemebel: Well it seems that the source he claimed he wanted to put in there, he didn't (I checked). So, I need to assume that the problem is solved? If not, let me know, and I will pop in whenever I can. Sorry, I was away for half of the day. :(--Biografer (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The anonymous user on the Scarlett (G.I. Joe)—who clearly has some Wiki experience—seems to be going on some editing spree and claiming tons of pages are invalid. I was first alerted about their edits to Microman and Micronauts pages. --SpyMagician (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SpyMagician: Wondering what makes him tick? Like, he doesn't even respond on his talkpage (only when it comes to reverts) which in itself is unconstructive. I told him why Yo Joe! is reliable and he still doesn't listen. :(--Biografer (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No clue. I have no idea why someone with this kind of knowledge and desire is using an anonymous account. I left a message here encouraging whoever this is too sign up for an account, but I believe they are aware of that and are deliberately avoiding logging in. Regardless, they continue to behave like this it only makes them look bad. But thank you for spotting this as well! --SpyMagician (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SpyMagician: No problem. I already reported him to AN/I (as you have seen) but maybe I done it too soon? Either way, I am tired of reverts myself. :)--Biografer (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha! Cool. I think you are fine. Just look at the edits and reverts I have done to the Red Shadows as well as the Scarlett (G.I. Joe), Microman and Micronauts pages. Odd pattern of “copy edits” that are much more than that. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SpyMagician: Well, he also says that he removes references because they are unreliable. But it beats me what in his head is unreliable. I'm thinking of opening a sock puppet investigation, but I don't know if he is a puppet of someone or not. In my opinion his behavior indicates that he is a sock puppet, but of whom? Beats me.--Biografer (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The references thing is pedantic. In the case of the Micronauts and Microman pages, the “fan sites” are some of the most respected English sites for basic info on these—let’s face it—not very popular toy lines. Maybe some British (since the IP addresses are British Telecom) G.I. Joe collector—who knows about the Micronauts and Microman—just decided to do this? I know there is overlap in those fan communities. But still, why? Anyway, thanks again! --SpyMagician (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biografer: And “they”—whoever that IP address editor from the UK is—are at it again. New IP address is User: --SpyMagician (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your Microman assistance. Seems like Micronauts is a target as well. The only connection I see to all of this is the G.I. Joe connection; all of these lines have a common history. But hopefully the attention of the past few days ends up in something positive. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In an attempt to be productive about the Microman page, I have made some review requests to the folks to maintain Wikipedia toy pages as well as those who maintain Transformers pages. Just a friendly “heads up” given the events of the past few days. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SpyMagician: Sounds good. I have tried to look into The Japan Times for more refs on Micronauts and Microman, but again, found nothing. :(--Biografer (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didn't know you only welcomed people who never edit[edit]


The scar face (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The scar face: Actually, we welcome everyone who is here to contribute constructively. But when I realized that you were edit warring, I decided to remove it, since people here don't like welcoming people who break the rules off the bat. Otherwise they will blame the other side (in this case, me), for welcoming a disruptive editor or a vandal whatever they want to call that editor.--Biografer (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a followup, Biografer, Twinkle has several templates that I regularly use that are can be used to welcome users whose initial edits have problems (COI, blanking, vandalism, tests, etc.). That's another reason that I've gotten away from welcoming users before an edit is made. -- Dolotta (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jason Ybarra edit war[edit]

Hello Biografer. You filed this dispute at WP:AN3. What would you think of going ahead with an WP:AFD for this article? An IP claiming to be the article subject says he wants it deleted. Since the notability is on the edge, I believe that deletion would be possible. The article sources look marginal to me. For BLP articles, we do allow ourselves to be influenced by the wishes of the article subject, at least in marginal cases. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston: Since notability is at null I have no objection. However there were instances when a subject was mentioned in The New York Times and we didn't delete it simply because the subject wants to, but in this case, its a different story.--Biografer (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would you feel about undoing your last set of changes? I believe that all that material is actually unsourced. We don't rely on IMDB as a reliable source. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EdJohnston: Don't know why it poses a problem if the article will be deleted with or without those changes?..--Biografer (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings back, Biografer![edit]

Thanks for the welcome on my talk page. As you suggested, I added my signature to the two talk pages that I'd contributed to. (In both cases, that created a new, wrong, date. No matter, because in both cases I've received no reply, and the errors I think I spotted remain in-place. Presumably because there's nobody Watching the page who cares about that issue/section?)

I'm curious if there's any particular reason you reached out to me? Perhaps because it was you who (anonymously) corrected my syntax for archived references? (If so, thanks. And I added the apparently-automatically-flagged missing archive date.) Netpog (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ADDING: I meant to say, above, "who corrected [me] on the Eric Goldberg page", but obviously it was not you, because you reversed that correction. It's now very similar to what I'd done. So, okay, now I know.

Just one thing: I do think it was helpful to have the longer anchor text (which you truncated). It's not his page; it's on a medium-specific website. Yes? Netpog (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Netpog: Don't know what you mean, but external links should be archived as I did. The official link is dead, so there is nothing we can do with it. Right? So we archive the dead link and that's it. That IP was probably not experienced, but I thank him for trying.--Biografer (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your welcome notice[edit]

Thank you for your friendly lines on my discussion page! I only now and then try to correct little mistakes, when reading english pages. My main interest is the Latin Vicipedia where I contributed many corrections, additions and a few new pages. Thus I know the main rules of contributing to Wikipedia but with my school english of long ago I'm not familiar with stylistic details in that language. So I could not write longer chapters or even whole articles. Best greetings from Bavaria! Bis-Taurinus (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bis-Taurinus: Bavaria? And you are interested in Latin Wikipedia? Either way, welcome again and greetings from Bavaria as well!--Biografer (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Biografer, I want to create a article for Mahthapar, Can I Start with Draft.Kshatriya1995 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kshatriya1995: What an odd question. Yes! You create your first article in a sandbox and then ask me or anyone else to review it. Then you or anyone else can move it into the main field of Wikipedia.--Biografer (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for Guidance. Can you review my Article Mahthapar. Kshatriya1995 (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Khatriya1995: Can you send me a link of your article? I'm not sure that I am spelling it correctly. :(--Biografer (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot for guiding me. I want to create a one more article in wikipedia. How i start please guide me. Kshatriya1995 (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thankyou for welcome on Wikipedia. चौधरी (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome[edit]

Hey Biographer, thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. The articles you provided will be very helpful and save me a few Google searches. When I first started, I felt a bit overwhelmed; however, I'm getting the hang of things now. I found the Wikipedia community to be very welcoming and forgiving. Whenever changing my edits, someone always explains why, which has taught me helpful information to remember. Rhythm of Dawn (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raja Pratap Singh[edit]

Hello Biografer, Can you do me a favour. Please review my article draft:Raja Pratap Singh of Pratapgarh. Singh1995virat (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Singh1995virat: Looks good, but I don't have authority to move it into main space. I will ask @I dream of horses: to see what should we do about a draft.--Biografer (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot Biografer. I waiting for your Action. Singh1995virat (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Biografer: There is a going concern where I feel like I'm being ganged up against by a Self appointed toxic gatekeeper - ::@Oluwa2Chainz: My posts are not promotional material but they are getting constantly reverted without being asked for the rationale. My post is an Encyclopedic discography of the artist, hence provides value as a reference to prove that the artist has truly produced those songs. Also it is legitimate information for users to see the entire discography of the artist. I believe this behaviour goes against the premise of Wikipedia as an open web and contribution platform. If this is promotional material, then it can be argued that all references to external websites from wikipedia that provides valueable information is also promotional material. Please kindly help look into this matter as I demand a peaceful resolution. 02:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the greeting...[edit]

...and for pointing me toward editorial resources. I have benefited so greatly from Wikipedia over the years that I felt it was time to start giving back even beyond financial support. I hope I can live up to the standards every one aspires to. CBinLA (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CBinLA: Have you ever questioned where your financial support go?--Biografer (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from New Editor[edit]

Hi, Biografer! I am new to the Wikipedia community and have a question about Articles for Creation. Is that only for unregistered users, or could I also use AfC to submit an article and have it reviewed to make sure that I am doing everything correctly? Thank you for your help! Hwilson51 (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hwilson51: Doesn't seem like its only for unregistered, so you can submit and someone will be with you shortly.--Biografer (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for welcoming me! Pyrhan (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pyrhan: You are welcome. If you have any questions you can either ping me at your talkpage or come to mine (whatever works). :)--Biografer (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pratab Singh[edit]

Hi.. are you? can you review my article Draft:Raja Pratab Singh.

Thank You[edit]

For the welcome message.

