Hello, I'm Tedickey. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! TEDickey (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A belated welcome!
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, SmittenGalaxy! 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:
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I was using the rollback on Twinkle, which auto-opens the talk page edit as opposed to a new section. Just pasted it at the top on accident. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've recently templated me for removing content with an explanation. But you then said it WAS NOT explained. Are you sure you are templating who you intend to? If not, can you provide a diff of an unexplained removal of content? 68.170.73.15 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say "unexplained", it says "adequate explanation". Removing information in the lede, such as you did at this diff, struck me as a bit odd because you mention genetics, despite the page not being about genetics, although your previous edit was on that page. This led me to believe you mistakenly edited the wrong page and used an incorrect edit summary to justify the edit, which is why I did not revert to that diff.
Both this diff and this one remove sourced information, but I do not feel the explanation given in your edit summary was adequate as to why you removed this information. Wikipedia does allow both the removal of inaccurate information as well as irrelevant information, but as I previously stated, I do not feel your edit summary was an adequate explanation of why this removal was necessary. It was sourced information, so if you can explain why the removal of this information was necessary, I can understand the reasoning for it. Please do this on the article's talk page, however, and not my talk page, nor yours. This is why I did not revert to these diffs.
And finally, this one is probably the one I'd be the most likely to understand, but I do not believe your edit summary was clear as to why it was removed. Additionally, it was still sourced information, and if you have a dispute with the accuracy of the source and its adequacy for use in the article, you may again dispute this on the article's talk page.
I have reverted back to the last diff before your edits. If you have any further discussion to do, you may do it on the article's talk page. Thanks. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You added, and now own, "Mormon apologists give varied responses to these criticisms....". None of your additions are relevant or cited to experts. In fact, you seem to be edit warring to keep WP:FRINGE materials in the article. Every scholarly sourced does not require pseudoscientific rebuttals. Also, see WP:MANDY68.170.73.15 (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Hello. When you added that long plot notice to Batman: Arkham Shadow, I believe you made a mistake. Much of the plot section before I edited it was very inaccurate to how the game actually plays out, with events described inaccurately, or not occurring at the correct time as they are shown in the game. Furthermore, the plot was also missing some very important details on events in the game that I had to fix. In addition, Wikipedia allows video game plots to exceed 700 words when they are particularly complex or lengthy. Since Arkham Shadow has all of this and more, and some details of particularly critical events are very important to the point they must be mentioned, I ask that you remove the excessive word message. 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:2D52:7E9D:6FB6:7A4F (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a mistake; the plot section is over 1000 words, which is greater than the ⪆700 words outlined by the WP:VG manual of style. This makes it take up roughly half of the total page size, the total word count being 2093 (with the plot section alone being 1033 words of this 2093). You're free to remove it if you can reduce the size down to about 700 (although going over slightly isn't particularly an issue), but until then it's far too long according to the manual of style, and especially far too long relative to the size of the rest of the article. Please do not remove it before that time comes, however. SmittenGalaxy|talk!00:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because making sweeping changes to articles, even in good faith, isn't something usually done without community consensus. This especially goes for removing content that is well-sourced and adding content that is not in line with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view.
Additionally, which sources are deprecated? The diff where you said you did so in the summary (dailyrecord) isn't a deprecated source. You can confirm this by looking at the list of deprecated sources currently on enwiki.
If you would like to continue this discussion, I would recommend moving it to the article talk page to get better community consensus from a wider range of editors. There is nothing wrong with making such changes on your own, but the scope of what you changed is a bit outside of that "do it yourself" range, especially considering the wording of some of the content you added. SmittenGalaxy|talk!00:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revision deletion
Thanks for all your hard work fighting vandalism on Wikipedia. In the future, when you revert "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little to no encyclopedic or project value, or violates our biographies of living people policy", such as you did in Special:Diff/1259578916, please also request WP:Revision deletion. Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)15:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure in the future to use revdel requests more; I suppose my main issue(?) or barrier with it is that there's not really a simple way of doing so, as there is for oversight. Despite that I'll still keep it in mind when coming across examples such as that. Thanks. SmittenGalaxy|talk!22:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback granted
Hi SmittenGalaxy. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)16:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit states that BLP applies to someone dead for 137 years, well past the six months post mortem that are usually covered by WP:BDP. It's not the first time I've seen someone do that sort of thing, but it is without a doubt the longest period of time since the subject's death in which that has happened. Congratulations! Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I meant to hit "Unsourced: No verifiable reliable source" instead of "Unsourced: Biography of living person".[1] That, or I think my brain just saw a name and went name = BLP. Either way, interesting to know it's (probably) the longest someone's done it for (and will likely help me remember next time, lol). Thanks! SmittenGalaxy|talk!05:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(not SG) mucking about in the Discord server, where it's a common joke to call me Queen of Stinky (for some reason), although I didn't think anyone would actually create that redirect. charlotte👸♥09:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Today you tagged Rajasthani people article for copyright violation but when i check the link you said about (see here) i found that this website is a blog which itself copied the whole content from wikipedia in 2016, as stated on blog and i also checked previous revisions of the wiki and found the same. Please look into this. Thanks and Happy editing TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSlumPanda: I tagged the article as a potential WP:COPYVIO, as when looking at the page with copyright violation detecting tools, it came up that a large portion of the page is a potential violation. However, it was difficult to tell exact diffs and who introduced the content, so I have reported it to WP:CP due to the difficulty of narrowing down the source.
You mention that the WordPress site copied content from Wikipedia, which does appear to be the case; there are plaintext footnotes with numbers very similar to how Wikipedia references work. However, this does not mean it is a copy from the same article, nor a recent version. What this instead means is that it is a potential attribution issue, since all used Wikipedia content, including edits, must be attributed per the CC-BY-SA license Wikipedia uses.
WP:BACKWARDSCOPY is a possibility for this source, however it is not a guarantee, and it could be a case of WP:CIRCULAR citing/referencing. There is also the issue of the other listed source, the PDF, on the report. It is largely copied from there, as well, with no proof of proper license usage or even attribution, so that would in and of itself be a copyright violation, even if the WordPress is not. There are additional sources the tools used to check for copyright violations found, but those two were the primary that I felt were a problem. I believe that due to the nature of how much content on the page is a potential copyright infringement, as well as the ambiguity of when it was added and by whom, a proper investigation was needed into the page by the WP:CP clerks and administrators.
The previous revision(s) before my notice are still available in the history, and after the report has concluded, it will be removed with infringing content potentially removed and revision deleted. If you have any concerns about this, you're welcome to raise concerns on the talk page for WP:CP as well as the article talk page. Thanks. SmittenGalaxy|talk!00:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
