|
User talk:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco
|
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Your submission at Articles for creation: Gerard Gertoux has been accepted
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.
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!
🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)October 2024
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Gerard Gertoux are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I just tried to respond to the discussion on the COATRACK presumption. Thanks for the advice, and have a nice day.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. What you did was add a load of stuff that was not German to the conversation. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Gerard Gertoux for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Gertoux 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.🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have been thinking about this long and hard. It seems to me that, as the accepting reviewer, I am pretty well placed to nominate for a deletion discussion. It was a borderline acceptance, and my studying it now suggests to me that it was on the incorrect side of the border.
- In case you are unfamiliar with WP:AFD, any editor at all is entitled to voice their opinion. That opinion should be based upon policy and must be concise and well argued. You are, of course, entitled to offer your opinion.
- Generally, the discussion runs for seven days, after which an uninvolved editor, usually an administrator, will summarise the arguments presented, with particular regard to policy based arguments, and will state the consensus, if consensus there be. If there is no obvious consensus the discussion may be extended formally for up to two further formal seven day periods.
- What they do not do is to "count votes" because this is not a ballot. They summarise the consensus reached. They also are not entitled to a "supervote" - they must not add their own opinions when closing the discussion.
- At the conclusion, the community will have spoken, which is far better than just me, or just you. We then accept the consensus whether we agree with it or not. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- It seemed more polite to add something personal. A bald templated message is essential, but an explanation is far better, the more so since you have worked hard on the article.
- I accepted it as a borderline decision primary to expose it to the chance of community improvement. IT was, on acceptance, a portmanteau article seeking to cover a multitude of topics. Generally we expect one subject per article, hence my concerns expressed previously.
- Improving the article is still possible, even when nominated for deletion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
You are dancing very close to WP:BLUDGEON
This is not a good look. Deletion discussion require policy based arguments not vague blandishments about some off topic material with the apparent aim of seeking to bamboozle the discussion participants and likely the closer as well. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I came here to say the same thing. Please do not feel compelled to respond to every editor's argument that you disagree with. It's not a method that helps to change anyone's mind and it just irritates other participants and reflects negatively on your own position. The basic rule of participating in AFDs is to go in, make the strongest argument you can make, evaluating the article and its sources, bring up any other reliable sources that you have located and then STOP. If additional questions come up, feel free to respond to them but do not dominate a discussion. As I said, it can actually backfire on you and cause a closer to not review your comments when they compose 50% of the discussion content. Your goal is to present such a strong argument, based in Wikipedia policy, that it persuades other editors that your position is the most accurate. That can't happen if you overwhelm a discussion. Just some unasked for advice from a frequent AFD closer. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice Liz, for which I will meditate, to be a better editor. I just think I worried too much about thinking there would be fairness in the article deletion discussion. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Pierre Villard moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Pierre Villard. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Fails WP:BIO. It is ether return to Draft for further and better references, or AfD. I have chosen draft. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Your plea at WT:SPI
The plea was not answered in any investigative nor what one might describe as official manner. I concluded that this was because that talk page is visited all too rarely.
I have created, therefore, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seeker02421 which asks the question of the SPI investigation team. I am not 100% sure that you have seen this, so I commend it to you.
There is no fixed timescale for the functionaries in this area to investigate. While there is almost certainly no rush for you to comment I feel you may wish to do so in the short term future. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am really grateful to you for attending my request, in which I am interested in denying the accusation made against me. Also thank you for the work you do on wikipedia and the time you spend volunteering, sometimes without even expecting a thank you. I hope that the feeling of satisfaction of having supported an encyclopedia for the access of all people is enough for you to continue, whenever you can. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- My hope is simply that whatever the outcome of the various discussions, you feel that you have had the chance to put your points across in a fair and equitable manner. This is true whether we agree on matters or disagree.
- Please do make any comments you wish at the report. All I have done is to open a rather unusual report in order toggle you that chance. These investigations are solely evidence based, so your availing yourself of the opportunity to enter yours is something I believe you will feel important. It should be brief and on topic, and about circumstances. It should not include theories, hypotheses, nor opinions.
- And, thank you. This is an interesting and inspiring hobby. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion has now closed, with the outcome you wished for. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for helping me with that investigation procedure to disprove that accusation, which you had no idea how to initiate. I was going to initiate the process, but I was warned not to make mistakes, and I was not sure what to answer. After the investigation procedure was initiated, I did not want to participate quickly, so as not to risk committing an offense, which would be recorded and could harm someone. Now that I was going to respond, the process was already closed, and I am very happy that there is no longer any doubt and that I am being denigrated by a false accusation. I think I should take my guitar and play Master of Sockpuppets, I mean Master of Puppets. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion has now closed, with the outcome you wished for. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's no need to be dramatic. There was never an accusation of 'socking' and even the suggestion was retracted at the AfD prior to the completion of the unnecessary SPI. It remains the case that your promotion of Gertoux is awfully similar to the other editor, but it's so long ago that it doesn't really matter.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- All you have experienced is what any of us may experience at points in our time here. When something has the appearance of being unusual it is investigated. Often the matter is coincidental, not malicious. We are grateful for the investigation and move on.
- You have no stain on your character, so all is good. Simply enjoy this hobby. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Yves Ayant has been accepted
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.
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!
Ca talk to me! 02:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Willy Fautré moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Willy Fautré. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and those sources should be reliable and independent. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Jehovah's Witnesses in France has been accepted
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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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!
Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Nomination of Alaric Naudé for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaric Naudé 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.