This is an archive of past discussions about User:Septrillion. 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.
Hello, Septrillion! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jauerbackdude?/dude.21:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Hi I saw you templated 27.99.54.194 - this is fine but please don't issue a final warning as the second warning, a final warning is the 4th warning for purposed of WP:AIVSeraphim System(talk) 06:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Seraphim System(talk)06:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Escalating the warning levels too fast can also make it difficult for wp:Huggle users. Huggle would see the level 4 and want to report to AIV. Some Huggle users don't bother with selecting diffs and just report automatically. If there is insufficient warnings, the admin would likely reject the report. The rejection would confuse Huggle further and no further reports would be made. If the editor is really a vandal, they would likely go over the line quickly enough. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Careful use of "vandalism"
Hey, Septrillion. In regards to User talk:ChrisTheWhaleKing#December 2017, I'd just like to clarify that Wikipedia has a very strict definition of vandalism, elaborated on at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Twinkle easily allows the use of various other user warning templates (besides {{uw-vandalism1}}) for edits that may be in good faith, such as {{uw-test1}} (test edits), {{uw-error1}} (introducing deliberate factual errors), and {{uw-unsourced1}} (addition of unsourced or improperly cited material), and all user warning templates are listed at WP:WARN. Assuming good faith is important because labeling new users as vandals who may be able to learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to contribute constructively may prevent them from participating in the project. If you come across an edit when patrolling that isn't obvious vandalism (like random cursing or inserting gibberish characters), you may need to do some digging to see if it's a test edit, incorrect, correct but unsourced, etc. Rhinopias (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
You are so fast at fighting vandalism! Every time I got to revert some vandalism you are always on click ahead of me! Thank you for your help on fighting vandalism!
HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
No. It was not a mistake. People are allowed blank their own talk pages, so please refrain from warring with him when he deletes content. CLCStudent (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't you see that I'm TRYING TO REMOVE THE VANDALISM THAT 14.231.177.129 MADE A MONTH AGO!!!! HE JUST TOOK INFORMATION FROM THE 1991 BATB AND BELLE'S MAGICAL WORLD PAGES AND EDITED THEM AND PUT EM ON THE BTOF PAGE!!!
Multiple people who appear to be affiliated with the company concerned in this page National Retail Systems are removing sections of the article repeatedly. They have a history going back a few years of editing the article to promote the company. It may be a candidate for a lock if they continue to do so, as it constitutes a clear violation of the conflict of interest policy. Thanks for your help in keeping the entry accurate! Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Quote
Finneas O'Connell is an American actor and musician who plays Alistaire in the Fox TV series Glee and stars as Shane in the award winning independent feature Life Inside Out. He is also known for his portrayal of the character Spencer (Twilight) in Columbia Pictures' Bad Teacher, has a recurring role on ABC's Modern Family and appears in the premiere episode of "Aquarius".
Finneas began writing songs at the age of 12. He is the front man and lead singer/songwriter of the band, The Slightlys, whose song, "Is There Anybody There" appeared in an episode of ABC Family's Switched At Birth. The band has won numerous awards and competitions in the Los Angeles area. - IMDb Mini Biography By: TBD Public Relations
Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.
For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. So we add the {{wait}} tag to the report, it goes to WP:UAA/HP for a week or more, and must then be reviewed again to see if the account has since become active before removing it. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. User:Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Massages were not in reference to those specific names but rather to more run-of-the-mill violations that were not attacks on specific users. For example [1]. In addition to having no edits, I don’t even see how this is a username violation. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that falls with the realm of administrative discretion, I wouldn’t have bothered as it makes no difference whether they are blocked or not. You’ll note my initial message is a template, not just my opinion. I looked at a bunch of your reports, and by and large they are fine and I am not trying to discourage you from reporting, just be a tiny bit more thoughtful about what you are reporting. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to thank Septrillion for leaving my edit alone. Thank you Septrillion! Thank you, as well, PCHS-NJROTC, for talking about it! --Macaroniking (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Football records in Spain
Hi, regarding your message as per the above, how is it possible that you didn't see the (reliable) sources I have provided ???
You said "unsourced" while I provided sources from "The Guardian", newspaper "Sport" and FC Barcelona's official site and you tell me that I didn't provide sources ???