Thank you from me too! I appreciate the welcome! Raynerlucas (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't welcome vandals[edit]

re: User talk:Cooldude21830: "Thank you for your contributions" is extra lulz for a joker; basically, you are inviting them to do more pranks; they just think "duh, what a moron!" instead of being thankful for your kind greeting. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Staszek Lem: Well how should I know? Does it say on their forehead that they are vandals? I was in the shower after that welcome, so I didn't had a chance to check what they did. Sorry about that though.--Biografer (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, don't edit Wikipedia in a shower :-) If you see a stupid user name, you better check their contributions. No big harm done, but I really hate the idea of somebody chuckling behind Wikipedian's back. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other hand, good news: @Staszek Lem: As soon as I saw your message, I immediately removed that welcome message (which I do sometimes when I see that a vandal was welcomed). There was once a story that I welcomed a vandal after seeing him editing his draft section (obviously nothing wrong here), so I welcomed him. But then he blanked a page in main space and I was like, what the... Either way, you got the point that is not easy to distinguish a vandal from non vandal, and not welcoming a good contributor will do even more harm to our project. So, its 50/50. Lunchtime!--Biografer (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome message on an older user's page?[edit]

Hello, it seems you've placed the first entry into my talk page. I've had my account on Wikipedia for a pretty long time though and usually edit not too frequently. I'm just mostly confused that I got a welcome message seeing as I'm a bit of an old user. That's about it really, feels odd getting that message when I am pretty seasoned of an editor. Lzer (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lzer: Well how would I know? There are tons of contributors that come every day and some have their talkpage in blue and some in red. Those that in red I target. But yeah, its not the first time I welcomed someone who was an old contributor. It's odd that no one greeted you upon your first arrival here?--Biografer (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I guess you could quickly check the contributions on a user to be extra sure that it's a new user. Anyway, no biggie in the message anyway, stuff happens. Yeah, nobody really gave me a greeting when I was new. Best I got was someone giving me an "intentionally blank userbox" on my main user page but that was several years after my account creation. Lzer (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lzer: Well, that's not fun.--Biografer (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia -will definitely be checking out the tutorials and no doubt asking for help!--Margymaclibrary (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatrolled granted[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Biografer, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sequence-controlled polymers[edit]

My redirect of Sequence-controlled polymers to Sequence-controlled polymer was not vandalism; the articles are (nearly) identical and should be merged. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but please be more careful while doing reverts in the future. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 20:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Antony-22: Oops, I guess so. The reason why I treated it as vandalism was because of the -1000 or more bites. Sorry about it. Plus, as far as I remember, you didn't wrote anything in edit summary, therefore it said (blanked the page), obvious stuff that vandals known to do. No edit summary, just page blanking is their motto.--Biografer (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm coming to you to inquire about your edit on DanTDM a week ago. I see you had tried to remove vandalism from an editor who had previously vandalized the article before its protection. What I saw was the change of a few references' access dates, the removal of HTTPS on some links, removal of archive links, and other changes which some would find extremely disruptive. I do have to compliment your removal of extraneous spaces and the change of some {{Cite web}} templates to {{Cite news}}, but the rest confuses me even though that editor's vandalism was already removed by Oshwah before the page's protection. What made you try to fix the damage? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jd22292: Well, first of all, I was doing a revert at the time when Oshwah was doing his, so it was an edit conflict. I assumed that the edit conflict was caused by a vandal trying to remove more content (which sometimes does happen). As for removing of archived links (and I will do it again), there is a reason to it (yes, I should have mentioned that in the edit summary), but when you archived a YouTube link the ref in the archive is blank. It says An error occurred. Please try again later. Apparently can't archive YouTube links, while it does work with actual link. Any questions?--Biografer (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with removing the YouTube archive. Thanks for the clarification. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jd22292: Not to mention, that we are not allowed to use YouTube as a ref. But, I assume, this case is an exception?--Biografer (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:YOUTUBE for a better idea on how this works. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jd22292: That was exactly what I was talking about. You see, on one hand it says While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites but on the other Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. So apparently the line is drawn when the Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis., which in this case is the YouTube's subject. Am I understanding this correctly?--Biografer (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely. Not opposed to this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please monitor the Mangalore article for vandalism by Anonymous IP address users[edit]

I request you to monitor the Mangalore article for vandalism by Anonymous IP address users.
They are trying to insert fake information.
D7G1FV49C (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thanks for the warm welcome. I will definitely use the links on the help page and do my best to follow the five pillars of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia Zuniga (talkcontribs) 16:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Magnolia Zuniga: You are welcome. The five pillars are just the bare bones of the project. Once you will venture deeper, rules become more and more complex, to the point that some of our editors even end up committing suicides. :(--Biografer (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg

Thank you for the warm welcome!

Mermaidalchemist (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mermaidalchemist: Thanks. Now, two goats gonna eat my cheeseburger. :)--Biografer (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah sorry about that, I noticed after posting you already had the same goat, was going to change it but then thought really, what's the harm in two goats! Mermaidalchemist (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mermaidalchemist: Its a good thing that they are virtual goats so you can give as many as you want. :) In real life though, the more goats you have, the more trouble you will endure. That includes cleaning after them and breaking all those horny fights, especially if they attack your neighbor (and they mostly attack pretty much anything, even fences if you color them red). If they are of Spanish breed, that is. :)--Biografer (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, there! Thanks for the friendly welcome. :) TheBlueBlur (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheBlueBlur: No problem, I at first forgot to thank you for your contributions and decided to add it when you will come again (which is a good thing that you did).--Biografer (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asbury Park NJ[edit]

Thanks for the welcome. First, Charles Eldridge Bailey died January 1966. People from Asbury Park and Neptune know more history than any article and probably would share information that wasn't covered by in your article. Asbury Park is one square mile that has a rich history. Did you know that Thomas Smith former Police Chief Asbury Park also took the civil service exam which integrated the Fire and Departments. As a native, I am proud of this Asbury Park. Asbury Park jazz scene was famous. So you need help to do a great job. Have you asked any of the old timers? Thanks--Chargood18 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chargood18: First, I would like to apologize for such a long delay in my response, second, I don't know of any old timers. Third, I don't leave in NJ so I don't know anything about Asbury Park, but if you want to add some information (as long as its properly sourced), you may. Especially about that jazz thing that you mentioned, sounds intriguing.--Biografer (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Thank you for telling me some more about editing and the wiki! User1696 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for welcome message - are you a bot?[edit]

I have received welcome messages from you on many of my accounts. So, I wondered if you are a non-human BOT? --New OS system (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@New OS system: I'm a human bot. If you know what I mean? ;)--Biografer (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your welcome message - I am sure you are not a bot![edit]

Thanks for your hint to the article creating guidelines. Allensbacher (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Allensbacher: Thanks Allen. I think the above editors didn't got the joke and assumed bad faith of me. Common thing to do on this project. If you knew, this what you will endure I guess. :(--Biografer (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Lynn Pruett[edit]

How was my edit vandalism everything I said was backed up by facts. I added in information that was deliberately left out and removed irreverent information that was there to create a false narrative. Silent mocker (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Silent mocker: You removed Austin Chronicle, a reliable source.--Biografer (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A reliable source of lies. Legal documents are better as they detail the facts and have to summarise it in a few paragraphs like news cites do. Silent mocker (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Silent mocker: Actually, this is just your opinion. According to Wikipedia reliable sources are, in fact, newspapers. Legal documents are dubious, and have never seen an article here citing a legal document! Show me one that does, please.--Biografer (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I literally found one the first page I tried and I am confident I'll find more on other pages. "Ted Bundy Multiagency Investigative Team Report 1992". Thank a wild guess where I found this.
@Silent mocker: Its rather old. Like, 1992 is last century, man. All of those sources that we provide are much recent and are unbiased. Providing Investigative reports are considered to be orginal research, a no-no, according to our policies.--Biografer (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome![edit]

Hey Biografer thank you for your quick welcome message. Cheers! Dbug75 (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your welcome[edit]

Thanks, sincerely. --48f (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Franconian languages[edit]

If you would compare the two maps you would probably see that the current map doesn't show the East Franconian language area. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only region the current map is actually correct about, is the Dutch-speaking region, probably because it's a Dutch map. The legend is also wrong, because some parts of the Netherlands being traditionally Low Saxon-speaking, the Dutch-speaking part of the Netherlands and Belgium is shown correctly. It should be obvious that the other map is better. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcoming users[edit]

I see that has been brought to your attention before. Indiscriminate welcoming of newly registered users is greatly frowned upon for multiple reasons. Many of the editors you are welcoming have never made an edit on the wiki and most likely will not make an edit in the future. Also, your edits do nothing to address the issues presented at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use a bot to welcome new users:

  1. If a bot is used, it is cold and impersonal, and the bot is incapable of mentoring and assisting newcomers.
  2. Many vandals are exposed when an edit made by them receives extra scrutiny because their user or talk page shows as a redlink.
  3. The bot would make thousands of pointless edits welcoming vandals and accounts that never make an edit.

