User talk:Cooldudeseven7

Wikipedia ads	file info – #293

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

WikiLove History

Got something to discuss? Lets talk over a cup of tea:

Did you know that I made the set wikipedia ad above?

Start a new discussion thread

Content here is deleted after 2 weeks of inactivity OR if this was resolved at another talk page.

Hi. I saw that you had your rollback permissions request denied. I agree with the rationale, but I'm not writing to "spike the football". Rather I wanted to suggest that you install Twinkle which gives you a convenient rollback button. I think it's a bit slower than rollback, but I use it frequently and I have never felt the need to ask for rollback rights so I wouldn't know.

Good luck with your editing. It does take time to learn policies and guidelines, and to gain skills at wiki-markup. I think I'm a lot farther along in my learning than you and I still make mistakes (usually the kind a bot picks up). Oblivy (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

already have twinkle and ultraviolet, thanks for the tip. Cooldudeseven7 ^{tea talk} 00:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You reverted an edit I made to her profile. She was a pupil at my school, where I have taught for the last 31 years. I have no citation to use as you request. Therefore I would appreciate you keep my edit and not archive it. Let me know anuyhing I can do.

Perhap this will help though Alumni: Five Ways Edwardians - King Edward VI Five Ways (kefw.org)

Regards Stuart Shephard 62.253.196.130 (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.kefw.org/one-more-post/ 62.253.196.130 (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is the text that you changed fully inside of the reference you gave me?

Elsewise it would count as 'original research and wouldn't be allowed on wikipedia.

 Thanks

If yes, I will go and remove the warning.

If not, I will have to revert your edit again. Cooldudeseven7 ^{tea talk} 14:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this reference is:

notable

strictly independent of the subject

secondary?

and it follows the BLP policy Cooldudeseven7 ^{tea talk} 14:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another alarming thing is that it must follow the BLP policy. When editing the article, a notification will state

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see Wikipedia's guidelines on self-published sources and using the subject as a self-published source.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page. Cooldudeseven7 ^{tea talk} 14:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It seems that I will still have to revert your edit due to Original Research. If you have any comments, please express them. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the editors (User:Ltbdl) has been blocked from editing, so he will be unable to continue the dispute with us. As one of the volunteers who has been helping us reach a consensus, I thought that I should make you aware of this news directly. I hope that this does not cause problems. I am unsure if I am allowed to talk more casually here, but if I am, please tell me.
This was from Thought 1915 (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Welcome to my talk page! This shouldn't cause any problems- and there's no problem talking casual here. I guess the ^{[citation needed]} idea is going the best? (there also is an option for ^{[verification needed]} as an alternative) Cooldudeseven7 ^{tea talk} 11:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, 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.

Since you're involved in the DRN with a topic that is dealing with the infobox. I have been going around and notifying the involved editors that infoboxes are considered a contentious topic. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 09:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which DRN is this related to, just for clarification?

thanks, Cooldudeseven7 ^{tea talk} 23:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a goat

PublicSafetyEditing (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request, an example of the small section is here in your talk page. I mentioned this example in the dispute before as well as how it could possibly be placed in on my personal sandbox. You asked if everybody agreed to this, and to that I say that SuperStain agreed to this when I mentioned it before.

Small section example: After 1.5 years of waiting, much of the community has felt that 15 had abandoned the project due to a lack of contact, 15's usage of the domain for other projects [something about tf2.15.ai would go here], and working on other activities. The community surrounding this projects believes it to be abandoned. Thought 1915 (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! good to see that that its nice and Accepted I still dont exactly understand tf2.15.ai, as when I visited it just showed details about a Team Fortress 2 server... Thanks so much! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The TF2 Server is completely unrelated to the original project, 15.ai. It also is run by 15, which shows that 15 is dedicating time to other projects. As for the sub-culture within the server, I do not understand it either. Thought 1915 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death date was vandelized and I fixed it. tab says death first birth second I grabbed the edit using someone else's article Month Day and Year I also noticed wiki using born 29 March 1967 for some reason that doesnt make sense to me I did not violate BLP 47.203.216.242 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, will go and revert MY edit. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 11:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fuller GT Magnet Elementary and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just a question- is the problem the references or the notability of the article? Thank you! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 11:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cooldudeseven7! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cooldudeseven7. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Revival Lo Rural, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cooldudeseven7. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Was the Voynich Manuscript the Creation of a Noble Child? A Fresh Look at an Age-Old Mystery, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an AI generated text and clearly isn't like a wikipedia article. What speedy deletion would be the most suitable even if it isn't valid (just a question) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None. It is not eligible for speedy deletion. Specific speedy deletion criteria have community consensus and can be applied. Anything else is not eligible and would need to use some other deletion mechanism if you feel it really should be deleted. Note that the draft name space was created specifically for editors to develop potential articles and to work out problems so the expectation is that drafts will be in poor shape. If you really think this needs to be deleted, then you can nominate it for deletion at WP:MFD. I would recommend against doing this, as you really have not let the creator of the draft make any effort to improve it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for the heads up. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cooldudeseven7. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Marilyn Robert, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Golden Edge. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. 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. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the simple english wikipedia page has no references after I translated it. Cant I put the unreferenced tag and publish? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]