This is an archive of past discussions with User:Equalwidth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey, would it be possible to know what the original research issues and non-free image use issues are there with the article ? -- Sohom (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
As for the original research, there are not enough sources for the article's length, so an automatic WP:NOR violation, and as for the non-free image use, it's something else also mentioned in the same criteria title. Equalwidth (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your quick-fail assessment here, I do not think the number of references has anything to do with the no original research guidelines and I believe that all the images are correctly tagged and have been released under the respective licenses by the authors as verified via VRT.
Also to my understanding while there are certain aspects that are not covered by the article and the prose is probably not to the best standard, I do not think it is far enough away to warrant a quick fail.
I would second this. I was surprised to see through watching the GA nominations page an article being failed and then re-nominated in such a short space of time, so I went to have a look, and this really does not strike me as an adequate review. I'm experienced at both writing and reviewing good articles, and it is not at all clear to me why you have marked this article as failing for instance criterion 2a ("it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline"), 2c ("it contains no original research": contrary to your statement above there is no rule that if an article does not contain some number of sources it is automatically original research, and at any rate it has what looks like a very reasonable number of inline references to me), and 6 (I have no idea what your objection is to the only image in the article, but it is tagged as being CC-BY-SA on Commons and the caption looks fine, so you really need to explain the issue if you are going to mark the article as failing on that criterion). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
And I would reply immediately with a fail for only meeting about 60% of GA rules instead of the required 100% which I'm sure the unrelated article Gundelia meets 100% of. Equalwidth (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I am failing to parse what you are saying. You still have not pointed out a valid flaw in the article yet you claim a over 60% deficiency in meeting the GA criteria (which imo still woukd not warrant a quick fail). Additionally, you point to Gundelia which has multiple citation needed templates, unreferenced areas, one lined sections, images with dubious authorship information (File:Gundelia_Tournefortii.jpg) and a complete lack of major contributions from your end (whch is required to nominate a article for GA) as a shining example of a article meeting 100% of the crieria. Sohom (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
No worries, feel free to work on Gundelia, the article seems interesting and it is definitely a great idea to bring it up to GA and increase the quality of our coverage of commonly found shrubs and trees :) Sohom (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Can you explain why my edits of the article on Roku OS have been reverted a short while ago? I am the author of this article (which was approved yesterday), and I don’t think my edits today were not constructive or grammatically poor or in violation of the Wikipedia policy. These are the three reasons mentioned in your messages on the edit revert and on my talk page, therefore mentioning them. Thank you. Vazival (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that the grammar is good enough for Wikipedia and I also think that they were disruptive and added source-less spam. Equalwidth (C) 06:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for promptly replying. I understand that each of my today edits of the “History” section was supported by a reliable, secondary source mentioned in [[WP:RSPSOURCES]], while agreeing that the “version history” section was based only on primary sources. Accordingly, are you comfortable with me making again the changes I made today to the “history” section? Vazival (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for replying promptly again. I am little confused however, and would like to rephrase my query for my better understanding.
What I said in the third comment of this discussion is that each of my today’s edits to the “History” section was supported by a reliable source as per WP:RSPSOURCES. Are you comfortable if I made all those changes again?
I am not referring to the “Version history” section here which was supported only by a primary source. I won’t be making these changes. Vazival (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you explain why won’t you accept information supported by reliable, secondary sources discussing the subject of the article? Vazival (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Each of the reference source for my today’s edits to the “history” section of Roku OS is marked as reliable on WP:RSPSOURCES. Can you clarify why you still call most of these sources as unreliable? Vazival (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Removing versus failing drive-by GA nominations
Hi, you are correct that removing a drive-by nomination isn't the same as failing it: the two actions are different, but the removal was in accord with policy.
"Nominators must have contributed significantly to the article and be familiar with its subject and cited sources. Reviewers have the discretion to remove any drive-by nominations they come across.{{efn|If the nominator is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, it can be uncontroversially considered a drive-by nomination.}}"
I note in passing that the article also contains "citation needed" tags and other wholly uncited paragraphs, so the immediately available alternative to removal is to fail the GAN. I've put a note similar to this on the article's talk page. I do hope this is clear. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a very short essay on notability and sources and that they shouldn't be a complete #1 priority when creating or editing articles. It is my first every user essay. Equalwidth (C) 10:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Providing sources should be a priority when adding content to Wikipedia, which is clearly stated at WP:No original research: To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.
While it is definitely possible to contribute to Wikipedia without adding sources by making minor edits that don't require them (such as copyedit or reverting vandalism), your essay suggests that editors are able to make significant contributions and simply let other editors find sources for them, which is also in direct contrast to Wikipedia guidelines.