You actions are consistent with a WP:MEATBOT, regardless of the method you are using to welcome users. Continuing to welcome users in this manner will require that you obtain consensus. Failure to do so will likely get you blocked from editing. Nihlus 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nihlus: I already obtained consensus. Talk to @TheStrayDog: and @Home Lander: if you don't believe me.--Biografer (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for being a meatbot, how come its perfectly fine for users such as @Oshwah: and @PlyrStar93: to do their blocking of vandals and its perfectly fine for @Rich Farmbrough: to do his colons. Yet when I put my effort to invite folks to join our project, I am here threatened with blocks?!--Biografer (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus is not formed by two editors for something as wide as this. You need to obtain consensus from the community in order to continue. As for your second point, Murph9000 put it best: There are a large number of different welcome messages which cover different scenarios. Indiscriminate spamming of messages interferes with using messages which are more appropriate. In particular, giving a good faith message out to vandals is counterproductive and frequently a waste of space. Even in non-malicious scenarios, there are messages which are intended to give specific help based on the user's contributions. If we wanted a standard welcome spammed at everyone, we would have a bot doing it. Please discontinue this behavior. Nihlus 18:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nihlus: Oh, I will wait patiently till all others will arrive here. In fact, for the quick response, I will send them a message too. Maybe I should mass produce articles? But wait, that too would be consider meat boting.--Biografer (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not an admin, so your accusation of "mistreatment by admins" is baseless. Additionally, Rich Farmbrough was asked to stop by me as well. I don't understand your point about Oshwah or PlyrStar93 though. Nihlus 18:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! Here is a suggestion, have a look at Special:ListUsers, tick all three tick boxes, then you are getting only recent accounts that have edited. Ideally check their contribs.
You might consider using the WP:Teahouse welcoming template, if you want to use a template at all. I have welcomed thousands of new users using this template, and though it was a fairly quick exercise, comparatively few responded, so I am not 100% convinced it is worthwhile, but at worst it seems harmless.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Another tip, make a copy of the welcoming template you use and set it up to "subst:" BASEPAGENAME - it looks much better when editors read the source, IMHO. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: Thanks, but the thing is, is that no matter what template I will use, biased Nihlus will tattle-tale on me to the admins and then I will be blocked regardless.--Biografer (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your comments directed at me are not welcome. I have adequately explained why your behavior is an issue. If you wish to continue it, gain consensus from the community. I will gladly defer to that once established. Nihlus 19:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your comments directing at me, are not welcomed either. You gave a link to consensus, but there is no where I can see the issue that I am in being listed there. As for welcoming them differently, @Nihlus:, I have tried to at least add an image that will go well with their user name: diff, but because there are only a handful of such (majority of them just have their names and/or numbers listed, its hard to give them plausible welcome, which wont be banal. As for people who don't make a single edit after being logged in, take a look here.--Biografer (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My comments are related to your actions on here. Additionally, I have removed the image from that user talk page as we cannot use copyrighted images outside of article space (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #9). Nihlus 19:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Nihlus: Hmmm, some editors use Cookies images to welcome new comers. They are apparently free?--Biografer (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, we have permission to use that image. You can find the permission information on the file page: File:Choco_chip_cookie.png. Nihlus 19:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nihlus: Is that the only one that is allowed? Or are there some others that I don't know off?--Biografer (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Anything that states This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license is fine to use. Nihlus 19:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can understand the comments from Biografer are not welcome. Perhaps you (Nihul) should re-read your comments on this page and see why you have elicited them from this undoubtedly good faith editor. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Another suggestion[edit]

Perhaps have a look at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. I don't have the horror of welcoming vandals that some have, and indeed it has been suggested that converted vandals are an important source of recruitment (again, not sure I agree, but it is by no means a fringe idea), but I understand why its seen as something to avoid.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Thanks. Yes, but its not vandalism that Wikipedia admins are obsessed with, is the fact that once a new editor establishes firm ground here, its the perfect way for admins and or other users to gang up on someone who is good and make him feel bad for himself. But I don't feel shame of welcoming new users, should I be ashamed of welcoming somebody that might potentially here to help us? Maybe I should just welcome them with Stay away from this project like a plague! sign. It seems that this is what Nihul wants to me to do... :(--Biografer (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure it seems that way. In the past I have felt I could not honestly encourage people to edit, after the way "admins and others" had behaved towards me. This is however the exception rather than the rule. The majority of editors are normal decent human beings, even those who seem obsessed with rules and hat-collecting are pretty nice to meet socially. I see this sort of behaviour as a problem with social interaction, where the script runs:
  • These are the rules.
  • You are breaking them.
  • You must stop
  • If you don't stop I will impose sanctions/cause sanctions to be imposed.
This is basically a sound societal interaction - but it misses firstly the nuance that the last three steps don't in general have to e spelled out to peers, and secondly that rules are actually not like mathematical tenets. Moreover the type that pursue these arguments will often use a "rule" that doesn't actually exist - one admin spent years reverting other users over a minor template change for which there was consensus, and mis-interpreting a couple of other policies.
You can't let this sort of thing get to you. You have to stay positive. You have had some nice responses to your welcomes. See if you can find a way to continue, and make Nihlus happy at the same time - that is the true win.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
My name is Nihlus. Also, if someone cannot find anything else to do on this massive wiki than to spam welcome messages, then perhaps they are WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia. There are guidelines and restrictions for a reason; if we wanted people to welcome every single user who came through the door, a bot would have been created a long time ago. Nihlus 19:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"A bot would be cold and unwelcoming" - this contradiction in your early statements is one of the things that, for me, undermines your message here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Incidentally - take a look at the top message on this talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) How is that? I'm saying we don't want someone or a bot doing this as the difference is negligible for spamming the messages. I'm saying that if we did, we would have a bot do it, but we don't, so we don't want either one doing it. Nihlus 20:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No @Nihlus:, this is not what I see you are saying. You are saying that we should stop welcoming editors. Period. And this in turn will end bad for the project. There is also another rule that you forgot, its called ignore. No harm is done.--Biografer (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: Well, I added myself to the list. But I still dubious this is what Nihlus was pointing me at.--Biografer (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) No where did I say that. I asked that you stop the indiscriminate spamming of welcome messages. If you come across a user while editing who hasn't been welcomed or perhaps made an error, then it's appropriate to welcome them with a message that is tailored to their situation. Spamming 20,000 messages over the last three months is the problem, not appropriately welcoming users. Nihlus 19:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not appropriately welcoming them???!!! Fine. From now on I will welcome them much differently. You all see.--Biografer (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Biografer was probably using hyperbole... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Uncivil welcome[edit]