This is ridiculous and Wikipedia cannot improve with comments and actions like the ones of yours... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim. Nor. 86 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Hi. Please be aware that in this case the topic was indeed communalism: the Faction viewed the country as a federation of self-regulated communes. This is referenced in the article, and you can use Ctrl+F and "communalism" or such to see the exact context before deciding what is and isn't wrong use, what is and isn't a fix. Regards, Dahn (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realize you nominated this for Speedy Deletion before I did. The editor removed it and I just came across this page while patrolling recent changes. Should I remove my tag? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
And the page has now been deleted. It looks like there was a discussion on the 15th about deleting this page so it might need to be salted if it pops up again. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Edits to Decred
You recently reverted edits to the article for Decred that were made to adhere to the policies provided by Wikipedia in the following document:
The contents provided in the article appear to be self-published from the "Decred" company and appear as advertorial content. As they do not meet the standards of Wikipedia, they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongbad899 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you even check the edits you're reverting, or you just assume all IP users are vandals? Read the edit summary: the template is broken, you can tell by the obvious error message at the bottom of the page. I've been trying to fix that and you reverted my edits. Twice. Maybe it's time to find a new hobby.--93.42.65.170 (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
About the recent edits on that page regarding Channel Awesome. Holly Christine Brown was already mentioned in one of the sources listed on that section (the article on Dailydot mentions her being sexually harassed by former Chief operating officer, Mike Ellis) and I thought it would be appropriate to list her as one of the notable victims (because she is). Also the source I added was a source related to the recent allegations regardingJustin Carmical (the source (a tweet) was also written by Holly Brown), as there was no source on the section related to Carmical (it was not in any of the articles already sourced), and this source was also on the Channel Awesome article (on the controversy section) which is where I got the source from. I'm sorry if it looks like I am "vandalizing", but I'm actually trying to add some sources related to these allegations (also I'm sorry if my wording and grammar is off). --73.240.105.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I have just published content for Mark Wright (entrepreneur), winner of the 2014 Apprentice (UK Series).
You recently removed the page I published for Mark Wright (entrepreneur) (4th April 2018). Your feedback indicated that you thought the page to be "promotional". I have removed any content that I thought you may have seen as promotional, and published the page again. However, you have made another request for speedy deletion.
It would be great if you could let us know how this content is "promotional". We have tried to ensure it is in keeping with other Apprentice winners (see Leah Totton and Susie Ma).
You have also deemed the content is inappropriate. I'm not sure how this can be considering Mark is already mentioned on a Wikipedia page for The Apprentice (Series 10) and his fellow winners also have Wikipedia pages (as mentioned above). Please can you explain why you believe the content to be inappropriate?
My colleague will be making some edits to the page shortly [improving content and formatting], so I'd be grateful if you could refrain from deleting the page for the time being.
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beraen Hunter, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Multiple references almost always exist for any railway station, even if they are not included in the article, which is why railway stations are usually not deleted at AfD. Please see Wikipedia:RAILOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). When I see an article about a railway station that lacks references, I generally try to find references to add to it. Sometimes an image on an old postcard can serve both as a reference and as a public-domain image to add to the article's infobox. Eastmain (talk • contribs)07:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Septrillion. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Perkasie station, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G6 doesn't apply to redirects as a result of routine pagemoves, and consensus is to keep draft->mainspace redirects. Thank you. ~ Amory(u • t • c)10:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I've undone a few more (pinging 331dot and Anthony Appleyard), but please note that WP:CSD#G6 explicitly does not apply to redirects from page moves unless they are unambiguously made in error, and in the case of Draft->Mainspace redirects, the community consensus is against deleting such redirects. ~ Amory(u • t • c)10:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, just a courtesy note to say I've removed the CSD A1 tag you added to the new article on Sakae Esuno. The criterion is not met here because there is definitely enough context to identify the subject and any potential notability. You may confirm this with a quick Google search. Whether other criteria apply is not under dispute. Normally, I prefer to WP:AGF and give these article creators a bit more time before putting their contributions to the axe. That way we don't put off new editors who genuinely wish to contribute positively. Regards,Nick Moyes (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