As per WP:BURDEN, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. While other users are encouraged to find citations for unsourced material, they are by no means required to: Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.miranda:305:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
But why they are disruptive?, it is a piece of information that extends the article, you are asking for references, ok I will add them.--LaGuairabeach (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
No, my English is not that bad as you say, you just want me not to edit, because I improve a lot the Latin American articles, and as long as I can add very good references that attest the images and the information, then it is correct, you are the first person that has told me that my English is bad, and nobody corrects me, they just fixed other things, so it can be understood, and I will try not to be redundant as you say, I have the right to edit.--LaGuairabeach (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Extends the argument as to why they are disruptive, and I will try to correct it, but I will add the information and images with its references, as long as they are truthful.--LaGuairabeach (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I have added information in several articles, with the help of an administrator, and he did not tell me anything, but he told me how to correct templates of references that I added, nobody tells me what you say, so I think you are inventing so I do not edit. I have written in many social networks alike and nobody tells me that, I am sure that my English is acceptable and very understandable, you just say excuses without telling the truth.
And I'm sorry, I'm not going to continue because it's too late, tomorrow I'll add what I have to add, without hurting anyone or damaging wikipedia, but rather I'm improving it, as far as certain articles are concerned, and that's the only thing that bothers you.--LaGuairabeach (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Not here, I have to get up in 4 hours and go to college classes, that scares me. And, friend, I hope you will let me continue, since you have no justifiable argument at all, when we know of a considerable veracity with references to what I added and you deleted me.--LaGuairabeach (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think your G10 nomination on Diomedio Villanueva was appropiate as while there was no inline reference, the 5th source in the general references section does provide grounds for the allegations (and moreover also goes on to acquit the subject). Appreciate you helping out with the NPP queue, but it would be nice for everyone involved if you were less trigger happy. Thank you, Fermiboson (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I don’t remember seeing any sources in the article. The article also has a negative tone all over it, and this means a CSG G10 violation! Equalwidth (C) 04:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
You are too late, but I did check in my initial nomination: It has no references at all, and that final paragraph of prose still seems negative. Equalwidth (C) 04:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, an admin has declined it, if you check the history. I will not (and cannot) remove a G10 tag on my own. Secondly, see [1] in the references section. There is a social cost to being overly aggressive in nominating pages for deletion, and as someone who has made similar mistakes in the past, I'd advise you don't continue doing so. And definitely stop reverting before an admin notices. Fermiboson (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
How is it possible to NOT violate the last one? This would test your prediction skills, and I make terrible predictions. Equalwidth (C) 04:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Equalwidth, to be deleted as a g10 attack page, it must be entirely negative (this isn't as it has information on his career as an officer) and be unsourced. The negative information should really be cited using footnotes but there were references for the negative information. For these reasons I declined the deletion. This does not mean that all the information belongs but that can be discussed rather than the page being deleted. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
That did apply to Diomedio Villanueva when I last read it, so please fix the negative tone or risk a complaint at PROD or AfD. Equalwidth (C) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Actually, now that I read through your talk page, you've had multiple people including admins ask you to chage your behaviour, tone down the aggression and hold off on maintenance tasks until you get a better understanding of policy. I understand that you think you are already familiar with it because you spent some time crawling the project space before the creation of the account; I did too when I first made the account. But even if you more experienced than the average 300 edit count editor, that does not mean you are actually experienced, as everyone on this talk page has been trying to tell you. Hell, I've made plenty of WP:BEFORE mistakes in the past month. So, I would like to ask you to consider to back off, copyedit some articles, vote in a few AfDs instead of nominating them, maybe ask for a mentor. I see in the "Please change your approach" section above that you have already attracted considerable ire, and I think it would be a shame to lose an editor like you as you clearly have lots of enthusiasm for the project. Fermiboson (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I have made three edits to the article so far and are looking for significant improvements to the article that have not been done yet from 25 November 2023 to 10 December 2023. The goal is for me to successfully promote it from a B-class to a Good Article. Equalwidth (C) 07:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Please change your approach
I've looked into the complaint submitted to me. While I don't think the issues have escalated to needing a block, I strongly recommend that you slow down and rethink your approach. I'm seeing a lot of poorly done nominations, that are largely drawing up opposition. I'd recommend taking more time to understand Wikipedia policies - your edits don't suggest a solid understanding of the basics. (Nor does your essay on "sources not being necessary", though anyone's technically free to write their own userspace essays, no matter how ill-conceived they may be.)
Anyways, my point is that, while I won't be taking any action on you today, the community generally loses patience for repeated bad edits/nominations. If you don't change your approach and brush up on policy, eventually you're going to find yourself in hot water with the community.