Hi, the welcome you placed in this edit was uncivil and uncalled for. It appears to be made in retaliation as per this comment. For the time being, cease your welcoming of any new editors. If I see any more welcomes like that, I will block you -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There were more examples that were made before this warning. What the hell do you think you're doing, other than directly driving away potential editors? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@There'sNoTime: What the hell do you think? Telling them the truth. Telling them how people here don't care about anyone or anything, that its all a scam. How should I have reacted if Nehlus told me not to welcome them with this Welcome message. And no, it have nothing to do with this comment, it have everything to do with with this tirade. Everything was going fine before this Nehlus arrived. You know, I got many thank you's, barnstars, goats, cats, you name it. All because I welcomed editors. You two on the other hand don't seem to appreciate it. :(--Biografer (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I don't appreciate you telling new editors they were inserting overly useless information (as a welcome message), or that we will block you if you will persist on helping us. That's not helpful at all. Welcoming new editors who have made a couple of edits with a standard {{welcome}} template is helpful, and I would appreciate you doing that instead -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@There'sNoTime: Thanks, the template works great!--Biografer (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey! I am not involved in this, but I came across your talk page (as I often do since I patrol user creation log) and I thought I'd put in my two cents on this discussion. Your intent to welcome new editors so that they feel more comfortable with editing and are not afraid of making mistakes is greatly appreciated. However, I see that you've taken offense to people pointing out some potential problems with the way you are going about with your contributions. No one is ganging up on you! We're trying to settle problems by talking about it. On the other hand, please don't put out passive aggressive "welcomes" as a retaliation. It doesn't resolve anything and just makes you look bad. The work you've done in welcoming users is great! But would you agree that it is incorrect to welcome a sock-puppet who's sole intention is to cause disruption? Similarly, would you agree that it would be better to welcome users who have shown an active interest in editing Wikipedia by doing good edits than just impartially handing them out? Simply put, a bot cant really make those decisions. Thats why there are concerns regarding using a bot to welcome users. I quite like Rich Farmbrough's idea of welcoming editors that have made edits and are recently created accounts. But that wont stop accidentally welcoming vandals so its not a fool-proof method, but a good one nonetheless. Now, regarding welcoming vandals - there's nothing inherently wrong about it. There are templates made specifically to welcome editors who may have acted against Wikipedia's policies (they can be viewed under Twinkle's welcome user options). The problem with handing out a generic welcome notice is that the notice begins with "Thank you for your contributions." and thats isnt really correct. We arent thankful for the bad edits, are we? :P I hope you dont mind me posting this here. I'm curious to know what you think.
P.S. I'm seeing that you've started removing old welcome signs and putting up new ones. What exactly is the purpose of that? Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 23:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jiten Dhandha: The reason why I decided to remove the old ones is because the new one have more helpful links. Considering that our editors haven't looked at them yet, it is probably OK to update them, don't you think? Otherwise there will be more confusion as to what and how. I do agree with you on everything though, but you need to understand that I am here to help too.--Biografer (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one is doubting that you are here to help! I know you mean well! But you haven't answered the concerns raised by me and other people yet. A bot cant make the decisions I've talked about, so use of a bot isn't all that helpful. BUT... and thats a big "but", it is possible to welcome users and not make a mistake. For that to happen, you might have to do it manually though! You might not make as many edits as quickly as possible, but what you'll be doing will be greatly appreciated. You can start going through Recent Changes and when you see good edits being made by a user or an IP, you can welcome them. If they have made some errors, you can even write out personal messages about where they are going wrong like: 1 2 3 4 5. That way, you'll be more helpful to the people who are genuinely interested in editing. What do you think about this idea? Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 23:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I was just about to suggest pretty much the same thing, Biografer. By all means, keep welcoming new users, but only if these conditions are met:
  • You have verified that the user has edited. For whatever reason, hundreds of thousands of accounts are created that never do anything. By welcoming these zero-edit accounts, all you're doing is wasting your time.
  • You have verified the user is a good faith contributer. Some people really don't like it when vandals/trolls, spammers, and sockpuppets are welcomed, and for good reason too-it's counterproductive. Imagine a vandal adds libel to your article, and when you check the said vandal's talk page, there's a big friendly welcome message on it. It makes it look like Wikipedia welcomes these kinds of trolls.
That sound like a good compromise? Also, are you running a bot? Just wondering. Sro23 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sro23: No I am not. And never will. I don't welcome trolls and vandals, and if I do, that welcome gets removed by... ...guess who? Me! So, I don't see a problem that all of you here see.--Biografer (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But wouldn't it make more sense to first be certain that the user isn't a vandal, so that you don't have to go through the process of welcoming them and then removing your welcome? Sro23 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sro23: Hmmm, no. The reason is, is that while I would look into one editor's contributions and determine what he is here for, the other good editor will make some good edits and we wont even say thank you to him. Got my reasoning?--Biografer (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pardon me for using the word "bot" in the previous comments I made. I thought you were using a bot seeing how quick you were making your edits. Regardless, the edits were still made a bot-like fashion so I think my arguments still stand. You said "I don't welcome trolls and vandals, and if I do, that welcome gets removed by... ...guess who? Me!", but I might have to disagree with that. I've seen numerous instances where the people you've welcomed were editors whose sole intention was to vandalize and the welcome template hadn't been removed: 1 2 3 4 5 6. I'm not saying that you should remove the welcome notice from the links I've given, but that its very easy to miss out people when you are reviewing your edits because of the sheer number!
I was going to ask the same thing as Sro23 but I see you've already answered it. I dont quite understand the reasoning. You are trying to give out as many welcome's as possible because you want to welcome the good editors? The slight problem here is that a large number of accounts that are made usually dont edit - only a fraction of them stay past a few edits. Welcoming editors who haven't edited can be considered a waste of time that could otherwise be used to welcome IP's or answer new editor's questions at Tea House, etc. Its fine if you miss out on some good editors in the time you are reviewing another editor's contributions. Its not possible to single-handedly welcome all good editors on Wikipedia! If you do review the edits, you will ensure that you dont make mistakes and the people who are actually interested in editing are welcomed. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 08:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was obvious vandalism. Why did you welcome the vandal? Sro23 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sro23: Because he didn't do that much damage.--Biografer (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcoming Template Page[edit]

You may find this interesting. -- Dolotta (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Many thanks for your note and help on wiki :) Hebohne90 (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning Vandals[edit]

This is in response to your 4im warning and immediate report to WP:AIV. Please read over and familiarize yourself with the information at WP:RVAN, specifically the section where it talks about the process to warn someone. You normally have to warn someone multiple times before reporting them at AIV as it gives them a chance to stop. While {{uw-vandalism4im}} is appropriate for vandalism, it shouldn't be used for someone who is only removing content from the article. The warning you should have used was {{uw-delete1}} as it is a softer notice with more welcoming information. Thanks. Nihlus 22:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nihlus: Never knew that you were in support of greeting vandals, but whatever. Listen, I didn't had time to warn them multiple times, so I calculated: The vandal did 4 edits, in both edits he removed content. So, 4 vandalic edits equals a level 4 warning. Sounds fair? I expect to hear yes from you.--Biografer (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's actually not correct, which is why I am here reminding you of the guidelines and standard practice. Nihlus 14:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot to mention that your report at AIV was removed as inactionable because you didn't provide the standard number of warnings. Additionally, this comment aimed at me (WP:NPA) was wildly inappropriate. I don't speak garbage (unless you think policies, guidelines, and standard practice are garbage), and I don't want everyone to be blocked. I want you to do things the right way and the best way for the new users as you will be the first person many of them interact with. However, I don't believe you are willing to take constructive criticism (WP:NOTGETTINGIT) and are more interested in proving unnecessary points through disruption (WP:POINT). I highly recommend you dial your behavior back. Nihlus 14:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's it! I'm not talking to people who are here only for the purpose of harassing editors and will be glad to report you starting immediately.--Biografer (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pointing you in the direction of doing things properly is not harassment; otherwise, there wouldn't be multiple editors on your talk page making the same suggestions to you over and over. Nihlus 15:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sending me numerous warnings for various reasons, is viewed by me as a form of harassment. As for other editors making suggestions, its called one said something and the rest join in in unison. Maybe you contacted them off-Wiki and I am more then certain that you did.--Biografer (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Various valid reasons is not harassment. And now you are casting aspersions by accusing me of canvassing off wiki. Doubling down on this accusatory, tendentious behavior is the opposite of what you should be doing. Nihlus 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Information icon Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Following Nihlus to Rich's page to make a wild accusation about his motivations is clearly inappropriate. Please do not do it again. ~ Rob13Talk 17:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BU Rob13: Well, its not me who is doing harassment but Nihlus definitely does just that. Don't know why its again my fault. :(--Biografer (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't mind a word from me, I think there's been a bit of misunderstanding and stress here today. Might I suggest just forgetting about Wikipedia for the rest of the day and relaxing with something else? Sleeping on a problem can make you feel much better about it in the morning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Thanks, but can you tell the same thing to Nihlus? In fact, I think I can warn him with that too.--Biografer (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, don't, you should just keep away for now - that was the point of my suggestion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were specifically advised to not do what you just did. I highly recommend you take Boing! said Zebedee's advice and take a break from the wiki before you get yourself blocked. Nihlus 18:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: First, I just did. Second I think his tone need to be dealt with too. I believe that its unfair to tell one editor to go, and another to stay and continue harassing (if not me, then Rich for sure). I don't understand why a newcomer is the one to blame? I didn't went to his talkpage and started this tirade. He was solely responsible for it. First, I got accused of welcoming vandals (how do I know who is who), now I am a harasser (and the first one to go). I wanted to contribute to this project in a civil way, just like everyone else.--Biografer (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm trying to help you and stop you getting yourself blocked, as that is likely if you continue with the harassment accusations. Sleep on it, and when I have some spare time tomorrow I'll examine the whole thing and try to advise. But let me be blunt - stop this now, or I will block you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, till tomorrow then?--Biografer (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might not be until late tomorrow as I have a busy day, so I'll say goodbye until then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Let me know when you will arrive and go over the matter since its rather contagious (if its appropriate to say that).--Biografer (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I have a few things to deal with now, but I should be free in 2 or 3 hours time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Biografer, thanks for the advice as I'm just starting out. I have a question about the page I'm starting on. The wiki profile box that appears to the right in google listings hasn't appeared for this page as it does for all wiki pages I've seen. Is there something that needs to be corrected? Pamela carrington (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pamela Carrington: Same here. It have something to do with Internet Explorer.--Biografer (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pamela Carrington: The information box that google displays is constructed by google, often using Wikipedia, but also using other sources, including direct input by those using the search engine. We have little or no control over what content Google chooses to pull to place in their results without directly contacting someone at Google, which we have needed to do in the past when they have captured a particularly badly vandalized version of an article and used it for their content. GMGtalk 12:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{ping|Biografer}} Thanks for the feedback - In this instance would you contact google or should I? Pamela carrington (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sleep > Wikidrama. Try it some time

