The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, BoomboxTestarossa! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
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.
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User:Chaheel Riens can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. For your comment to the other user I could warn you for personal attacks, a lack of good faith, and harassment, but I had to pick one. Please don't talk to other editors like that again. Thank you.Drmies (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on Tri-Man. Not all topics are notable (suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article). The Tri-Man article does not cite sources establishing notability, so it may get deleted. A source shows that the article topic is notable when it:
contains significant coverage: it addresses the topic directly and in multiple paragraphs of detail. A source with only trivial or off-topic mentions of the subject doesn't count.
is independent of the subject: it isn't produced by the article's subject or someone similarly affiliated with it. For example, these are not independent: the subject's press releases, autobiographies, website, and interviews.
Completely (well, not quite,) unrelated to our other discussion, but you make a comment "Whoops, don't even remember making that account, sorry, different device. Above comment was mine, will try to work out deleting the other". I presume you mean deleting the account, rather than the comment. You can't do this, Wiki doesn't delete accounts or even contributions (not counting revdel etc, which only really hides them) for accountability purposes. In this case, I'd just ignore it. For your own piece of mind just scramble the password on the account, sign out of it and effectively pretend it never happened. For the sake of a single edit, that both involved editors (thee and me) know to be the same person, there's little point in getting much else done.
The only other thing I'd consider would be creating an ImpactorWasRight user and talk page that both redirect to your Boombox user and talk pages respectively - that would also solve the problem. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Grand Cirque (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
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.
Hello Boombox Testarossa, and @Donaldd23:. I have deprodded this one too, as it seems rather notable. Yours, MY OH MY
Thanks, I must admit I am struggling with the notability criteria for films.
For one I get why there has to be checks to avoid the "I filmed my friends on my phone now it's a movie" scenario but I'm struggling to see how films released theatrically to paying customers aren't automatically notable as long as *something* can be written about them.
Two, I'm finding the mechanism a little... intimidating, perhaps. Someone slaps the not notable thingy on and then doesn't seem to check back on whether it's been improved to meet standards.
Thanks for uploading File:MiracleManNo11TopSellers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-Man until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Is is looking increasingly like you are pursuing a minor vendetta, and once again you have not actually suggested any concrete improvements to be made, why the sources noted are not acceptable and what threshold needs to be reached for them to do so. As such it is hard to see how this is not a bad faith attempt to stealth-delete a page after the AfD for Tri-Man failed to immediately go the way you wanted it to. I'm not sure what exactly I've done to get on your shitlist beyond questioning your policy but your continued evasion of any sort of discussion is not, IMHO, in the interests of Wikipedia. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion
Hi BoomboxTestarossa, and thanks for seeking out a third opinion. I removed/declined your request, as there has not been thorough talk page discussion. If you try to discuss the matter, and local discussion can't result in consensus, please feel free to post at WP:3O again. Please make sure your future requests are neutral. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise; however part of my problem is that the user in question appears to be actively avoiding any significant discussion on the matters, and is IMHO violating Wikipedia guidelines as a result. As a more experienced user would you be able to suggest a more fitting path for me to take? Many thanks BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been an ongoing problem that has gone through several articles over several days, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-Man ; Talk:Tri-Man, not to mention numerous reviews that flag up concerns that a) are not raised by other reviewers and b) are not applied to numerous other Wikipedia articles. I am currently wary of editing or submitting any articles as I feel any work will be undone without discussion, consensus or co-operation. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Incredible Change-Bots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonathan Kent. 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.)
An article you recently created, List of Miracleman characters, is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, click the Submit the draft for review! button atop the article. Silikonz💬00:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:TriManSmashAnnual.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Total Eclipse (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Total Eclipse.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warpsmith until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Warrior10Warpsmiths.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You're completely fine! Just wanted to drop by with a note in case you still wanted to propose article for deletion via AfD. Cheers! TartarTorte19:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BoomboxTestarossa! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Alan J. Porter that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. A PROD is never going to be a minor edit, as the point of the PROD system is to give other editors a chance to dispute an intended deletion.Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're re-PRODding articles which you have PRODded before. Per WP:PROD, "PROD [...] may only be placed on a page a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Please undo the rePRODding on any page that you had previously PRODded. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the previous prods were removed in error by another editor who mistook them for vandalism. What is the mechanism for flagging questionable articles in this case? Thanks! =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have conversed with that editor -- and I see that you have -- the ideal way would be to ask them to undo their dePRODding, which is generally deemed acceptable. But barring that, you might try including a link to that conversation in the edit summary -- something like "DePRODder says prod was removed in error, User_talk:StarTrekker#Hi!" --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In addition to the above, per the instructions at WP:PROD, you are required to provide a clear edit summary when adding the proposed deletion template to articles. It is also recommended that you add Template:Old prod to the talk page, and notify the page creators with Template:Proposed deletion notify. All this is done automatically if you use WP:Twinkle; you might want to consider doing so in the future. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Those are grim reading... Same time I don't actually like deleting articles if at all possible, especially when it's so damn hard to source up basically anything about comics that's not American. Most of those I prodded were IMHO very much extracting the michael and unlikely to be salvaged. There's a lot out there that can be retooled into something useful, it's just irritating that so many seem to have been abandoned... BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been known to do some mass prodding myself - well, depends on definiton of mass. BUT it's important to be careful. ZH has two references in Korean; the first one seems to be to a review in a major Korean newspaper (The Dong-a Ilbo). That should be enough to give this article a full discussion at AfD, not a PROD. Just my 2c about best practices. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus much appreciated! I am always open to learning a bit more and it does look like I made a couple of mistakes along the way where my frustration spilt over a bit! Someone kindly sent me a big list of the comics pages that badly need attention and I am trying to alternate between salvaging the ones that I am interested/knowledgeable about and the ones that aren't my cup of tea but can be patched up. It is just a personal bugbear that some have been abandoned for years when other stuff is so hard to get past review. But there we go! =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