One other note: If you're complacent with leavings things at "not being good at finding sources", as the top of your talk page currently suggests, then you should not be participating in tasks that require searching for sources. So, for example, since AFD nominations should have a WP:BEFORE search done prior to nominations, if you're not willing to get better at searching for sources, you really shouldn't be nominating articles for AFD.
I can't force you to follow this advice, but I can say that you're unlikely to be a consistently good nominator without doing decedent BEFORE searches, and if you're repeatedly/frequently making bad nominations, you're likely to get yourself blocked or WP:TOPICBANed from doing it, so may as well be proactive about it. Sergecross73msg me16:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I could improve my source-finding abilities (That might be too easy so I will do that), and I will also read the policies and guidelines more in-depth than I already did. Equalwidth (C) 17:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm still a bit confused about your situation regarding using other accounts though. You haven't linked to any on this account. (Usually people mention it on their userpage. You've made edits alluding to Special:Contributions/Atlook also being yours, but that account hasn't made any edits. You keep alluding to being more experienced than this account would show, so I would assume you were referring to yet another account that you actually edited from? Sergecross73msg me13:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm growing rather concerned that this conversation is spanning many days without any resolution. I still don't know what the above comment is supposed to mean. Your userpage still doesn't disclose any alternate account names. You still haven't explained why you keep telling people you're not a new user. I don't particularly believe you when you say this is your first account. Your actions don't make it particularly likely either, as its not normal new editor behavior to be making edits like creating AFDs and rejecting edit requests on their second day of editing. Most editors wouldn't even know what these things are right off the bat like this. Its a dead giveaway. This is my final request to come clean and disclose your other account and have them disclosed somewhere clearly seen like your Userpage. Sergecross73msg me17:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
It’s simple: I developed understanding of most policies and guidelines around the start of August this year, and I have to say that I also read about things like AFI, Edit requests, AfD, etc. later that month. The not-so-simple part is that I actually didn’t mean to say that I had edited in the past (That was too much of an oversimplification, so much that it wasn’t even partially true) and that I also consider my edit count to be pretty high. Equalwidth (C) 18:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
So your explanation is that you started reading up on more advanced parts of the website 2 months before you even created an account, accidently alluded to editing in the past, and think that 200-300 edits is a high edit count...? Sergecross73msg me18:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes. As for the first one, I wanted to do it, and the last one is because I think that thinking that makes you edit more on weekdays and has a 0.00003% chance of better behaviour. Equalwidth (C) 19:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
FWIW I started reading up on more advanced parts of the website two years, and making quieries about project processes, before the creation of my account. I don't think that is necessarily suspicious. Fermiboson (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I also find myself on your user talk page, with the intent to suggest that you "Please change your approach". And find that Sergecross73 has already opened this thread. And so will just chip-in here. As noted above, and per your own admission (that you're "not good at finding sources" and "don't find sources easily"), perhaps you should consider whether WP:AFD and WP:GA are where you should be spending your time/energies. Both of these project activities/processes are reliant on an ability to find (and evaluate) sources. So, if you're "not good" at this and "can't find sources easily", perhaps there are other areas/activities which you can undertake. To support the project. And, once you've built-up more experience in these areas, you can revisit. I suggest this as, in all honesty and looking through the input on your talk page here, it seems your current approach (and areas of focus) is, perhaps, proving slightly more disruptive (and less supportive) than you'd likely intended. Guliolopez (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Now, as you did with me and Sergecross73, you're also giving Guliolopez the runaround with gibberish. That is proudly, defiantly, irresponsibly, flagrantly nonsensical behavior and speech. Your pointless abuse of AfD just happened TODAY at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Final_Cut_Server and it is exactly what Serge had clearly told you not to do because it is entirely based on the serious devotion to sourcing and responsibly collegiate behavior that you completely lack and cannot develop quickly, even if you wanted to, which you definitely don't. — Smuckola(talk)05:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's another flimsy nomination, with follow-up responses that don't indicate a solid understanding of how AFD works. I strongly recommend stepping away from AFD and better familiarizing yourself with AFD and BEFORE searches before continuing. Sergecross73msg me16:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Saying that Bing is not a search engine would feel like a personal attack to me. Please stop this nonsense behaviour towards me! Equalwidth (C) 02:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Okay aside from that garbage, next he hassled somebody over his inability to spell.[4] He doesn't know that the word "render" applies to wikilinks, so he hassled this poor guy and sent him a bogus personal warning for it.[5] He edit-warred with an admin to force a speedy deletion with a non-sequitur as rationale and where he thinks blanking the page is a courtesy.[6] Then he sabotaged a perfectly valid PROD with again absolutely no rationale.[7] Just flying in the face of everything everybody has said, especially you. So can ya do the thing? Thanks — Smuckola(talk)07:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Commenting only on the last two diffs: he revert warred with me, not an admin. I presume he thought I was the one who removed the CSD notice, in which case he would have been entirely correct to revert me (even though the G10 itself is still wrong). Authors of articles are allowed to remove prods. Fermiboson (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