Do you really want to get blocked? I can expedite that for you! Cheers:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been preached enough by different editors and whatever the heck you do, I don't expect you to welcome globally-locked LTAs.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging There'sNoTime.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who else am I not allowed to greet? He wasn't abusive to me. And he raised my spirits, what's wrong with that?--Biografer (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You reply, without even going through the policies cited by me in the edit-summary of this edit, is the exact reason why you shall be blocked, until and unless you manage to read about our various policies, competent enough to understand them and learn to abide by the advice preached by several long-standing editors.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know what? Being long-standing editor is one thing, but being polite and assuming good faith (which you don't) is quite another. If you believe that a block will solve this, then you are wrong. Another user told me here that no harm is done if I will welcome someone who is an apparent vandal. Why then everybody suppose to gang up on me here, if there is no harm? And yes, I did read your policies on LTA and so on and tell you what... My opinion, while I do understand your ego to keep everyone against each other on this project (just because you are a long-term editor (in my opinion, more like a long-term abuser)) doesn't mean that you should vigorously remove a non-offensive content.--Biografer (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I was pinged - you all need to cool off -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Biografer. Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 17:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry it's taken me longer than I intended to get round to trying to help you (and I'm sorry I didn't get here before that AN report happened). I don't want to focus too much on the past now, but looking back I can see how you would feel rather confused and frustrated. I don't actually think there's anything there that could be judged as actionable harassment, though I'd say I see mixed messages (and some over-the-top comments), and I think all sides could have been more receptive to friendlier interaction - I do I think everyone was acting in good faith, but I'm expecting to see the confrontational approach softened now (y'all hear?)

Anyway, what I want to do more is think about how to prevent future problems, so I'll explain what I do when it comes to welcoming new editors and will offer a few suggestions.

  • Firstly, I never welcome new users before they have made any edits - the consensus seems to be that that's a waste of time and resources. I've no idea why, but the great majority of users who register an account here never make any edits, and there's really no reason to create an account if you're not going to do that - but that's the way it is. So I think that's a good first rule of thumb - don't welcome users who have not made any edits.
  • The next issue is welcoming users whose first acts are ones of vandalism. I know you have been told not to do that, but I don't think there's any rule or consensus that says you shouldn't - in fact, as I said at WP:AN, I frequently do it myself, though it is with some prior thought. I approach it by looking at the new user's edits. If they're really nasty vandalism, I'll just revert and warn and leave no welcome - there are some cases where I don't think it pays to give mixed messages.

    But if it's just the kind of "ooh, look what I've just changed" vandalism that many young people are tempted to do, I'll give them a standard warning (usually just a level-1 warning using Twinkle) and then I will also add a welcome. In such cases I want to convey two messages - both "You're welcome here if you want to contribute constructively" and also "but there will be consequences if you deliberately damage the encyclopedia". It's a kind of carrot and stick approach, and if it convinces only one in 10, or even only 1 in 100, to come over to the good side and help us, I think that's a win. And it's almost no effort - as I'm already at their talk page, it's only 2 more clicks to add a standard welcome message (which Twinkle puts at the top of the page).

  • I've looked over your welcoming of the past couple of days, and I don't see any real problems. At User talk:Lobbyists4Good you perhaps didn't spot that it's a promotional user name, but that's easily missed and there's no harm done - someone else spotted it and blocked them. I also note that at a couple, eg User talk:Chris Paul, the user had made an inappropriate edit. But nothing that bad, and I think the net result at User talk:Chris Paul was a good one - a welcome plus a level-1 warning, giving them both the messages as I often do. Perhaps that's something you might think about - have a look at the user's edits in case a warning is appropriate too.
  • While we're on the subject of warning people, it's usually pretty much standard to give a low-level warning first (even if they have made several edits) and then only escalate warnings if the problematic behaviour continues - it's up a warning level per warning, not per edit. While the full set of warnings is not mandatory, doing it like that increases the chances of success should you subsequently need to report to WP:AIV, where reports are often rejected if the standard set of warnings is not used. (There are cases where the full four warning system can be bypassed, but I think we should leave that for now.)

Anyway, I hope that all makes sense, and I'd like to hear what you think of it.

(If anyone who has had issues with Biografer in the past is watching this, can I politely request that you do not join in here but instead leave it to me. If you think I'm missing anything or disagree with anything being said, please feel free to come over to my talk page to discuss it. And Biografer, I also suggest you stick to here and don't join in on any other users' talk pages if you see any related discussion on any. I'm asking this because I really do think that a bit of space between Biografer and those who have been in conflict here would be a very good thing at this time.)

Wow, that's far more words than I'd intended :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) A suggestion, if I may? Twinkle's Welcome option has a section called "Problem user welcome templates", which can be used to welcome users, while at the same time letting them know that their edits may not meet our guidelines. Personally, I have found them useful for new users that seem to be making test edits and the like; it's less "bitey" than leaving a warning. Though I also like Boing! said Zebedee's suggestion of leaving both a welcome and a level-1 warning. In any case, I hope you find this useful Face-smile.svg Happy editing! –FlyingAce✈hello 00:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's definitely a good alternative. I tend not to use them myself, but a lot of people do and they are good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, it makes perfect sense. The problem is, is that while I am saving a page after previous revert, sometimes vandals continue to remove content, resulting into an edit conflict. I of course can open 2 windows (one for article reverts and the other (a user talkpage) for warnings), but sometimes ClueBot does the warning before I will get there which then discourages me to put that warning myself. Ending up with me just welcoming an unsuspected vandal and getting rather angry users on my talkpage.--Biografer (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandbox Question[edit]

Would someone please tell me what I should do with my sandbox? I am new to the Wikipedia but I am trying to fit in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1696 (talkcontribs) 14:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @User1696: Good day sir, a sandbox is a place where you write your article before it can go into main space. You can of course write it in main space but if might get deleted and therefore you will need to start over again. This feature allows you to write an article without fear. For more info please look at WP:Sandbox. Thank you.--Biografer (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, that's a good answer. It's a good place for early drafts of an article that would not yet be sufficiently well developed to be kept in main space. So when you're getting together your list of sources, working out the format of the article, etc, your sandbox is a great place to do it. It's also a handy place for trying things out, like templates and things, to see how they work before you use them in main space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Thank you for telling me about the sandbox! User1696 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User1696: No problem. Feel free to ask anything your want. I will be more then happy to walk you through many kinks of this project.--Biografer (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I put the thing about the sandbox on my talk page before I looked on your talk page and I forgot to delete the question on my talk page. User1696 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Troll names[edit]

As an FYI, the type of troll username found here follows a pattern of a common troll, and was blocked by Zzuuzz, who is a CheckUser, and if they had reason to believe it was an experienced user, they would have run the check. I know that you and Nihlus are not on the best of terms, but as someone who is neutral in this spat, I really don't see any evidence that would get anywhere in an SPI. Its probably best to let this go for now, and remember, most regulars get trolled around here at some point: I've even been A7'd :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Thanks. I know that he was blocked by an experience admin/check user and it have nothing to do with me not liking Nihlus. I was trolled several times here, but non were as personal as this.--Biografer (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmmm, I am curious if @Zzuuzz: can provide me with details?--Biografer (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. This is the LTA user we discussed before at the admin board, if you can remember. They've been a vandal for quite some time, and it's quite possible they won't stop, or be stopped, in a hurry. They've focused on a few editors. This is trolling, my advice is to not respond in any way. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zzuuzz: If you will ping me to that specific discussion, I might be able to. I vaguely remember something... May I ask who else did they impersonate (other then me)?--Biografer (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Biografer, I won't link to the list of usernames per WP:DENY, but many of our high profile admins and editors have been targeted by this exact troll using a similar name and format of post. This is not any editor in good standing that you have interacted with. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, if that's who it was, yes - just ignore them, it's their own life they're wasting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here. There's literally hundreds, and it wouldn't do for me to start listing abusive usernames or people who have been targeted. Honestly, there is very little you can do about it, and that is precisely what you should do about it. Admins and checkusers do work behind the scenes in cases like this, but they are unfortunately not magicians. So the advice is to keep calm and carry on. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zzuuzz: Thanks for the tip, but user New OS system is rather standard in comparison to this. This is new, much new. If previous trolls were hitting me with various thanks for welcome (even before I welcomed them), then this one impersonates my username. Moreover, he even knew (and possibly followed) a discussion that was about me on AN/I.--Biografer (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no doubt that several prolific vandals and trolls, including this one, follow _everything_ on ANI and pick on users who are subject to any form of scrutiny or pressure. Here, one of their other usernames. And here's one on me Trust me, this is a long term troller. Personally, I think you also owe that other user an apology, or at least refrain in the future. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
big up Hustle7 (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Camila Estico[edit]

