and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! – NJD-DE (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MollyPollyRolly! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).
When you welcomed me you said I could contact you with any question. An editor inserts references to his self-published advertising websites in numerous articles. No reference to the self-published advertising websites existed before this editor began and he is the only one, as well as I can find, who has ever inserted the references into any article.
I don't think the references should be allowed. He is not an expert in the field, as suggested by TransporterMan on the talk page of Hole carding. TransporterMan wrote that the references would fail under WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES.
I was told to start documenting the activity on a relevant article talk page, and I did so. I resolved the main problem, whether the user name corresponds to the owner of the self-published advertising websites and to the developer of the software advertised on those websites. It was easy. The user on his own user talk page states he is the author of the software and the self-published webpages provide his name as owner.
That the website is commercial, with banner ads for his software, led one editor on the talk page to suggest another problem, a conflict of interest and that WP:COIN is being violated. Another said the insertion of references could be a violation of yet another, WP:PROMO.
So, after having the issue discussed on the article talk page as I was advised, where do I go next? Or, can you refer me to someone who can so advise?
Hi, there are three editors at the Anti-Hindu Sentiment page who are removing my new content and corrections without any explanation or a wrong reason. Factually incorrect information is on the page and it is partly locked which means there is no access. The gatekeeping being done on that page is not as per the wikipedia policy. none of the editors appear to have any expertise or knowledge of the topic and I am an expert on this subject and have written fresh content that disproves the existing content and its sources Jnanashuddhi (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss it where? Every time I raise the topic on the talk, it is removed entirely. There is no scope to discuss it on the talk page if they delete every comment. I am ready to make a report. Please tell me who I can report this to.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MollyPollyRolly I don't understand why you reverted my new listing. It is value-adding and objective. Can you clarify how it should be improved? I put a lot of time into it and it's my first listing, only for it to be deleted without explanation. Thank you. Jebr1976a (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Jebr1976a[reply]
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 such as names of organizations or products 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. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. I'd also suggest carefully reviewing the username policy and reporting instructions as a nuber of your reports are being declined. There's a good amount of nuance as to when to report a username, we don't actually want to block users without a valid reason.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MollyPollyRolly. Hope you are doing great. My new user name is Bifocalmind. In my user page there is field name Signature. Will I write Bifocalmind in there and will it be treated as my Signature?
--Bifocalmind (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edits that you reverted at this article were not vandalism. Please be very careful about making incorrect accusations of vandalism, which has a very narrow definition here on Wikipedia. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Did I indicated in my edit summary that it was? No. I did warned her the same way as Equine-man did. Her removal of sourced content was viewed by many (not only by me) as a form of vandalism. It only occurred later on that she wasn't vandalizing anything.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have written this if you had acknowledged the problem; I assumed Cullen's information was sufficient. Sadly, it wasn't.
As you may see on their talk page, Equine-man has received similar advice. Contrary to HMSLavender and the not-infallible ClueBot NG, you are the two editors who have taken this approach after "privacy" was explicitly voiced as a concern for repeated selective removal of material.
So yes, you treated the edit as vandalism, and you did make an incorrect accusation of vandalism towards the editor. The whole situation was inappropriate on multiple levels:
Vandalism is intentional damage to the encyclopedia; the selective removal of personal details from a biography is rarely an attempt to damage the encyclopedia. It is more likely an attempt to improve the encyclopedia; the relevant guideline is WP:AGF.
When someone explicitly voices "privacy" concerns while selectively removing material from an article, any assumption of "vandalism" without careful examination of the removed material is dangerous; a revert might re-instate oversightable libel, revision-deletable material or other violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.
The BLP policy notes: "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material." The WP:BLPEDIT section contains advice, in bold text, about dealing with such concerns in kindness and with understanding; it explicitly names "vandalism" as something this should not be treated as.
When someone explicitly voices "accuracy" or similar concerns, the verifiability policy comes into play. It contains two sections with requirements for re-instating the material: WP:ONUS requires consensus for restoring disputed verifiable material, and WP:BURDEN requires reliable inline citations directly supporting the material. Even if you have actually taken the time to verify the content with the given citations within 6 minutes, you have not sought consensus on the article's talk page before re-instating material that had been removed twice before and was clearly under dispute.
Perhaps the word you've been looking for is "disruptive editing". Arguably, edit warring is disruptive – that is, unless WP:3RRNO #7 applies. Simply assuming that it doesn't, without a close look at the material, would be a mistake that I hope hasn't been made here.
