User talk:Bruhpedia
Welcome Bruhpedia!
I'm Walrus Ji, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, Walrus Ji (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Disambiguation link notification for January 15
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adlai Stevenson IV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adlai Stevenson. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Edit summaries
[edit]Don't forget to leave WP:Edit summaries. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Vincent Icke moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Vincent Icke, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 26
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stevenson family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adlai Stevenson.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
List of cities in Africa by population
[edit]Hello,
Before coming to call me an Egyptian propagandist check the sources used. I simply relied on this site https://populationstat.com/africa/ https://populationstat.com/egypt/cairo. This page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinshasa also relied on this site for the number https://populationstat.com/democratic-republic-of-the-congo/kinshasa and this site also indicates that Kinshasa is second. Somebody040404 (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
July 2021
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Rickrolling, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use your sandbox instead. Thank you. Idell (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
"Holy ejaculation" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Holy ejaculation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 9#Holy ejaculation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CosmoPop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Gabriel of Urantia for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel of Urantia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
wizzito | say hello! 02:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Vincent Icke
[edit]
Hello, Bruhpedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vincent Icke".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 11:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Star of Arkansas moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Star of Arkansas, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Okay good I made the new redirect then saw that I'd been mistaken about its suitability and couldn't figure out how to delete it. Bruhpedia (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- No worries, in the future you can simply add {{db-self}} to the article's wikitext to request deletion of a page you created. You should probably do this for the draft if you don't plan on developing it. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
March 2023
[edit] Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia, and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Trumpkin. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use your sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write.
—VeryRarelyStable 00:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- That was a serious edit! Trumpkin is homophonous with Trump-kin, which is a phrase I've heard used to describe the Trump Family, not to mention Glenn Youngkin. This is a real problem! Bruhpedia (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
you violated the 1RR at Palestinian Bedouin. Kindly self revert. nableezy - 23:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! Please clarify, as this doesn't seem to be the case. We each made one reversion. So I just made one. Bruhpedia (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Your initial removal was a revert as well. nableezy - 02:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- That was a new edit, not a reversion to anything. Bruhpedia (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- A revert is any edit that reverses in part or in whole another edit. When you erase entire sentences you are reversing another edit. nableezy - 06:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. I wasn't reverting any one edit. I added and removed stuff, like any other edit. Not every deletion is a reversion. In any case, someone synthesized the edits, which was the optimal outcome. Bruhpedia (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- A revert is any edit that reverses in part or in whole another edit. When you erase entire sentences you are reversing another edit. nableezy - 06:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- That was a new edit, not a reversion to anything. Bruhpedia (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Your initial removal was a revert as well. nableezy - 02:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Acknowledging receipt
[edit]Hi Bruhpedia! Thanks for your note. I don't have time right now to reply, but hope to be able to do solkater today. Regards, Technopat (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi again! Sorry 'bout that... sometimes work gets in the way!
- Regarding the use of the image of an internationally recognised symbol of solidarity with victims of domestic violence and a call to action to end this violence, I don't see what the issue is. If hovering the mouse over the infobox or any other image on an article page produces an unclear idea of what it represents (I'm taking for granted that doing so also produces the corresponding alt text, but I haven't had time to check that one out), the user has the option of looking for further clarification. But we're clearly dealing with an image that is a "natural and appropriate representation[s] of the topic", as per MOS:LEADIMAGE, certainly not a "potentially offensive image", as per MOS:OMIMG. Nor is it something that could enter into conflict with anything in WP:DISC.
- As for your last point, regarding it being a "personal and controversial subject", I understand that some people may generally disagree with the use of the purple ribbon as a symbol against domestic violence, possibly due to differing views on how to best address the issue. I guess some may feel that focusing on a single symbol is too simplistic in that it doesn't adequately represent the complexities of domestic violence. Others may have personal experiences with domestic violence that make them uncomfortable with even dealing with the issue. Be that as it may, it is a simple symbol to raise awareness of this important issue and encourage people to take action to prevent it. But that is not the function of Wikipedia; we're here to ensure, among other things, that WP:NPOV prevails. And I reckon that deleting said symbol would be a clear violation that particular pillar. --Technopat (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I do have some concerns with the ribbon being the lead image.