Hello, and thank you for repairing the recent edits to Camila Estico. That was more work than I was willing to do on the topic. :) A quick question though - the infobox lists her eye color as "white." Surely that can't be right. I didn't want to change it without speaking to you first, as I didn't want it to look like an edit war. Thank you for your time! Jessicapierce (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jessicapierce: Don't worry, I removed the eye color until further notice, and expanded section a bit. Obviously this article needs Early life section. As for the eyes, the photos show that they are chestnut, but I wont go with it until written confirmation. I also added residence with a ref (bringing the refs number to 6).--Biografer (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, sorry about the edit. I mistaked him with Greg Holland who just became a free agent... then I changed it back to Colorado Rockies... Andrewj27446 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andrewj27446: Its OK. WP:IAR. Basically, if you made a mistake, and you fixed it, there is no point to report to me (or anybody else) here.--Biografer (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the welcome/how should I get help with my draft?[edit]

Dear Biografer I have a draft of how I think my boss's bio should look but I need help with it because of conflict of interest and because I'm not sure where citations are needed. His current bio has very bad layout and puffy language: Peter Hotez Do I need to do a sandbox thing? Or should I put my draft into his talk page? Thanks in advance. Nwolf1470 Nwolf1470 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nwolf1470: My advice for you would be to start with a sandbox. OK, I seen what you did. You should have added references to the puffery to make it less puffy, but even there the refs should be from a reliable source.--Biografer (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AN/I Survey[edit]

Hi Biografer! Thanks for signing up to to take the AN/I survey. As you don't have email enabled, I am unable to send you the survey link. You can enable email in your preferences, or email me at and I can send it on to the address you use. Regards, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Rashtriya Hindi Mail[edit]

This is with reference to your comments about the Rashtriya Hindi Mail, books links are dead: Mass Media

@Biografer: Can I know if you are referring to book link: Google Books - this seems to be working. MyeraMishra (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

W3Newspaper MyeraMishra (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added more citations in deletion page. MyeraMishra (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello, Biografer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hockey stats[edit]

HEY! Don't worry, the discussion wasn't about you. Another editor was adding stats even though I asked them to stop 3 times. It just clutters up wiki and it makes it messy when us editors look at the history. From my understanding, there just seems to be a general consensus to wait unless that person got traded.

If you reply to this I might not see it for a few days as I am currently away from home.

Keep up the good editing! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to add that I totally see where you're coming from with the editing conflicts but I just follow consensus HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: And what seasons are now open to put the stats in? I mean, I found no info on your site that indicates that there is consensus regarding WP:Hockey. I even checked Season Article Drive (assuming it had to do with seasons). I also checked Consensus policy and found nothing that would even closely relate to the "consensus on Hockey" thing. Am I missing something?--Biografer (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I addded stats to an article someone quoted WP:Hockey to me and when people add stats in the middle of the season it is always undone bc it creates an editing mess in the history. I totally see you're POV and it would be nice to constantly update but wiki isn't meant to be up to the minute. As well, sometimes goals are reassigned a day later (Like Andreas Borgman's first goal) and so it messes up stats if that happens. I'd ask an admin about this but I just follow what previous and well established editors seem to be doing. I want to let you know that I don't care either way and it seems I was a little misinformed about policy. If you update stats I won't undo them until I've discussed this with an admin for more specific reasoning on the stats update policy.

HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I messaged admin NinjaRobotPirate. You can check it out on their talk page. Feel free to add anything.

HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also want to mention that the person I was talking about on my talk page just added the section 2017/18 and didn't add any stats which is why I deleted it. The onus is on them to provide stats and sources. Regardless, I think it would be smart to learn the exact policy HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Some policies on this site aren't written in stone (but they should).--Biografer (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're absolutely right. I didn't mean to make this some big thing but I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I dragged you into something bigger than you wanted it to be. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: I'm the same way, but rules which aren't written usually supported by WP:CIR, which is rather annoying, because it would be better if something like this would have been listed somewhere. Say for example, insert a consensus part on Hockey into WP:Consensus policy by referencing to the main article which is WP:Hockey. Because of those "unwritten" rules our project looses more editors to blocks for violating WP:CIR then to anything else. Confusion leads to frustration which in turn leads to "pacified" block. And because the unblock requests are also tricky (because you need to explain what you did wrong, not why the rules are tricky), chances that a person wont be unblocked no matter what he will do (a pity, if its a new editor). I for one know that WP:Football doesn't have this consensus thing, so editors edit the caps as soon as that player makes an appearance. I might be wrong though, but I seen some people editing caps of football during Manchester United vs Manchester City match of this year!--Biografer (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, I have some football players on my watchlist and their stats are updated right after the game. I guess I never questioned why hockey wasn't like that either. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: So, I need to assume conflict solved? :)--Biografer (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, sorry for the late reply I am away from home. So what I'm gonna do is just not undo hockey stats unless they are absolutely wrong. Thanks for being so patient during this! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for undoing all that I just did there earlier! — Wyliepedia 21:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CAWylie: Look, I am sorry if it happened but there was an edit conflict which happened immediately I finished fixing dead links. Sorry if it aggravated you.--Biografer (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All thanks goes to you - Biografer[edit]

Hi, @Biografer I just wanted to say thanks for all that. By the way, I'm just new over here and I guess I might need your help every time when I'm tryin to make-up an article / page. But if you're willing to help me out, be my guest. Okay Gontle Galefite (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Gontle Galefite (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gontle Galefite: Yes, I will be more then happy to help you. What are you planning to write about? Like, what are your interests?--Biografer (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National Broadband Plan (Botswana)[edit]

Hi, @Biografer I want to write about the National Broadband Plan of the country of Botswana and even the digital terrestrial of ISDB-T of the same country again. Are you able to access my current articles? I just want to know. Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gontle Galefite: Yep. Draft:ISDB-T in (Botswana) as I assume?--Biografer (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check the things[edit]

@Biografer can you check the things that I wrote, correct or not and please add something at the External links Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gontle Galefite:  Done All is good. I added some external links, but there is a problem (on the Internet part) The Guardian Link (probably because its the Botswana branch), doesn't open. I tried to send it via web archive with no avail. But BOCA is a good ref (and can be used as such), so is The Guardian (if it will work properly).--Biografer (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Super fast - Biografer![edit]

Wow, @Biografer you're super fast. By the way, thanks for that. May God be with you. Look you can at least try to add some things right there, be my guest. Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Gontle Galefite (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


this is sam, i am blogger by hobby and contributor. I found few primary source articles from English based news papers about this Non profit organization online while searching for educational scholarships online. Thought of creating a page for this V adept energy organization for their charitable work and society contribution.

below links look very reliable primary source. the news papers links such as The Hindu, deccan chronicle and telangana today are ranked top on the web there are more than 20+ news articles from various national papers have published about this non profit organization. what do you think ? cheers. thumbs . BTY i am trying to make this article better. appreciate your support.Biografer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satish1947 (talkcontribs) 22:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Satish1947: Well, first of all, thanks for writing this article! Second, I would appreciate if you would stop shouting and turn off your caps lock. Third, if I will be you, I would stop canvassing, and focus on improving the article. Lastly, to prevent further deletion, use a sandbox. Friendly note: Don't shout and don't canvass and you will be fine. I checked your article. The sources are reliable, and there is only one Delete vote. But, even if they (Wikipedians) do delete it, no sweat, you can always recreate it, by first going through a sandbox (a link to which you will see above).--Biografer (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft Review[edit]