Wherever you look, whichever policy or guideline you consult, there will almost always be a section about biographies of living persons, and it will almost always explicitly discourage what you have done there.
@ToBeFree: Thank you kindly for explanation. Couple of questions still persist. 1. If, as you say, "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material", then why an I seeing mostly socks and vandals adding some unsourced content or removing sourced content, most of which isn't done kindly? Here is one of those examples. As for this: "If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dorothy Ruíz Martínez, you may be blocked from editing." I didn't wrote. This is what came with the template. Did I used the wrong template, yes, and am sorry for it.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Regarding question 1: I guess you're filtering the list of recent changes, either automatically using ORES scores or simply by manually choosing which diffs to look at, by whichever criteria. There are about 1-2 edits per second on the English Wikipedia, and it is perfectly fine to filter them for potential disruption. This skews the picture, though, and we should be aware that most contributors do want to constructively build an encyclopedia. The specific example adds material, and it seems to have been correctly reverted due to a lack of a citation. However, of course, there are examples for malicious selective removal of content; such edits exist as well. When someone voices privacy concerns and actually removes a few specific details from a biography, it's usually a good-faith edit that shouldn't be repeatedly reverted without discussion. Regarding point 2, no worries; such is life. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: "However, of course, there are examples for malicious selective removal of content; such edits exist as well". Yes, and that's why I reverted it. I have nothing against the subject though, neither did I wanted to disrespect a living person. I assumed the edit to be a malicious intent. In theory, I mostly greet newbies here, but sometimes I do revert when I either see infobox being screwed up or somebody is removing sourced content. I saved WikiProject Spain here once. Somebody decided to blank the page of the project itself, I was first in line to restore to it's original glory.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MollyPollyRolly, I am a bit concerned about your comments about the use of templates, specifically As for this: "If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dorothy Ruíz Martínez, you may be blocked from editing." I didn't wrote. This is what came with the template. Let me be very clear. When you leave a template on a user talk page, you are 100% responsible for every word in that message generated by that template, just as if you were the author of the template language. If the template language is inaccurate, then you have two choices. You can either copyedit the language displayed on the user talk page so it accurately describes the situation, or you can delete the template message and leave another message using another more appropriate template, or writing a personalized message in your own words. Templates are not required. They are optional tools that must be used properly. As an administrator, I block disruptive editors all the time. I use templates, but quite frequently, I go back within seconds and edit the template language so that it more accurately describes the specific circumstances. Please always remember that there is another human being with feelings that is receiving your warning. It needs to be accurate. I hope that this will be a learning experience for you, and that you will be a better editor as a result. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is the subject of extensive discussion, my suggestion is that you do not delete it, but instead add a followup edit saying something like, after further study and consultation with other editors, that you now realize that the edits were not vandalism. Say that in your own words. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Important notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Well Know offense if you looked up Tom Vano you would see a great deal about his being a Silver Star recipient as well as numerous other War HERO awards. And secondly he has not only been a Photographer for people such as the Emperor of Japan as well as notable black people namely Willie Mays for one who made huge strides for the black community. He is a very well known man who deserves to be read about on Wikipedia or at least I thought he was. Because you said he is not considered a war hero without so much as you looking up his achievements in both WWII as well as the world class Photographer he once was and having worked until he was 85, when he retired, his archive of images was so impressive that almost one million images were purchased by the California State Library and are archived in the Tom Vano collection. WikiKnowledge7777 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First off you have been nothing but subjective with me as well as other people on here that are also currently unhappy with the way you degrade their articles too! Criticism is fine but only if used to help someone rather than try and sound superior too them! Dearly wikipedia I will no longer be donating to your valiant cause. Not because I can't have an article suggested and then "bombastic" by whoever critiques these articles. That being--MollyPollyRolly in this case. She has even been so rude as to suggest this as being a memorial, he passed away six years ago. I will be closing my wikipedia account as well due to the unwelcome feelings that not just I, but others that have had to answer to her as well have expressed the same sentiments. Good day to all. And to a, in my mind and others, who has a book written about him (Tom Vano). WikiKnowledge7777 (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to say this but, usually KKK is seen as an abbreviation of Ku Klux Klan. However this isn't always the case and sometimes a name can just happen to be abbreviated to KKK. However, I do think welcoming and then advising them about the possible implications of their username would be better than just welcoming them or simply sending them straight to WP:Usernames for administrator attention so that they can fix it if they didn't mean to appear like they're part of the KKK. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze The Wolf: Do I look to you as a person who don't know what KKK stands for? Really, you assuming low of me. If you go to WP:AN/I, find a discussion about it in Usernames. There, I explained in detail why I welcomed him. In reality, (this goes for the rest of participants), a Japanese pagoda have swastikas, but that doesn't mean that every Japanese priest (or whatever they are called there) is royal to Hitler. I still think that Todd and his buddies here who had a kick out of it, such as Usedtobecool and Cullen328, should apologize for their accusations and taunting.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never said you didn't know what KKK stood for. If I saw that username I would WP:AGF that they aren't part of the KKK and they're initials just happened to unfortunately be KKK. Now if they were making edits that appeared to be related to the KKK then I would report them to WP:UAA. I also came up with a compromise that was a balance between immediately reporting them to WP:UAA and welcoming them. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 20:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MollyPollyRolly, you have misunderstood my comment. I was disagreeing with Toddst1's analysis and implicitly defending your action. As for knowing Asian names, I have lived and worked in and around San Francisco for the last 49 years. My current home town has a population that is 45% Asian/Pacific Islanders. My next door neighbors are Vietnamese and the family across the street are Sikhs from India. As for Toddst1 being a "buddy" of mine, that too is incorrect. We are both administrators and sometimes comment in the same discussions, but I cannot recall ever having a direct conversation with him. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A little correction, Cullen, I don't think Toddst is an admin.What I did after I saw this yesterday, was look up User:Swastika. There are more than a billion Hindus in the world who could potentially have been named Swastika. So, first, I was surprised to see people wanting to block it without care for context. But then it turned out the editor was actually editing Nazism-related articles. So, the conversation was cut short. Obviously, username Swastika should not be editing Holocaust articles, even if they were named Swastika by their Hindu parents and were just learning what it means in the western world and that's how they landed in the Nazism topics. "KKK" is nowhere near the level of "Swastika". Unless they edit white supremacy related articles, especially since the username is not just "KKK", I don't think the user ought be bothered at all. Usedtobecool☎️04:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Cullen nor I were "buddy"ing with Toddst1. I was saying it was inappropriate to report the editor to UAA. If anything I was defending you. I have your page on watchlist; I didn't and don't know who Toddst is. I understand you were feeling attacked after the way the OP was phrased here, but I and Cullen having a "kick out of it"? Our "accusations and taunting"? Sorry to say this is really disappointing. Usedtobecool☎️03:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: and @Cullen328: Sorry. I misinterpreted your actions as "taunting". It was strange hearing from a fellow Wikipedian "Do any of them advance an American KKK agenda?" I might viewed it wrong, but from my view it was like "Oh, does Malaysian KKK have anything to do with American one". It's kind of like saying that Afghan Americans are as guilty as Taliban, if you know what I mean. Besides, a user can have DNC username, but it doesn't make them party-specific. It can also mean Daniel Nicole Cummins.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for Swastika, I would also check for what they put into those articles. If they put reliable sources like The New York Times, instead of Alt-right sources, I probably will be more inclined to welcome them, no matter how offensive the name might be. Long story short, if the editor adds something fringe or offensive under those names, feel free to block those, however, if their fringe theory is supported by a reliable source, such as The New York Times, I would get it slide. Besides, if an editor even edits an article on David Duke or KKK doesn't make him a white supremacist.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked on the articles that User:Swastika was editing: Otto Ernst Remer was the one that caught everyone's eye back in 2005. The funny thing is, is that people viewed his edit as an association to Nazism, but in reality what he did was expanding an article from a stub to a start class article. I also don't see any far-right ideologies in his edits aside from his userpage.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcoming before any edits
Hello! This is just a recommendation but welcoming users before they have made any edits is highly discouraged as most welcome messages thank the user for their contributions and if they haven't made any yet, this can be rather confusing for the new user. Also, if a user hasn't made any edits yet we can't tell if they're going to be good or not. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. THis is why we don't welcome a user until they've made an edit. With me, since I use Twinkle, if a user is an IP I can choose from a general welcome, a welcome for if the user made test edits, a welcome for if the user has made constructive edits, a welcome for if the user has made unconstructive edits, and one more that I've. If the user hasn't made any edits it can be confusing if I gave them a general welcome as even that one mentions that the user has made contributions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze The Wolf: Some of the editors that I greeted in the past were Draft creators. It's totally fine for an editor to create an article in his sandbox, but majority of times they end up being rejected for promo reasons. I still welcome them, because I assume good faith first, and the aftermath of that good faith as second.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Sorry. I try my best. I was doing welcomes from the New users log this time, and was unaware of what happened. I did however reverted one vandalism edit today, so I am not being totally ignorant. :)--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that you are totally ignorant. Far from it. But before you greet a new editor, look at their username and a few recent edits. This editor is an obvious racist hatemonger. I have blocked them indefinitely. Please do not greet people like that. Report them instead. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Job Tate due diligence
I hate to ask, but when Rutlandright indicated that connected contributors would be working of VT state legislator pages, I would feel remiss to not ask.