No, as *you* said, the admin Barkeep49 was also in on it.[8] People can remove PROD *with* a rationale, mainly a plan to fix it with imminent action, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT and abandonment. And definitely not, as I clearly said, a history of an admin and others directly instructing him to stop meddling in deletions or anything else requiring sourcing and non-abandonment. — Smuckola(talk)08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I am very familiar with what happened between my edits, thank you very much. WP:PROD says If anyone removes a proposed deletion tag from a page or otherwise indicates an objection, the proposed deletion is canceled. This is the case when the objection is from the article's creator or even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. While, as you can see below, I agree his behaviour needs imminent improvement, I don't think being aggressive helps matters either. The editor clearly has an intention to constructively contribute. Fermiboson (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think that the two articles are related enough - considering that they are entirely different slightly unrelated species. Equalwidth (C) 04:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Are you aware of anything that should be expanded upon though? Does he have much of a following outside of Ireland that you're aware of that needs documenting? If so, then it could be a worthwhile tag. But if he's more of a local artist and not really a globally known artist, then the tag might not make much sense. (I'm not familiar with this musician so I don't actually know the answer for him in particular.)
Think of it this way: If Coldplay or Taylor Swift's article only talked about their own home country, it'd be a problem, because they're globally popular musicians. But if you're a minor band like Audiovent or Depswa, it's not an issue, because...they never really did anything noteworthy anywhere else. Sergecross73msg me19:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I think he does have a bit of a following outside the region - Just about big enough for the globalize tag, but I'm not familiar with the musician either so... I guess there is no right or wrong in this case. Equalwidth (C) 19:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
If you're not familiar with the musician either, then the tag probably doesnt make sense. You should only be adding tags when you're certain there's an issue, but you're, for whatever reason, unwilling or unable to make the fixes yourself. Sergecross73msg me19:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I removed the template. I've never seen it applied to a biography before, and I'm not sure why it was applied in the first place. Dempsey has toured extensively, in Europe, North America, and Australia, and they're mentioned in the article. If there's nothing else to add, there's nothing else to add. See WP:DUE. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!21:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Final warning
I see even more editors are complaining about your conduct at deletion related areas. As I said, the community loses patience with the same issues recurring. This is getting disruptive. I've warned you to change your approach, and you haven't. If you refuse to stop until you better understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then the next step are temporary blocks from editing. Sergecross73msg me13:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I saw this on my watchlist and was wondering what it's about. I'm not sure why that edit summary isn't acceptable to you and why you had to revert that perfectly legitimate edit. Then see that this isn't a unique problem but rather, a pattern. You need to slow down and stop these knee jerk edits without thinking, or be prepared as Sergecross73 says above. —SpacemanSpiff06:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Equalwidth, in reviewing your edits, I can't help but think you're attempting to do some sort of "fake it until you make it" approach to edit Wikipedia. Please just slow down and just focus on learning the basics and doing basic encyclopedia editing. You're flat out not ready to be doing things like fielding questions at the tea house or warning editors of misconduct. You've got to focus on you and not getting your account blocked. Worry less about deletion nominations and peer reviews and all these advanced things and just find an article and go edit it for a while. You need to build up a solid base of understanding the basics before venturing out into all this other stuff. Sergecross73msg me13:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Similarly, please dont publish you yourself describe as in a very bad state. If you insist on creating articles that aren't ready yet, consider using the WP:DRAFT space. This article, much like your first creation, isn't likely to be seen as meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73msg me15:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Potential suggestion to combat this issue: The draftspace should allow articles not intended for a submission to AfC. Equalwidth (C) 14:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
You don't need to use AFC, though in your case, I'd recommend it, as I'm not certain either of your creations meet the GNG in their current state. Sergecross73msg me15:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Equalwidth. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.
Uncivil editor found! Please do not welcome me because I am not even new. I also find this welcome to violate the policy that disallows uncivil behaviour because it attacks my character. Actually, all welcome messages except for the belated welcome template count as attacking my character. Please rethink your decision to send this. Equalwidth (C) 17:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
They are giving you good advice, please listen to it. Your talk page is filled with requests and warnings to change and learn how the website works. It's extremely concerning that you would find this comment uncivil, both in terms of lack of self-awareness, and lack of understanding of WP:CIVIL.