Hello, Biografer! I see you've edited the WP article for Studio71 recently. I run a paid editing service on Wikipedia called Mister Wiki and someone who I've been attempting to make an article for is one of their executives, Dan Weinstein. Would you be open to reviewing a draft that I've had ready for some time? Articles for Creation is pretty backlogged and figured this would be my best shot at expediting it even a tiny bit. Would be much appreciated and happy to help you back on Wikipedia in any way I can. JacobPace (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just out of curiosity, JacobPace, what makes your drafts more important than the other 2200 drafts pending review? Primefac (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Reply[reply]
@JacobPace: I will see if I can find sources for Dan. :)--Biografer (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, the sources indicate nothing of importance. By searching news via Google I found that he is only briefly mentioned in Variety, The VideInk (not a reliable source), and Tubefilter (another unrealiable source). Variety is reliable when it comes to movies (as far as I know), but the other two, I am hearing for the first time. I will ping @Primefac: to ask his opinion of my analysis.--Biografer (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with your analysis of the sources. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow - thanks so much, Biografer. I really appreciate you taking the time to look into this. Here's actually the draft that was mocked up if you wanna quickly skim it over and give me your two cents. Primefac - I understand how it might come off as that, and to be honest it doesn't make a different waiting "approximately two months", but I read about WP:CAN and I assume any editor (paid or not) is free to do the same so long as they don't spam the community. And the fact that Biografer took the time out of his day to help me I am very grateful for. JacobPace (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JacobPace: Actually, by looking at your draft, I have a 50/50 feeling that it might go through. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter refs (that talk a bit more about him and his life in general) might pass WP:GNG. But, if it wont, it wont be yours or my faults (I have 0 influence on consensus). :) So, my advice, keep your hopes up, if it will go through (YAY!) and if not there are plenty of stuff that you can still help us with. Some executives (paid or not) help us here with updating their companies' revenues (and its only them who know it).--Biografer (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome! I'm not trying to push my agenda or anything, but any tips to speed it up or should I just wait? And yes, I do plan on creating a legitimate alternate account for good-faith edits once I wrap up a couple projects. JacobPace (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JacobPace: Yeah, you just need to wait. Two months is not that long, and there is a chance that it might be sooner then later. Keep in mind that time is approximately 2 months. They might come to it sooner, depending on how many other articles they have and how goodly or badly they are written. Keep your hopes up, though. :)--Biografer (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amazing, thank you! If you don't mind, could you quickly give me your thoughts on this one as well? That's it and I promise I won't bother you anymore lol. JacobPace (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JacobPace: Wow! This... ...quite... ...impressive!.. Now, this will past both WP:GNG and BLP:Entertainers. Happy writing!--Biografer (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You rock. Thanks! JacobPace (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please, check this diff again. Where did I remove sourced material, rather than rearrange the relevant references a bit more rationally? Thanks. (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ There is no reason to check it again. Your edit was reverted by a previous editor, and that is enough for me to judge what you did. Perhaps, the other editor have his own opinion on your "rational reference rearrangement". Pinging @Beyond My Ken: for verification.--Biografer (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you should have - ref #1 to Nazi conscience has been overlooked in the previous discussion. (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Perhaps. But then explain to me if you rearranged something why it said "-82 bites". Obviously you removed something, otherwise the bite amount would be 0. PS: That's why I am pinging the other editor, so that we both can discuss it here. Maybe it will turn out that you are right. :)--Biografer (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ya know, Biografer, you may have pointed out to me one of the unconscious reasons why I don't really like editing on wikipedia - nuances are not carried over via talk pages as well as if we were discussing it in person. Since this is also part of the reason why I get irritated when discussing edits with other people, I wish to thank you for this; things might well get a little bit easier from now on.
Now, to the point, and on this BMK may very well disagree with me - I should probably have brought it to Der Stürmer's talk page. First paragraph of the lede has two references. One to "Nazi conscience" for the first sentence and one to "Historische Lexicon Bayerns" for the next three, repeated each sentence. According to BMK, this is perfectly allowable, and I have no reason to contradict him. I do find it redundant, though, and you can find this on the page's talk. Another objection by BMK is that a single ref at the end of a paragraph implies it supports the whole paragraph. Here, we disagree - there's the "conscience" ref after the first sentence. It makes for a cleaner first paragraph if two of the "Bayerns" refs are removed and only the last is kept.
Similarly, for the first paragraph in the "Nazi attitudes towards the paper" section. (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Some references can be used multiple times, there is no policy against it.--Biografer (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm aware of that, and if done intelligently I'd welcome it. This case, however, seems one of "simple" working better. (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've looked over the material again, and I've reversed my opinion. I now think that the additional references aren't necessary given the way the paragraphs are structured. I'll send a note to the editor who originally made the changes, and post my revised comment on the talk page. I'm going to head over there, restore the REPCITE changes, but, of course, leave the author that Biografer added. Thanks to both of you for bringing this to my attention again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Thank you for pointing it out in a civil manner. I think you right are after all. :) And as I can see discussion was worth it. I would like to thank @Beyond My Ken: separately for rational rethinking and doing revisions, as well as notification to the previous editor about his "right of mind".--Biografer (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Thanks to the two of you for the same. (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the welcome?[edit]

Well, dear Wikipedian, you've just welcomed me as a new user, I certainly would thank you … except that I have been editing Wikipedia for years. Maybe you'd like another barnstar, but please earn it honestly.


--5915961t (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@5915961t: Sorry, but then explain to me why you have 2 accounts?--Biografer (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uh, I don't understand: I edit mainly in French Wikipedia, but in other languages too, with the same pseudonym; I never opened a second account, so I'm quite as puzzled by your question as I was by your intervention …


--5915961t (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@5915961t: Because there is a user under the same name as you sign your comments: Cordialement The user is inactive though and his talkpage is blank. With that said, that might clear the puzzlement a bit for you, but not for me.--Biografer (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is clear you are still not paying attention when attempting to welcome users. 5915961t has been editing here for years. Nihlus 06:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now a new bug, or a new error from yours? « Cordialement, » is something like “Yours truly”, but less formal; so there is NO user of that name to be pinged! And I doubt there's an other user with my own pseudonym, which is:

Yours truly,

--5915961t (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nihlus: It is clear that majority of editors that I welcomed in the past months were good editors. Just yesterday I reverted a bad faith edit by someone. So, I am getting a hang of it. :) Also, this was the only editor who's contributions I overlooked. I looked at the current article that he was editing, it was good contribution, so I welcomed him.--Biografer (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@5915961t: Sorry, for bad faith at first, but I didn't knew what Cordialement meant until you mentioned it.--Biografer (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I don't see any bad faith, and prefer to be welcomed than … reverted  :–)

Nice continuation to all! Cordialement,

--5915961t (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Percy Bland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Compton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a guestion[edit]

Hi. I would like to ask you to publish my first article? Cholek12 (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cholek12: Which is about what?--Biografer (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Check my contributions. I created only one article. Cholek12 (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why did you delete that awards? Cholek12 (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cholek12: Sorry, its called edit conflict.--Biografer (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cholek12: Now its back: Draft:Andrzej M. Chołdzyński--Biografer (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, my friend. Cholek12 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Biografer! Hope you're doing well. I recently took some time to improve my proposed draft for Datari Turner and I just wanted to see if you had any feedback for me? Also, regarding its salting, is there any way for that to be removed? Thank you for all the help! JacobPace (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @JacobPace: As you probably know quite well, desalting an article requires Admin intervention. Quite frankly, after the recent Arbitration case, you would be pretty hard pressed to find any active admin who would be too keen on helping a Mister Wiki employee. I hope, for your sake, that I am wrong. -- Dolotta (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Dolotta. I too hope the admin looking over the draft can look at it with an open mind and open heart as well. JacobPace (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JacobPace: I too have an issue with it being salted, but unfortunately salting cannot be removed (even for a person who have no connection to the subject, like myself). The admins here like it to be their way and there is a reason for it.--Biografer (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. I guess I was asking more if you had any suggestions for the draft to have the best chance of success (its notability, structure, writing, etc.) seeing as you work on a lot of biographies on Wikipedia. Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to join Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.41% of English Wikipedia's biographies).
  • Our priorities for February:

Black women Mathematicians and statisticians Geofocus: Island women #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ipigott: What's the difference between this and WikiProject Women?--Biografer (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red is specifically targeted at creating articles on women and their works while WP Women is a more traditional WikiProject covering women in general. At WiR, we are particularly interested in improving the gender balance on the English Wikipedia where only 17.4% of all biographies are on women.--Ipigott (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, question about the page Hazarajat[edit]

Hi, on the wikipedia page "Hazarajat", under the title "Ethnic Group", are you sure that Hazara people formed 28% of Afghanistan population? Based on world population review afghanistan population, the Hazara people only have 9% population. Therefore, can you edit the page"Hazarajat", under the title "Ethnic Group"? I don't know how to cite page. I can't find any page that said Hazara people formed 28% of Afghanistan population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Try to find a source that claims that "Hazara people only have 9% population". As for citing, check this helpful instruction out: Citation.--Biografer (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI -- IPs can't receive pings. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dolotta: Never knew it. But then, what is the point behind their talkpage existence? Just to drop warnings and block templates? Can an IP editor ask for an unblock or is that too is unlikely function?--Biografer (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know the particulars since I am not a programmer and have no wish to be. All I know is that for some weird, strange reason, the software does not allow IPs to receive pings. There is a check box on the notifications tax in your preferences where you can get notified if a mention (ping) is not successful. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the welcome[edit]