My cat walked over my keyboard, causing the "Q" key to be pressed in the process! I sincerely apologize for my accidental reversions and will try to keep the cat away in the future! :) Septrillion (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How would getting an account solve the problem of your cat repeatedly reverting contributions to the encyclopedia over the course of multiple days? That would just mean your cat would be reverting someone else's contributions, perhaps someone less likely to notice than I am. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that the user in question did not put enough information that falls outside of the rules, therefore it is not a case for CSD:U5.-- Alexf(talk)00:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Perkasie station. I do not think that Perkasie station fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because A train station is a physical location, and so is not in scope for A7. I request that you consider not re-tagging Perkasie station for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs00:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the larger issue is that you moved a Draft to Namespace just to speedy delete it. It's not what Drafts are for, and moving something to a different namespace just to get around the speedy deletion criteria is inappropriate. ~ Amory(u • t • c)10:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh Dear, i had missed that. That is not acceptable. Please do not do it again. If none of the criteria which apply in draft space fits (mostly the G criteria) then the draft should not be speedy deleted. It is fine for people to start incomplete, unsourced drafts, with the intent of improving them until they are ready for the main article space. To tag theses for speedy deletion is to violate WP:BITE and to "promote" them to mainspace so that the A-criteria seem to apply is to game the system. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs16:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
No it would not be gaming the system, nor does it make the later move acceptable. It is common to move an article that is not ready for mainspace, but that might become a valid article with additional work, to draft space or user space to allow that work to proceed. I have done this myself many times. Look at my move log if you like. But once such a move has been made, the page is then a draft, no matter how it started. It may be moved to mainspace (or back to main space) by any confirmed editor who believes in good faith that it is ready for mainspace. It may not be moved with the intent of making it eligible for an A-series speedy deletion, or for AfD. If you really think it must be deleted, take it to MfD, but recall that as per WP:NMFD lack of notability is not relevant there, nor is lack of sources cited. I suppose your actions were undertaken in good faith, but please do not make such a move again. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs19:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism on scopes trial page
Before you revert, do you actually examine the changes? Because I removed vandalism that referred to John Scopes as a "Dookie butt", and don't understand why you would consider that worthy of reverting. Someone else has rectified the vandalism, but that was uncalled for. Pdinc (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I misread the diff. I thought that vandalism was being inserted, not removed. I think I'll call it quits for tonight and resume patrolling when I'm more alert/attentive. Septrillion (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely, I will do next time. Once I recognized my mistake someone else actually requested the page for speedy deletion. Thank you for bringing this to my attention though, greatly appreciated. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I've revoked your ability to use rollback after this revert and subsequent automated report to AIV. Looking through your talk page, you've received a lot of complaints about this, and your answer seems to always be that it was a mistake. While I accept that everyone makes mistakes, you are responsible for all of your semi-automated edits, and the error rate here is too high. Pinging Mz7 as a courtesy since he granted the flag. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
It appears that my mistake was multi-tasking while using Huggle. I'm sure the error rate would have been much lower had I not done that. I will not make that mistake again, should I ever regain the flag. Septrillion (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Septrillion, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.
Congratulations, Septrillion! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
why did you revert my constructive edit?
I made a good edit my very first edit. and I was happy. then a message popped up-septrillion reverted your edit. bUT IT WAS A GOOD EDIT. so please, tell me why.
I would strongly suggest WP:DENY here. You're not helping. If the user is telling the truth, then all that can be said has already been said; if the user is trolling, then we are giving them exactly what they want by responding to them. Mz7 (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I did not re-create the page. But I think I know the real name of the person who re-created the page. I can't say. That could be outing. I do not want to get indeffed. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I know you didn't recreate the page, but you were among one of the greatest contributors to it. Therefore I felt it was more appropriate to notify you instead of the indeffed account who created the page but contributed very little. I think the best advice I can give you on WP:OUTING is to use common sense. Septrillion (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
There are over 50 independent sources. I am still trying to understand the reason you nominated it for deletion. Are you going to not restore this? That was not a minor edit. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I still would like a more specific reason for the AFD for Everipedia. The article I did create was Tedd Koren. It appears that article is not notable. How come you did not nominate that for deletion? QuackGuru (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I am considering withdrawing my nomination of Everipedia. I have WP:PRODedTedd Koren. I am not going to restore the {{ow}} template on your talk page as you have removed it. While you are allowed to do this per WP:OWNTALK, archiving is preferred. The removed discussions remain publicly accessible via the page history, whether you like it or not. Septrillion (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Never mind the socks. It is far more complicated. There are COI editors and others. I also have not figured out how to get past those we don't speak of. Those we don't speak of also want me bonked. QuackGuru (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