There's no way around it - you are a new editor who is struggling to understand how Wikipedia works. The first steps to overcoming this would be accepting it in the first place. Sergecross73msg me17:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Yet again, you are talking about things you don't understand. That is not an AGF failure. It was a simple statement of fact. At least 3 admin have expressed concern with your conduct.
I've been giving you a ton of good faith. The only reason I haven't blocked your account from editing is because of the good faith belief that you're trying to be a good editor. My hope is that your desire to edit Wikipedia will improve your conduct. But every day I check your edits, I see another bizarre edit. Accusing an editor's welcome message as uncivil. Warning an IP that their IP was reverted when it wasn't. Publishing articles you yourself admit are in poor shape and then not even trying to improve them. Trying to give advice at the TEAHOUSE when you should be there asking questions, not answering them. The list goes on and on. And now you're attempting to lecture me on AGF in a way that makes zero sense.
I'm running out of patience here. I've been giving you a chance because I hoped you would improve. But if you think improvement isn't necessary, then we have a serious problem here. Sergecross73msg me18:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Equalwidth. From what I see, you have less than 500 edits, starting in October. I consider editors that have edited for less than a year or so to be new, especially if they have less than a thousand edits. No offense intended. --Hipal (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
That’s not new to me, Hipal: And also, Sergecross73 My job in this place fits more in the description of helping newcomers, not being a newcomer (Though I mostly make copyedits). Equalwidth (C) 18:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that you are in no position to be helping newcomers yet when you're so new and inexperienced yourself. Like I keep telling you, you need to work on yourself before you can be helpful to others.
If you haven't figured it out yet, no one shares your definition of what a "new editor" is on Wikipedia. By all measures - edit count, time, and knowledge of policy - you are a very new editor. I'm sorry you don't like that, but not liking it doesn't change how the community sees things.
You also don't need to explain to me what your edits are. I know exactly what you're doing. You seem to mean well, but you're also consistently making a lot of problematic edits and comments. And you don't seem to stop or change unless I threaten you with final warnings. You need to turn it around or myself or another admin is going to block your account from editing.
It takes a while to learn Wikipedias ways. I'm sympathetic to that. But I'm not sympathetic when you keep making the same sort of mistakes without improvement. Thats when it starts getting disruptive. And I'm concerned that it doesn't look like you're in the right mindset for improvement. Sergecross73msg me19:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This is exactly what I mean. Neither of these comments were helpful. Contacting the "technical team" was not good advice. And you told a newbie to create a section title without any guidance when you could have just as easily could have done it yourself. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know what you're doing and you're not helping anyone when you try to and don't have the know-how. Sergecross73msg me19:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Stop lying. Is it too much to ask you to be polite? (My definition of new editor is 190 edits in 20 days or lower. I define “inexperienced editor” as someone that has made 210 edits in 21 days or lower). Equalwidth (C) 04:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've been watching this talk page ever since the afd for final cut server, and I see your approach has still not changed. Whether or not your definition of a "new editor" matches others, you should work together to see past this and resolve any disputes in a civil manner. Is it too much to be polite to those who are trying to welcome you? Thanks. Penguin2233 (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@Equalwidth, I do not believe this definition of "new editor" has ever been used, in the history of wikipedia, until this moment. Being a new editor here sucks (I know - I was one recently), but you won't change that by defining yourself as "not a new editor" and trying to argue with everyone. When you return, bring some humility with you. It will help, I promise. -- asilvering (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Blocked
Enough is enough. The accumulation of all these warnings these last 2 weeks is too much. It's disruptive.
I'll be honest - it doesn't appear you're ready to be editing a website like Wikipedia. This time, I'm just blocking you for 1 week. If, in one week, you come back and completely change your approach to Wikipedia, then you can return to editing. But if these same issues keep recurring, your account will be blocked indefinitely. Take the week to rethink your approach. Sergecross73msg me12:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Also please add a giant banner on top of my userpage telling others that I am blocked from editing for a week (But please keep the userboxes, the text after them, and the wikilinks to the articles that I have created.) Equalwidth (C) 08:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I am very disappointed to see this happening. I’m sure I’m not the only one, judging by the absolutely massive amount of editors, experienced or not, that have stretched good faith and patience to the breaking point to try to get you to hear them. We all have apparently failed. However, I still think you are a good faith editor who is enthusiastic about the project, as I said when I first encountered you, and I believe that is the most valuable resource this project has. So, in a final attempt to get through to you and enable you to stay, I’m going to be more bluntly honest than anyone else here: you need to stop being arrogant.
