User talk:Random person no 362478479/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi Random person no 362478479! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! paul2520 💬 18:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse

Teahouse hosts are expected to have accomplished more than 500 article edits and have put in time either watching Teahouse or perusing archives of earlier queries and anwers before taking on an active role. David notMD (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't consider responding to questions as being a host. But of course if there is a rule/convention that newer users should not participate in the way I did I fully respect that and will step back. Thank you for taking the time to explain this convention to me. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RP, consider doing a lot more work in article space before you start contributing in Wikipedia space or advising other editors. Right now your user contributions look like this. With 147 edits, the red and blue segments should be reversed. Valereee (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free to point out any wrong information I posted. I am always open to constructive criticism. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here you told an editor the draft at Draft:Saratu Altine Umar needed more references. On a quick glance that draft has literally zero references that support a claim to notability, which is the minimum standard for an article. It doesn't need more references. In fact, more BS references make it hard to review. That article needs three references that represent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, at least two of which are outside the local area and outside of industry-niche publications. Telling someone that an AfC needs more references is not just unhelpful to them but is actually harmful to other editors.

Now, it's not your fault that you don't know all of this yet. But it's a prime example of why you, with ~150 edits, should not be answering questions at Teahouse or other noticeboards. You simply can't really understand our policies well enough at this point to be answering questions. Valereee (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The article had significant portions without reference. However I did significantly more than telling the article creator to add more references. I went to the draft to see whether or not it was salvageable. After cutting unsupported content rewriting some portions and improving referencing as far as possible I advised the author that the article would not meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria unless more reliable sources could be found. Unfortunately the article creator did not listen to me and submitted the article for a fourth review. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, not more. All of those sources appear to be either affiliated or generated from press releases or routine bare mentions. If the article creator had listened to you, they would have been in a worse position than they already were, and someone like me would be fielding complaints like, "But another editor told me I just needed to add more references."

Go work in mainspace. Really. Stop editing at noticeboards. You do not have the experience. Valereee (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This is clearly independent and far more than routine mention. And sure, they could say "But another editor told me I just needed to add more references." They would be grossly distorting what I wrote. But, yes, they could say it. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That's one. Can you find two more? Valereee (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where I told the author the article won't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria unless more reliable sources can be found and that I don't think the article has a chance of being accepted? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not seeing that, no...what I'm seeing is The article definitely needs more references, especially in the Career section. I would also recommend some (not insignificant) restructuring and rewriting. Do you mind if I do some editing (I don't want to mess with someone's draft without their explicit permission). and Given that the draft has been declined twice it would have been better to come here before submitting it again. (FTR, you don't need permission to edit something in Draft space, it's not considered rude at all; the etiquette issue is more with editing in someone's user space.) Valereee (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the link again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Saratu_Altine_Umar#What_now? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, there! Yes, that was a fairly good answer. Leaves out sigcov and independent, but not incorrect. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• How is this in any way helpful to someone with 4000 edits? Valereee (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  And again this to someone who has 26K edits. These are not helpful responses, and one of the problems with non-helpful responses is that other editors are skimming the page to look for questions that haven't yet been responded to, and some they skip right over the ones that have a response because they assume anyone answering a question at help desk knows what they're doing. Please stop at Teahouse and Help Desk. Rp, in addition to spending your time on something that isn't helpful, something that may actually be the opposite of helpful, you are making yourself look clueless. Valereee (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  I won't go into individual answers here (although you're welcome to keep leaving your thoughts on them here). Mostly because even assuming your criticism of my answers is correct it still doesn't prove your point. I don't know if others skip over questions that have a response. However assuming that every question that has a response (or multiple responses for that matter) has been sufficiently answered goes against common sense, to an extent against the spirit of Wikipedia, and maybe most importantly is patently empirically false. As to the danger of looking clueless, that really doesn't bother me. And finally what I am doing is very much in the spirit of this. So I'll keep doing what I've been doing. But I welcome you to keep giving me your input. Even if I don't answer I'll definitely read it and see what I can learn from it. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Double check