There are too many of them doing different things to different articles. Those we don't speak of want to take care of me for sport. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I know one of them enjoys it. The other one didn't like it after I deleted a comment they made. Then there is another one who noticed this and thinks I must be the problem. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It is better to avoid going into detail. There is too many things to explain for anyone to understand. You can read a little about the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You claim the evidence I submitted was ignored because I'm a "bad editor"? No admin should ignore evidence because of who submitted it. If the evidence was ignoring then something is wrong with system. People have been complaining on the talk page of different articles that the page is outdated. I am the only editor who was updating all the articles. Since 2016 none of the main articles have been updated. A few of the subpages I have managed to update in mainspace. I think you may understand my interest in editing the Everipedia page. QuackGuru (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
E-mailing a CheckUser is not the answer. Things are not what you think they are. They way to fix it is from the outside. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Your "better idea" has already been rejected by the Wikipedia community. If you want the "reforms" you suggested you can start your own wiki or join an existing one. If you want the socks taken care of, that can be done if you email me the info. I have a few anti-sock tricks up my sleeve, which can only be discussed via email. Septrillion (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The "better idea" will be done from the outside in. After it is implemented admins will go bang bang bang at anything that moves in the topic area. I know how things are done around here. The "better idea" is a new idea. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
For the last time, there is a strong consensus against the implementation of your idea. The Wikipedia community believes that it runs counter to the purpose of Wikipedia itself! I think it's time to drop that idea and come up with something else. Understood? Septrillion (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Emails sent using Wikimedia's mail facility are private. Their contents cannot be read by administrators or anyone else, even to check for appropriateness, so only limited help is possible if the feature is being abused. It is possible for users able to access the CheckUser tool to confirm if and when a user sent any emails, but not the content of the emails. In the event of abuse, threats, or harassment through this facility, users may contact any administrator for advice and assistance (by email or any other way, if they wish, in order to keep it private). In more serious cases they should email the Volunteer Response Team for help.
When clicking to edit an article it says, Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Not true. Editors replace well written content with failed verification content. After failed verification content is discussed on the talk page they argue it is still sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
It is related. The WMF did not keep their promise when they stated Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. across numerous articles. They did not enforce that. QuackGuru (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
The edit notice is a message to editors reminding them that the content that they submit should be verifiable. The Wikimedia Foundation makes no promise. See their disclaimer. You have given no evidence that they are violating their promise about email. If you're that paranoid, why don't you send me an empty email, so I can see your email address for off-wiki contact? Septrillion (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
The edit notice states the content must be verifiable. They must honor that notice or change it. Their disclaimer contradicts the edit notice. I have my own ways for dealing with socks. QuackGuru (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
The WMF did not disagree with these notices across Wikipedia. The edit notice still contradicts the WMF's edit notice. QuackGuru (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rich Mountain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)
ok thank you i'm really sorry about that still kinda new to wiki.i'm a christian conservative vaporwave loving human being and if you are triggered then i'm sorry lol not. 00:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaporwaveman34 (talk • contribs)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
DarkSpartan (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, just wanted to let you know there were some glaring inconsistencies in that page.
There was a lot of information without citation and and I added a few citation needed where I felt it would be necessary.
There were some inconsistencies in the links , meaning the article linked did not contain any of the information mentioned in the paragraph it was linked too.
In many instances, the article did not seem to convey facts, but rather hopes and aspirations, while wikipedia clearly states facts only.
You seem like a veteran, and I concede I am fairly new (heck i'm not even sure how to use the numbered list item in the page script, but I try). I suspect the article has been highjacked and crafted to provide a favourable representation to the team associated rather than the stadia, which is the main focus of the article itself.
Thanks for the headsup regarding details in full I will keep that in mind.
Well not help yet I would say tutor me since I have know on the basics I would like to know direct from you on how to apply references, footnotes, notes, sources, and how to know if a source is reliable. ☣LearnLurker☣|☣Chat☣22:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Do NOT edit my talk page. I was aware of the barnstar and left it even though the user was a vandal. Please, please, please only use my talk page for questions. Best regards, TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course Septrillion, I would gladly accept your offer. I'm still looking to improve my wikipedia skills. Lightningboltz03 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Lightningboltz03 5/12/18
How to do prevent an article from being deleted
What does it require to make a great article that will blow the roof off wikipedia☣LearnLurker☣|☣Chat☣ 14:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC) One signature, please! 10Eleventeen16:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you create a wiki for Armisenia and their president John Clarence Gomez. Armisenia is a micronation located in Navotas, Philippines founded by wikipedian user John Clarence Gomez.