Consider that a personal attack all you want, but it’s the truth, and recognising that truth will help you greatly, on Wikipedia or elsewhere in life. Assuming that you alone decide that you are knowledgable about Wikipedia is arrogance. Trying to educate an admin with 100x your edit count on policy is arrogance. Assuming all attempts at advice is a veiled attack is arrogance. Believing that you are always right is the dictionary definition of arrogance.
You say you’re an experienced editor, “better positioned” to give advice to new editors, and knowledgable about Wikipedia history and policy. Let me ask you: when was the last time an RfA opposed by more than 100 editors passed? What is the threshold for semiautomated edits to need approval from the BAG? Under what conditions can an AfD be speedily closed as keep by an non-admin? Under what conditions can CSD G5 be applied to a non-blocked editor? How do you link to a diff in a standard warning message? What is the minimum numerical requirement for a new page patroller? What is the data retention period for the CheckUser tool?
You know nothing about Wikipedia. I am never going to claim to be an expert in the short term, but I do know enough to know that you know nothing. You are currently on the very peak of the Dunning-Kruger curve. You have two choices in front of you: get down from that peak, or get blocked indefinitely. I beseech you to choose the former.
I would agree with @Fermiboson here, I am extremely disappointed that it has come to this. I do not think you are amongst the bad apples, but your arrogance and general disregard for the advice we have given you really needs to change if you want to continue contributing in some/any capacity. Sohom (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Not to pile on, but perhaps it would be worth emphasizing a very central point to Wikipedia to yourself that may change your tact: Wikipedia operates via consensus. Consensus involves many different people actively appreciating each other's points and interpretations. If you do something without consensus in mind, even if you think a policy somehow otherwise supports it or it's simply objectively correct, then you are not doing a good job. If, to a one, every experienced editor you encounter is telling you about the same pattern of unacceptable behavior, and you do not attempt to address or work with it, that is what dismissing consensus concretely is, and it is always wrong. Remsense留20:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Nothing is “always wrong” in an online Encyclopedia. However, I ask to you: Why does almost everyone have the wrong consensus on this? 500 edits is already in the top 104,000 of all contributors, so why isn’t the consensus changing? Equalwidth (C) 04:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
See my above comment. The reason we don't consider you experienced, no matter if you're the top something-percentile of contributors, is because you clearly do not know enough about Wikipedia to go it alone, and likely will not for some time. Also, wrong consensus? Proves our point, doesn't it? Fermiboson (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
And 500 edits and a month since account creation is hardly anything. Some of us make more than that in a week (not counting with the help of semi-automated tools) and have been here many years. There's a reason nearly no one passes WP:RFA until they have at least two years of regular editing under their belt. It takes that long to absorb how Wikipedia really operates and why and get fully integrated into the editing culture here. Hopefully you'll drop the know-it-all act and get on board with becoming that WP:COMPETENT over time. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I've taken some time and thought that ignoring these messages and keeping my arrogance in my brain would be better than straight up publicly saying them. I would still consider myself experienced, but not in the level that I flag welcomes as violating AGF (Though they would still attack my character), and I would also not become as arrogant. I understand that Segrecross73 blocked me for disruptive editing relate to my level of experience which does not respect my opinions and that I plan on restoring the first message I sent to myself on my talk page as well as actually helping newcomers at the Teahouse and making other useful contributions. Equalwidth (C) 06:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You do not have the experience and knowledge needed to participate at the Teahouse as a host right now. That doesn't mean forever, but you don't have the needed experience now. Experience is not just about the number of your edits; anyone can make a large number of insignificant edits quickly, this does not meant that they understand relevant policies and how things work here. A small number of edits that demonstrate a clear understanding of policy is far superior.
That you didn't know what the mobile version of Wikipedia looks like is only one example of your inexperience and lack of knowledge. Yes, certain things are always wrong here. I see no pathway forward to removing this block early. I strongly suggest you take some time to reflect on your actions here, and consider that if everyone else is telling you that your actions were wrong, that just maybe they were- and adjust your attitude accordingly. If nothing changes about you in the next few days, and the same behavior continues, your next block is likely to be indefinite. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You know every other outstanding request for block review is for an indefinite ban? You only have to wait a couple days. There's a high chance this case isn't even reviewed before your block will naturally decay. Patience and reflection, my friend. Mbdfar (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
A couple of days? I would be quite bored if I make no Wikipedia edits in the mainspace during that timeframe. If I was indefinitely blocked, I would nearly die from boredom. Equalwidth (C) 07:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Note
Extremely disappointing to see all these different editors come in and try to help you, only for you to submit an unblock request that completely ignores all that advice.
Again, in no uncertain terms - if you jump right back into this after your block expires, you will immediately be indefinitely blocked.