Hello! As I'm sure your notifications indicate, there's been a lot of commentary on the Blue Star page. But I was hoping you could double check my understanding as I express it here. By diving into the sources, I realized that I (and maybe multiples of us?) missed something big about Jaijee's book. Specifically, I didn't realize until now that his argument for a secret white paper was the total number of people killed (which, per Marwah and page 175 of the Google Books excerpt, was 4,712), not the 35% number.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I do hereby dub thee "Destroyer of Stereotypes"

From your user page:

Proud to have been accused both of having no experience and having years of experience.

Are you sure you are German? That's the funniest thing I've read in years, and it's been said that Germans have no sense of humor. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm quite sure that I am German. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, Random person no 362478479,

I noticed a comment you made, implying that a very experienced editor who was questioning a very inexperienced editor diving into an AFD discussion was "biting" the newcomer. However, you are a very new editor yourself and so I just wanted to alert you to the fact that AFDs have a history of paid editor sockpuppets showing up to vote in deletion discussions. These editors don't work on improving articles, they just head directly to deletion discussions which is very unusual behavior for a new editor. As in this case with User:Samuel R Jenkins, these editors are usually discovered to be sockpuppets. It's an ongoing problem in AFDs.

I know that as a new editor, I wasn't even aware that the AFD area existed until I had been editing for some months. So, it's unusual for a new editor to go directly to deletion discussions and participate and the quality of their comments is generally poor. There is sometimes paid editing involved but often they are just blocked editors who return as sockpuppets. So, please be aware of this phenomena and don't be so quick to dismiss the suspicions of editors who've been active on Wikipedia for years. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

RP, if you haven't yet, enabling Preferences>Gadgets>Navigation Popups will allow you to hover over a username and see the number of edits an editor has made. While you're correct that being new does not mean your opinion shouldn't count, as Liz says, very new editors who are well-intentioned seldom end up at multiple AfDs. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Liz I didn't dismiss suspicions. I encountered the editor who we know to be a sockpuppet in two AFD discussions in which one editor acted let's say "passionately" as well as strongly implied that new users should be ignored in AFDs. And in one of these a second editor brought up his concern in a way that was definitely bitey. (After participating in a handful of AFD discussions I am not at all surprised that there is so little participation.) So I found it important to talk to the editor about their behaviour while at the same time making it clear that they should not be intimidated. Whether or not concerns are justified it is important to raise them in an appropriate way. And in this case that was done in a way that was definitely less than optimal. I'd point to the way @Dylnuge raised concerns on the user's talk page as a far more constructive approach. Yes, sockpuppets and users who don't know what they are doing are a huge problem, that's obvious. But we have to deal with that problem in a way that doesn't inadvertently scare away new users with honest intentions.

@Valereee thanks for the tip! I don't really care much how many edits someone has made, but having a preview for pages outside the mainspace is great. I wish I had know about this sooner. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW regarding my talk page comment, comments like that take a while to write and edit, even for someone who is verbose-by-default. To be honest, I'm not sure I should have spent the energy. I didn't actually believe there was a good faith explanation of User:Samuel R Jenkins's behavior (and even if there were one, unintentional disruption is still disruption).

Don't get me wrong—I value civility and appreciate the shout-out for it—but we don't ask editors to handwrite two paragraphs of polite descriptions of policy when someone is mass page-blanking, and the more I think about it, the less I see a major difference here. I don't think anyone was acting out of turn by pointing it out more directly. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dylnuge you were the first in that discussion to bring up the quick mass voting. Yes, after that it was hard to imagine a good explanation. And at that point being more "robust" is perfectly reasonable. But the bitey comments from others (towards the editor who is now blocked by two and towards others by one) came at a point where all that was raised in support was that the user account was new and gave no explanation for their vote. I do understand that these cases probably turn out to be problem users far more often than not. And I also understand that people can start to get cynical about things. But I think the risk of scaring off constructive new users is also very real. (There are reasons why I have the "considering retirement" box on my user page despite only being here a few weeks.) So, "you're new therefore you're suspicious" should not be the default. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not "you're new therefore you're suspicious". It's "you've made few constructive contributions yet somehow have found your way to multiple AfDs, where you're !voting cluelessly". The average editor with a few dozen edits can't find their way to the teahouse without an invitation.