I thought so, but I'd rather ask than assume. And now if there's a question later, you can say you've already talked with an admin about it. Job Tate is deleted. Rewrite at your leisure. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for the welcome on my talk page. Could you plese help me with something? There is a Wikipedia article about a historic institution which is very short and crudely written. It is flagged at the top as follows:
This article has multiple issues. Please help to improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (April 2010)
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (April 2010)
I am writing a draft version of a new article on this subject in my sandbox. Once my draft is over, can I send it to an editor for review, or, since the page already exists in a flagged state, should I just delete the entire content on the current flagged page and replace with mine? I would prefer to send my sandbox draft to an editor first.
Another question: if I click on submit to an editor, will it go to an editor who is an expert on the subject in question? I would prefer this.
Thanks for your cordial welcome message.
A sandbox question: The Mitchell Wilder sandbox entry I began yesterday has disappeared today. Any idea what happened?Ciao bill (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 18:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
There is still a discussion involving your welcoming people at the AN thread mentioned above, but I've unblocked you. That was unnecessary. Please join in the conversation there before you welcome more people, though. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Hey, when I had just joined you said I could leave a message here if I needed help. Well, I've been trying to get the Rhode Island regiment up to higher quality and looking at the talk page, the only thing holding it back from B tier are bad references. Since I’m new, could you point out to me what work needs to be done to the references to it might be upgraded to B tier. Also, when whatever the problem is fixed, who do I need to talk to for it to get officially upgraded? Many thanks in advance. Deadtravller (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MollyPollyRolly, regarding Special:Diff/1062050326, no worries: There have been plenty of chances, such as [1], [2] and [3]. Especially valuable chances as the contributions contained reliable citations and thus were not automatically reverted, resulting in relatively long-lasting damage to the biography of a living person. I hope the lack of interest in providing another chance before blocking is somehow relatable. Anyway! See below! :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: Those are not the chances I was referring to. I see no warnings on his talkpage, which made me baffled as to why he was blocked right away. Yes, trolling is a big deal, but you should have warned them, not simply revert them. You also shouldn't have his talkpage access revoked simply because he was asking for clarification. Calling him a troll, even if he is is also rude. It might be viewed as a personal attack.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user is a repeatedly returning sockpuppeteer. The three diff links above are from three accounts, each created after the previous one was blocked. Sockpuppet contributions are freely revertable, sockpuppet accounts are blocked and the request for clarification was trolling if you have a look at the edit content again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your kind welcome on my talk page, MollyPollyRolly.
I also have a question: Are edit-requests only published on a subject's talk page when an editor addresses them? I created an edit-request on a semi-protected page, and my edit request is not yet published on that subject's Talk Page, nor did I find it in the current lineup of edit requests.
However, that edit request is listed on my contributions page. Please confirm that an editor will be able and address my edit request, thank you! Boxermystic (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, something needs to be done with this repeat problem. I'm thinking not WP:SPI, yet, but it needs to be brought to some venue for resolution. And I don't think WP:AVI, cuz it's a problem of content, COI and more. But this is more of the same from 10 and 12 and 13 and 14 years ago, and needs to be rejected again. And I don't have the time, so step up to more ways to help Wikipedia? Shenme (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shenme: Well, I wish I could be of assistance, but somebody mistaken my account for somebody else, so I probably won't be able to help until this issue will be resolved if ever.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subpages
Hello.
Recently, my homepage as well as subpages were deleted. Without prior notice. I do not know who to report to but would it be possible to send me the removed content by e-mail? I really care about it because these are important things for me. Nocne12 (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
Cheers, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC) ,_cropped.jpg)