My advice would be to spend the week reviewing the entirety of this talk page, from top to bottom, with the open mind that the advice you have been given is correct, and then use that to completely change your approach to Wikipedia editing. It's your only path forward. Sergecross73msg me12:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
…so I should just work on anti-vandalism work or article creation or literally anything in the Task Centre except for the Teahouse? Equalwidth (C) 12:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The first of these is unusually hard to do because of admins. How can I revert vandalism before the average admin notices? Equalwidth (C) 15:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
watching pages you're working on, think might be vandalized a lot, or whatever other case, and then keeping an eye on your watchlist works just fine from my experience
No, just basic editing. Go find an article of interest that could use some cleanup. Add a period to the end of a sentence. Delete an unsourced statement. Add a simple sentence and a source. Delete a duplicate word. Reword a confusing sentence. Stuff like that. Study up on the WP:5P too. Sergecross73msg me13:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
That’s not a good option as my mindset is to try to make the best major edits I could, not to make edits I would tag as minor edits… Equalwidth (C) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
You've got to learn how to properly do small edits before you can hope to be good at large edits. I'm not going to argue with you. It's been explained what you should and shouldn't do, and what happens if you ignore all the warnings again. I've done everything I can. The rest is up to you. Sergecross73msg me15:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
You'll be surprised at how difficult and rewarding just copyediting, rewording and general gnomish edits are, there is a huge list of articles at
which could definitely help with some love and care. Also another really fun game that you can try to play (since you mention that you have difficulty finding sources) is to go to [9], and see if you can add a source for statements that are tagged as requiring sources/citations. It really levels up your ability to find sources :) Sohom (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Nah, it's definitely not. If you think so, feel free to breeze through the millions of articles at Newcomer task:copyedit and prove me wrong. Fermiboson (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Depending on the situation, copyediting can be by far the most difficult part of writing a good article, more than gathering sources, synthesising them, or putting multimedia and templates in place. Remsense留22:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, I think we’ve found a solution to the whole problem, which is ignoring welcomes and not trying to help newcomers as much, and I will try my best to use it to change my approach, so please unblock me. (I intentionally did not use an unblock template). Equalwidth (C) 16:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
No. I wholeheartedly believe you need a full week off to reflect on the full scope of complaints, warnings, and suggestions you've received over the course of these last two weeks. Your unblock request and comments today do not indicate that you understand the full scope of the problem. Sergecross73msg me17:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
i guess it's about time someone spelled it out
the problem at the time of blocking wasn't that you were focusing too much on helping newcomers, it was that you were trying to help them despite not actually understanding how to do so
right now, the problem seems to be that you think you understand how, and are actively ignoring all evidence to the contrary
if you're that desperate for a "challenge" in other areas, there's plenty of ways to find articles in need of goodifying, from the task center to snooping around people's to-do lists. i could bring up a few right now if you wanted
i don't think you'll be unblocked before 12/10, but when you do, i recommend starting by improving articles, and then applying that experience in the teahouse
i just realized that boils down to "git gud". not the way i would want to put it, but it's not wrongcogsan(give me attention)(see my deeds) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
from a quick look, it seems usable (good, even), but the sauce seems a bit old
i found...
this br*zilian source (meet the nintendo ds emulator, melonds) that seems to explain it in a good enough level of detail
this source in some indecipherable language that reports its beta release from almost 3 years ago, but doesn't directly state when it was release (the reddit post it links says 1/11/21)
this dev statement(?) and changelog (translation not needed, i think you can guess what it says :D), also in portuguese, but it's from last year so eh
this source i think is outright good, aside from the incomprehensible glyphs and also being from august '21
and then a whole bunch of top whatever number lists that might include melonds maybe probably
i think it's technically notable enough for an article, but that that article would probably end up having to be really outdated
If you're really curious, I bet emulation is more ubiquitous in Brazil because consoles are generally more expensive there because of import taxes.[10]Mbdfar (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Cogsan, just for the record, creating an article at a blocked editor's request would be WP:PROXYING.