Greetings! Thank you for your message to me. I've been using Wikipedia for years and have found it to be invaluable. I give an automatic monthly donation to Wikipedia to help and so I don't feel guilty using it almost every day! ;-)

Although I've been a user for years, I've never written an article and I've only ever made minor edits to articles. I don't know how (there's so much to learn) so I thank you for the information you sent to me. Cheers! Starsmark (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Starsmark: You are welcome! Many people who are editing Wikipedia on daily basis and used to receive a welcome message from me after a decade of usage was rather ungrateful for it, but I am glad that at least you are different. As for donations, don't brag about it too much. I personally don't give them a dime for this reason alone. After this issue it became uncertain if the money go anywhere but to the founder's pocket who uses it for personal gain (and who knows what they are). On the other hand, yes, it is invaluable when it comes to sharing of knowledge. Great tool for that matter. However, if you decide to write an article feel free to leave me a message here and I will be glad to help!--Biografer (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't bragging. I only meant to convey how highly I value Wikipedia and how often I use it, which is almost every day. I don't care who pays and who doesn't. Honestly, sometimes I feel everything I say or write is misunderstood and criticized. Starsmark (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Starsmark: Same here. Just look at the above discussions and you wont feel alone.--Biografer (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks For The Info And The Welcome[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to welcome me and sending me some helpful links on creating and editing. Much appreciated. Andianajones (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi how are you doing Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Well, hello. What do you need?--Biografer (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need to ask you something Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Do you have Skype, because if its private, we can chat there?--Biografer (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No I don't have skype Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I just tell you what I need Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Feel free. What do you want to ask me?--Biografer (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok so you have been here for a while and how do I create an article Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biografer are you going to answer my question Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: What do you want to write about?--Biografer (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Darth Tenebrous Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Seems notable. OK, so first you need to read this link: It will tell you how to write an article in general.--Biografer (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biografer I Just reed the link words so do I start Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Yes. Theoretically, you can start at anytime but I just decided to give you a link so that you would know how to write.--Biografer (talk)

@Biografer So I summited the draft a few minutes ago what do I do now Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Just wait. It might take a month or two before they will read it. If its not notable enough or if its a blatant hoax, they might reject it. I don't have authority over that though. :)--Biografer (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biografer how many articles have you created Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Does it matter? 69 in total. Why?--Biografer (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biografer so you have creating acticle experience Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biografer so they declined my request what do I do now Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roman Reigns Fan 75: Write something else, or rewrite it with better sources.--Biografer (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biografer ok I’ll create something new tomorrow because it 10:13 were I live Roman Reigns Fan 75 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that it needs to be said since the editor above has been blocked as a sock puppet, but I feel the need to explain to you, Biografer, that no, an article on Darth Tenebrous is not notable... I don't know how you came to that conclusion but you are incorrect. --Tarage (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tarage: According to this search it is. IGN talks about him, Vulture does too. Like, look, I don't know what are the WP:GNG for characters, but if those two sites do mention him, there is a reason for it.--Biografer (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Writers have struggled with them in canonical and quasi-canonical Star Wars spinoff stories ever since: There was a tale having to do with mapping the Jedi genome; an in-universe manual talked about how rock creatures without organic cells might interact with midi-chlorians; and some dude named Darth Tenebrous created things called maxi-chlorians, about which the less is said, the better." You have to read the sources. Not included in any movies, maybe included and worth mentioning in the appropriate book article, not notable enough to have their own article. Just because you can google a name of someone doesn't mean they are notable. Hell, you can google my real name and get results, but I am not notable. --Tarage (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tarage: How exactly would I Google your real name if we all use aliases on Wikipedia?--Biografer (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't. It's an example. The point is, he's not notable. Fan wikis cover it well enough. --Tarage (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bad example, if you would ask me, but o' well.--Biografer (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page[edit]

How can I create a talk page? I found a page without a talkpage (, how do I add one? 2Joules (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@2Joules: Depends on what subject is that talkpage belongs to? Wikipedia have many topics and as many taskforces. Creating talkpages is simple and complicated thing to do at the same time. It is rare when an article's talpage is empty. Usually, bots create talkpages here (except for user talkpages) by using various templates. Such example you will see here. Eventually, we as editors fill it in as you will see in my edit here. If its a bio, you can just copy and paste it. If its an animal, you need to create a different one, and in that you need to create one for each family. I hope, this will clear up some of the mess that you asked me to clear. :-)--Biografer (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Biografer: Thank you. I tried to see the wiki text of some talk pages but it was not clear to me if we just copy a template and then other information is taken care of or if we add the wikicode manually and all talk pages falling under a main umbrella subject are just the same. I can see now that the later is truer. Thank you again for helping. 2Joules (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a little puzzled you marked this as a test p. There's a long Russian article, and you're a native speaker. And he is a full member of ANUSSR. I marked it for expansion. DGG (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DGG: I was puzzled by the way that somebody wrote one sentence and used WorldCat as a main ref. That's why I assumed it was a test page. PS: I have expanded the article though, check it out: Boris Arbuzov (chemist).--Biografer (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you really think not notable is a valid reason for speedy deletion, you should never nominate anything for deletion, period. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oiyarbepsy: If you would look at the article's talkpage, you would see that reason why I did that wasn't my idea.--Biografer (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from that talk page[edit]

      • You are contradicting yourself, @Oiyarbepsy:. On one hand you say that I had actually PRODed this as original research, but on the other hand you are telling me that original research and not notable are not ever reasons for speedy delete, ever. According to CSD policy this article falls under 3 criteria which it meets: G11 - because (the last line of it al least) indicates that it is promotional. A7 - No indication of importance (not notable, in my language) - because its unsourced. And finally, A10 - because it does duplicates the same info that talks in LALR article only expands on it a hair bit. Seems like, like my PROD was in fact justified, but I wont object a redirect or merge for that matter. Just wanted to explain this to user Oiyarbepsy somehow.--Biografer (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • G11 means that a complete rewrite would be required to make it non-promotional - in this case, the only action required is to remove that last sentence, so this speedy delete does not apply. The article clearly demonstrates significance as an algorithm that is widely used in computer science, and besides, this subject is not on the limited list of what can be deleted under A7. A10 only applies if there to new articles that don't expand on the other topic (and you admit that it does) and only to titles that aren't credible redirects. Therefore, none of the claimed speedy deletion criteria apply to this article. Speedy deletion is only applicable to cases where there is literally no doubt or questions, not to articles about technical subjects where users aren't certain whether it is original research or not or how different it is from other topics on Wikipedia. My initial PROD was justified at the time, but your Speedy was never justified by any stretch of the imagination. You need to learn the speedy criteria better and use them correctly, instead of twisting the criteria to see right after you've already got it wrong. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • And, reading your post again, it seems you don't understand the difference between PROD and speedy delete. You should not be working in speedy deletion if you don't know the difference. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • @Oiyarbepsy: Just got it. PROD is Proposing Deletion and Speedy Deletion means that no discussion is necessary which in this case should have been applied. :(--Biografer (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm really curious why on earth you assessed the Tatyana Makarova article as a stub. It was over 7,000 bytes, many paragraphs, had infobox, wikilinks, images, is not an orphan, etc...What is missing, what needs to be improved? While ratings are subjective, tagging articles like that one as a stub just clog up to-do lists and stub categories with articles that are not as desperately in need of improvement as 1-2 paragraph machine translated articles without sources that don't have infoboxes. I mean, with articles like this that are true stubs that require translation from the corresponding Russian article, what good is it to tag longer articles that don't have nearly as much room for improvement?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PlanespotterA320: I apologize for my mistake. Indeed, it suppose to be a C, but it still ranks as Start. :(--Biografer (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the reason some templates still list as start is because you did not fill out the B-class checklist (it's this:

<!-- B-Class checklist -->
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = y/n
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = y/n
| b3 <!--Structure --> = y/n
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = y/n
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = y/n
) Hope this helps.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I recommend reading Wikipedia:Twinkle as it contains install instructions ("Getting started: To enable Twinkle on your account and receive any future updates automatically, you can simply enable the "Twinkle" gadget in the Gadgets section of your Preferences page.") and links to other documentation. --NeilN talk to me 20:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soviet Aviation Task Force invite[edit]

Hi! As a member of the Russian Wikipedia, would you please consider joining the Soviet Aviation Task Force and perhaps tackling some of the items on our to-do list? One of our most valuable members, Ftxs, was blocked over some issue with a Syrian civil war article, so now our progress is much slower. Many of the articles on our to-do list are biographies, which you seem very fond of and as you are a native Russian speaker we could really use your help. Thank you, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)