You should care about how experienced another editor is, especially when you're thinking of accusing them of misbehavior. If they've made tens of thousands of edits, they may know what they're talking about better than someone with a few hundred edits. When you see someone with tens of thousands of edits saying something you think they shouldn't have said, it might be worth going to their talk page and asking instead of assuming you know what's going on and making an accusation in Wikipedia space. Valereee (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"you've made few constructive contributions yet somehow have found your way to multiple AfDs, where you're !voting cluelessly" If that was what they said I would have no objection. But it wasn't. And I don't care home many edits someone has it doesn't change their behaviour. And if anyone wants to report me for my comment, I am very comfortable with addressing the issue. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake. No one is threatening to "report" you. You hadn't done anything worse than exhibit cluelessness, although frankly at this point it's starting to feel like you also aren't listening.

What we're trying to do is give you some advice: Experienced editors sometimes, particularly in discussions such as AfDs or similar where we don't expect a ton of new editors to even be reading much less participating, use a bit of shorthand that less-experienced editors may not completely understand and therefore may misinterpret. The experienced editors who read HK's comment at Aleutia, for instance, knew exactly what they were getting at or knew how to investigate if they were unclear. Valereee (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that welcoming new editors is important. I don't think anyone here thinks otherwise. That you've hit the point where you're thinking of quitting three weeks into editing concerns me, a lot! But mass striking every comment you've made at an AfD in order to make a point is disruptive; please don't do that. Maybe take a bit of a break, if not from editing altogether than from project space? I'm also the kind of person who gets sequentially sucked into single hobbies, and when I find I'm not enjoying something anymore, breaks have always helped me (including here). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:William L. Breckinridge on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Philosophy and religion Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andrew Planta on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Isabel Hagen has been accepted

Isabel Hagen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 14:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please don't retire

We haven't crossed paths much, iirc, but from your recent comments at Ref desk/Language and elsewhere I think you make valuable additions to discussions, and your native ability in German is a great resource for us here at English Wikipedia. Please don't retire. Mathglot (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Wikipedia is probably the most unwelcoming platform I've ever been on. And in the short time I've been here I had already to take a two week mental health break from Wikipedia. But I think I have more or less figured out by now which parts of Wikipedia are plainly outside of civilization and which are at least semi-civilized. If I make it to the six months mark I'll probably remove the template. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear you. I've been around for a long time, and have managed to learn how to edit in some very contentious topic areas with rough disussion pages without ever getting close to being blocked, which isn't to say it hasn't been stressful at times, but the point is, maybe I can be a resource for you. Sometimes just taking a break from one area and moving on to other things, whether wikignoming or just a new topic, is enough. If you ever want to talk about some difficult situation, or just need to vent or blow off steam, feel free to ping me here, or come to my Talk page. MfG, Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm glad to see you're back around (I still had your talk page on my watch list from back in April)! I wanted to second @Mathglot here. I think your contributions are valuable and I hope you stick around. Definitely get what you mean about civility; some editors seem to have looser definitions of the term than I do personally. For what it's worth I haven't done much with AfD in the last couple months and it's certainly made me feel a bit saner. Anyways, I hope you're doing well! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Help and Elaboration please.

hey !, You recently commented on RfC about arabs being ethnolinguistic group

with that you think it is abuse of rfc. Can you elaborate why do you think that exactly ? And what should i do or have done ?Stephan rostie (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

See my response in the RfC. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

PAIPP RS discussion

I re-did the discussion as a formal RfC and moved your remarks to that section. Please check and make sure I didn't break anything. Thanks! Barte (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I'll take a look. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)