John Clarence Gomez (born 2002) is a Filipino micronational leader and conspiracy theories he was a user of Wikipedia since 2016. he founded Armisenia a micronation in 2015.
the page i'm referring to is Steve Hughes (Radio Presenter) in Firebird75/sandbox. The individual is a radio presenter, actor and writer as well as an entrepreneur, etc. Does this comply with Wiki's criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebird75 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the adoption offer, Septrillion, which I gratefully accept. Thanks also for the useful links to wiki pages - there are a few I hadn't found so I'll check them out and let you know if (or more likely, when!) I have any questions. Many thanks --EOu-ajb (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Please do not advise a new editor to submit a highly promotional and completely unreferenced draft to AFC. The draft in question is Draft:Inspire Group, and it is nowhere near ready for review. I appreciate your attempt to help out at the Teahouse, but an overly simple answer often creates more problems. Please take the time to look a little bit deeper. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Shortly after translating and moving this article to mainspace, I stumbled across this discussion. I added the template temporarily because I had yet to complete a source check. 10Eleventeen01:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You have been active here for six months and I have been active here for nine years. The community had chosen me to be an administrator and you have not yet achieved that status. Perhaps you don't want it.
When I read your talk page, I see many messages from far more experienced editors than you, pointing out errors or advising you to be more careful. And still, your problematic editing continues. I advise you to take a lengthy break from editing in any areas that can be considered even remotely contentious. Instead, I recommend that you focus on improving non-controversial articles about clearly notable topics. This is, after all, a project to improve an encyclopedia, rather than a venue to get into various battles. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Kpgjhpjm (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.
I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.
Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.
If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.
Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist23:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT
I don't even know how to respond to that. Please do not use those templates again; you clearly don't understand when to use them. Edward Mordake (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Nope, you do not. I know what you are doing. I already made the mistake of giving someone the benefit of the doubt once today, I won't do it again. Edward Mordake (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You should say Doh! again, like Homer. Again you used an incorrect template. I went to ANI and received an apology. From now on, you are officially disinvited from my talkpage. Have a nice day! Edward Mordake (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. You need to stop using templates that start with "uw", because you are unable to use them correctly.
I have shortened my wikibreak. It will now end at the end of this month. It has also been downgraded to a semi-wikibreak, which means I will fix minor errors when I see them. 10Eleventeen12:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Kpgjhpjm (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hi, Septrillion. With this edit at List of micronations you removed sourced content without a valid explanation. In your edit summary you wrote WP:WTAF as a reason -- however, WTAF is merely an essay, neither a guideline nor policy, and it is also deals with redlinks. It does not apply and should not be used for blanket removals of sourced information. If you desire the removal of the text, then you will need to open a new discussion and achieve consensus. Regards. — CactusWriter (talk)21:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@CactusWriter: my concern, which I should have made clear in the edit summary, was that the link was a redirect to the list itself and therefore would have been of no use. Now that the redirect has been retargeted, this concern has been resolved.~~~~Septrillion10Eleventeen00:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I understand your intention now. However, a circular redirect can be resolved simply by unlinking the term without any removal nor retargeting the redirect page. And, as I mentioned in my edit summary, there is a discussion at Talk:Bir Tawil about this. The conclusion of that was to merge the relevant text to List of Micronations and then to redirect "Kingdom of North Sudan" to the list. The term Kingdom of North Sudan no longer appears at Bir Tawil so there is no good reason to redirect the page there anymore. I have reverted your retargeting and restored the redirect according to the consensus. If any of this is unclear, please let me know. Thanks. — CactusWriter (talk)00:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I am on a wikibreak for today only , My break starts at 5 am (UTC) . If you need me , please leave a message on my talk page . Regards , Kpgjhpjm (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The obfuscating signature you're using now is not particularly compliant with WP:SIG guideline/policy page, could you kindly alter it so 'Septrillion' is clearly legible when you're signing your username. Thanks. Nick (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page.
A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. For example, some editors find that long formatting disrupts discourse on talk pages, or makes working in the edit window more difficult.
Complicated signatures contain a lot of code ("markup") that is revealed in the edit window, and can take up unnecessary amounts of narrative space, which can make both reading and editing harder.
Much better, be nice if you could cut down on some code to achieve the same effect, but a vast improvement nonetheless. Nick (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Hi I saw you templated 27.99.54.194 - this is fine but please don't issue a final warning as the second warning, a final warning is the 4th warning for purposed of WP:AIV Seraphim System (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
\\\Septrillion:- ~~~~10Eleventeen 19:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
\\\Septrillion:- ~~~~10Eleventeen 05:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