- It's a symbol, rather than a representation. A Wikipedia reader is accessing articles to learn about the subject matter. The image should tell them something about the subject matter. MOS:LEADIMAGE introduces the concept of lead images as follows: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." This is not a representative image and does not give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.
- It's just an image of a ribbon that some people have decided to adopt as a symbol of solidarity for domestic abuse victims, though at least as many have used it to stand with the victims of pancreatic cancer, and still more have used to raise awareness of Alzheimer's. The article for purple ribbon lists eleven causes this shade of purple is used to raise awareness of, and another seven that use various other shades of purple. As such, I don't think it is a "natural and appropriate representation of the topic," and it does not "illustrate the topic specifically", which is the core requirement in MOS:LEADIMAGE.
- My concern on the last point was that someone may had made the call that any representation at all could be "triggering" and therefore "harmful" to survivors, and so made the lead image this euphemistic symbol that neither provides any information about the topic nor depicts it, instead signaling a vague "we stand with you." This is an inherently political statement and would violate WP:NPOV, both because the entire notion of harm from triggers is highly controversial and because, as unfortunate as it is, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and we should aim to avoid taking such anodyne and near-universal opinions as "domestic violence is bad" and "we should stand with survivors."
- I'm taking such a strong stance here because I'm worried about the precedent it sets. If we start relaxing our editorial standards on issues 99.9% of editors agree with, like domestic violence being bad, what about issues at 95? 80? The second we start curbing Wikipedia's core mission of serving as a repository of knowledge to take a stance on a universally-popular issue or to avoid making domestic abuse victims feel bad, we open the door to doing the same to the pages for Palestine or Israel. Everyone is perfectly justified in his own head, so we can't use a subjective standard. And, unfortunately, pedantic and unpopular calls like getting rid of the ribbon are part of that.
- That the ribbon is an "internationally recognized symbol of solidarity with victims of domestic violence and a call to action to end this violence" is persuasive but not dispositive; in light of all the other issues presented I think the image should be moved down even if this is the case. And, again, a "call to action" runs contrary to WP:NPOV, so, while we can lead with an image constituting one if it provides visual information about the topic, the call to action cannot be coming from us as editors, and I'd be especially concerned if that was part of the case for it.
- Again, this is an absurd, overpunctilious, legalistic point that's predicated on notions of objectivity rather than anything about the subject matter itself. (Domestic violence IS bad.) But I do think we should move the ribbon into the body, and replace it with a historical representation, such as a painting. Any photograph comes close to MOS:OMIMG.
- Bruhpedia (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi again! Let me start off by saying that I've only had time to read through your points very superficially and I have to say that you they are excellent and that, at least on a first reading, I agree with all of them. Except when I got to that very last bit... "and replace it with a historical representation, such as a painting.", which seems to me more likely to be "triggering" and therefore "harmful" to survivors", as you put it. I have to rush off now, but will go over your points again and, if necessary, reply. But in the meantime, fully agree with you ("pending review"). I guess the next step is to bring it up on the article talk page, get consensus on it (for better or for worse), to preempt future deletion/reposition war-editing. Cheers! Technopat (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Appreciate it! A painting was just an idea I threw out as perhaps less triggering than a photo, to balance the goals of representation/informing the reader while not being gratuitous—not super material to the underlying point.
- Bruhpedia (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi again! Let me start off by saying that I've only had time to read through your points very superficially and I have to say that you they are excellent and that, at least on a first reading, I agree with all of them. Except when I got to that very last bit... "and replace it with a historical representation, such as a painting.", which seems to me more likely to be "triggering" and therefore "harmful" to survivors", as you put it. I have to rush off now, but will go over your points again and, if necessary, reply. But in the meantime, fully agree with you ("pending review"). I guess the next step is to bring it up on the article talk page, get consensus on it (for better or for worse), to preempt future deletion/reposition war-editing. Cheers! Technopat (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)