Equalwidth, while you're blocked, your talk page should only be used to discuss your block. Requesting someone to create an article for you is extremely bad form, can result in you losing talk page privileges, and puts other editors in danger of being blocked themselves. Valereee (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
i know
i don't plan on creating the draft myself, but i wouldn't mind helping him do it
Hi! Equalwidth,
thank you for volunteering to be a host at the Teahouse. We really appreciate your willingness to help! However, we see that you are pretty new around here and have not edited very much in mainspace yet. It takes a lot of time, background knowledge and patience to answer new editors' questions effectively. So you should probably edit for a while longer before you sign up to be a host. That said, you're still very welcome to answer those questions that you can, and we hope you continue to participate and spread the word about the Teahouse to other new Wikipedians. Come back soon! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
December 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at EOKA. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. A citation had been provided for the important, potentially contentious claim. It is usually pretty clear when one is adding templates because they think a statement is disagreeable. Please be more careful about this in the future. Remsense留08:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
It was not an accident, it was a mistake. It is fine to commit either on Wikipedia, but they are separate phenomena. Remsense留08:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Are you looking at the edit he's referring to? Your edit summary said "capitalization". Your edit objectively didn't capitalize anything. Why? Please explain what happened. Sergecross73msg me03:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
No. You are emphatically wrong. The burden is not on me. Read the rule that I cited above. The burden is not on me, and if you wish to restore uncited material in any event you are "required" to add appropriate RS refs. Which you are failing to do. Please fix your - now multiple - errors. Or let's bring in an admin to address flouting of the rules. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:401C:413E:DD1A:691D (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
User:331dot and User:Sergecross73 - Perhaps you can help, as you have communicated with this editor in the past. See the discussion above. And on my talk page. He does not appear to understand the difference between wp rules, and what he would like them to be. Nor does he understand wp rules - even when cited to him (or when he cites them). Thanks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:401C:413E:DD1A:691D (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)r
(talk page watcher) As I cite WP:BURDEN quite often, blanking an unsourced section is perfectly fine. WP:BLANKING doesn't refer to removing unsourced sections, but to talk page etiquette.
I concur with Soetermans. The IP user made an edit and provided a reason for it- you have a reason for your view too, now you both need to discuss and reach a consensus. Old information that on top that is unsourced is certainly a valid reason for removal. There is no requirement that someone update such information if they don't wish to. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no requirement that anyone do that. This is a volunteer project where people may do as much as they are able to or wish to. If you would like to see updated information there, you may do so- but you aren't under any obligation to do so, either. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Equalwidth--all 4 editors -- three editors who have left word with you in this string, and the one who has done so at the ANI that you started here -- have disagreed with you. Your misreading of the rules, and forceful disagreement to operate within them as written, has a negative effect on the editors who come into contact with you, and will serve to drive us away from contributing to the project. Will you now agree with consensus, admit that you were mistaken, and edit in accord with consensus? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:401C:413E:DD1A:691D (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Kindly, then, 1) self-revert your incorrect reverts, and 2) indicate at the ANI that you opened that I did not lie (as you accused me of doing above), apologize for your criticism of my intelligence at the ANI, and indicate there that you withdraw your complaint--to save people time, and to save you the further bother of more people piling on. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:401C:413E:DD1A:691D (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
(ec) And in the future, while I don't understand frankly what your difficulty was here, if another editor disagrees with you, please try harder to understand why that is. Please don't assert "rules" that are not at all wp rules - but just figments of your imagination as to what a rule might look like if you were to write one. And please understand that given all that I see above this incident on your talk page, and the number of upset editors who now watch it, further behavior of this sort may perhaps lead an admin to think that much as they would like to encourage editors (even ones like you, who are not new) to edit properly, at times the cost of doing so would be too much - in that this sort of behavior drives away from the project editors who are editing within its rules. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:401C:413E:DD1A:691D (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
If you truly wish to be a collegial, contributing member of this community, operating within its rules, I assume that you will revert your improper edits - which you now admit were improper. Fixing the articles you have marred. And that you will make the appropriate notice at the ANI. Saving the community further wasted time on this. Certainly as item #1 on your to do list. Before you make any further WP edits. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:401C:413E:DD1A:691D (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The above is such a disappointing exchange for someone who just came off a week-long block for similar arrogant, WP:IDHT-style behaviours. Please consider this a final opportunity to alter the way you interact with other editors, and how to show humility when you are mistaken. There is no issue with making small mistakes as you learn Wikipedia policies & procedures as a new editor (which you very much are), but there is far less tolerance for arrogantly ignoring others' advice and being belligerent. I don't know how much more explicit I can be than this. Daniel (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I cannot believe that, after all the prior warnings, a block, and being made very clear that you're on your final chance, that you think that the above section was appropriate. That was an absolutely terrible interpretation of BLANKING. I warned you to away from giving bogus warnings/advice and just do simple editing. You've again done the opposite. And again gone on to disrupt the community with your arrogance on policy you clearly do not understand, and refuse to take the time to understand.
Hello, Equalwidth. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:RT Core, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Potential suggestion to combat this issue: The draftspace should allow articles not intended for a submission to AfC. Equalwidth (C) 14:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
.svg)
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Arbitration
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at EOKA. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Luis Ignatius Peñalver y Cárdenas has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. This is not changing capitalist. If you're going to leave an edit summary, make sure it's accurate. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)