User talk:Passengerpigeon/archive-8

This is an archive of Passengerpigeon's talkpage. Please do not post messages here. If you want to communicate with me, please visit my current talkpage.

Request on 10:35:59, 1 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by John2gr[edit]

John2gr (talk · contribs)
- Draft:DSOGaming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there Passengerpigeon,

I've made some changes to the description of the page so that it is neutral. All the sources/references are from well established websites that are present in Wikipedia with direct links to them. Can you help me with any additional changes that need to be made?

Here is the link to the Wiki page -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DSOGaming

Looks good; I have created the article. Passenger pigeon (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John2gr (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBA[edit]

Passengerpigeon, Thanks for the review; but isn't it a bit early (i.e. 5 minutes of the first draft was published) to slap on a " self-published sources" tag? Why not give it a chance for others to edit and add sources! Arrivisto (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if it came off as hasty, that wasn't my intention - admittedly I don't usually check user contribution histories before reviewing pages, so I didn't know you were an experienced editor rather than a typical new user that doesn't work on the page after creating it. Passenger pigeon (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I'm not really thin-skinned! Arrivisto (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Tintelnot[edit]

Thanks for intervening on a draft (the reason of the move will remain obscure to me) and overall thanks for having lost 6 references. Feel free to repair your dammage. LouisAlain (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that; I moved it for the benefit of encyclopedia readers because it was already well-written and well-referenced enough to be published, meaning you could continue to work on it in article-space without worrying about deletion. I have moved it back for you. Passenger pigeon (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Al-Salem (journalist) Page[edit]

What is the wrong of the page

I will edit and add references as book , journal and articles. Abdulla Al-Salem (journalist) is writing an Arabic articles and also write in English in his Website:https://en.wosom.net/. He have a thousands of articles and currently publish a book.

I can add any details required as your suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by W5wa (talk • contribs) 14:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tagging user pages[edit]

Please do not tag userpages of socks - let admins/cus and SPI clerks do so. There are reasons for not tagging many of them and especially for trolls, it serves as little more than glorification as you can see based on the fact that a new troll account is going to town on the pages you've recently created. Praxidicae (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: I'm sorry about that; I thought tagging socks of Kingshowman was standard procedure, unlike other LTAs where it was not advised to do so due to WP:DENY. Passenger pigeon (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls really do not need more attention but generally sock tagging should always be left to CUs/admins/clerks. Especially when the closing/blocking admin or cu doesn't specifically direct them to be tagged.

@Praxidicae: Also, keep an eye on User:HovelDreas, who placed {{userpage}} and {{talk page}} on their user and talk pages within one minute of creating their account, much like previous socks. They haven't done the usual AFD attack yet, but, as the user you mentioned shows, Kingshowman seems to be letting at least some of his socks sit for a while. Passenger pigeon (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tagging user talk pages[edit]

Tagging user talk pages G5 or U5 is usually pointless - WP:DELTALK - just remove any misleading or unhelpful content as a normal edit. Cabayi (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood; I was flagging them for speedy because I saw several admins delete sock-created talk pages, so thought that was standard procedure. Passenger pigeon (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general objective is to minimise the fuss... WP:DENY. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Our "friend" has just posted at ANI. Glen 14:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About welcoming other users[edit]

I'm very sorry for welcoming to many users in a short of time. You left a message on my talk page. Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Md_Maruf_Parvez?markasread=192601367&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Welcoming_users I've understood the fact and I'll try to welcome a little amount of user in a short time too avoid to many logs to user creation log. Thank you for your pointing. Md Maruf Parvez (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Md Maruf Parvez: The number of users you welcome isn't the issue; what we recommend, though, is that you only welcome editors who have already made edits.

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Passengerpigeon. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is From User456541: Adoption school: Reliable sources.
Message added 14:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

–User 45 65 41 14:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the adoption, I'm looking forward to your support and help Findhistroy (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikipedia[edit]

Hello Passengerpigeon! I noticed you recommended to Hamuyi on their talk page that they contribute to the Simple English Wikipedia to show competence. Just curious; have you seen other users recommending this to blocked editors, and how often do you recommend this to people? Also, if he was blocked for a lack of competence editing here, why do you think he would edit competently there? Thank you, Vermont (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was Yamla who initially made that recommendation in their block notice. I was suggesting that Hamuyi edit only the user subpage I had created for them, which contains questions, rather than article-space. Passenger pigeon (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; it appears Ponyo was the first to recommend it, then Yamla, then you specified the Simple English Wikipedia. Anyways, thanks for the clarification. Best, Vermont (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We (Ponyo and I) recommended another project. We didn't recommend Simple English. There are a huge number of wikis on the Internet. --Yamla (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: So is what I've done still acceptable or would you suggest that I rescind my offer and tag the user subpage for deletion? Passenger pigeon (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote this for Hamuyi's talk page, though it's out of scope there and potentially confusing for them, so I'll paste it here:

There isn't much of an issue with recommending that blocked editors contribute on other projects, though I would hesitate to do so if I believed that the editor in question would be an unnecessary burden on whatever project I'd be sending them to. In this case, as Hamuyi has had a lot of communication and understanding issues resulting in an inability to contribute constructively to this project, I do not see any indication that it will be different elsewhere. The best option, in my view, is for them to wait a year or two and seek a second chance, at which point they would have hopefully changed. It is also important to note to such editors that recommending they edit another project does not preclude them from being blocked on that project for similar reasons, which is a common occurance. Best, Vermont (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Essentially, this is a question for the simple english version of Wikipedia. I don't edit over there. I think you acted in good faith, and are trying hard to help out a problematic editor. From what little I have read (and as I pointed out, I'm not an expert on this), it sounds like that project doesn't really want blocked users from this project. I still think the general advice is good; the user should build up competence elsewhere, allowing them to come back with specific evidence they have significantly changed. Whether that's simple-english or a different wiki (quite possibly, a wiki completely unrelated to wikimedia) is unclear to me. --Yamla (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: I am sorry for all of this hullaballoo; I anticipated concerns about the user editing badly on SimpleWiki which is why I intended to supervise them and created that user subpage of exercises first. Also, their block was mainly due to WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and they actually didn't do much vandalism reversion at all from what I could tell, but they expressed interest in working in that area; if the user had proven themselves unable to properly identify vandalism on the English Wikipedia I wouldn't have made them that offer. Passenger pigeon (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Escobar Inc[edit]

Hi, please do not remove large sections. The edits are well sourced. Danielreitberg (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should note that you are currently under investigation for sockpuppetry as a sock account of the blocked user User:WowWashington, and even if you aren't, you should only be making edit requests on the talk page as you are closely associated with the company, having a conflict of interest. Passenger pigeon (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. It appears that you have some sort of personal interest in this article. Are you trying to help Olof Gustafsson scam more people? Danielreitberg (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Danielreitberg: I have absolutely no connection to Olof. I am reverting your edits because they make significant changes to the meaning of the article, shifting the point of view, and the page has had problems with these sorts of edits coming from sockpuppets in the past. You can report me for edit-warring, but it probably won't turn out in your favor. Passenger pigeon (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that way. If you want to revert edits, you should not remove sections that have been well sourced. That is completely ridicolous. Danielreitberg (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the sources before you decide to remove things. You are not God man. I will be sure to report you as well if we keep having edit-wars. It looks like you are friends with Olof.Danielreitberg (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cam here because of noticing activity while watching hatnote. Daniel, you are entirely in the wrong here. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You guys might be friends? Look at the content that he is deleting. Well sourced. Danielreitberg (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are helping Olof to try to cover his tracks. You might even be Olof?? Danielreitberg (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Escobar Inc - Edit-warring[edit]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Reporting user blocked for WP:COI and almost certain WP:SOCK.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Danielreitberg (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mail alert[edit]

Hello, Passengerpigeon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Adoption[edit]

Thanks for offering to adopt me! I'll start with the exercises right away. Foxxopedia (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption Acceptance[edit]

Thank you for the adoption! All the best, Dylan Dynen (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Escobar Inc[edit]

I removed the "factual accuracy" tag, as looking through the article now all the sections are well sourced to mostly reliable sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ORCP[edit]

Hii, It looks as if all the other participants have said more or less the same thing at your poll. The main concern being that voters would see this current activity as a flash in the pan. I don't think there is much I can add to the advice given by others.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt-a-user request[edit]

Hi Passengerpigeon, I saw your notice on the Adopt-a-user board. Could you teach me how to create and maintain Wikipedia articles? The converse highs and lows (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)The converse highs and lows[reply]

Yes, I can. I have an Adoption School page with exercises relating to editing Wikipedia. Create the page User:The converse highs and lows/Adoption school with the following text: {{subst:User:Passengerpigeon/Adoption school}} and then start the exercises there. Thank you, Passenger pigeon (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) The converse highs and lows (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)The converse highs and lows[reply]

"Mixing sailors" nonsense[edit]

I just came across Draft:Mixing÷Sailors and remembered you posted about this nonsense at the Village Pump a while back. Whoever this is is back again. Home Lander (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another IP in the same range created Draft:Cute Fall, which contains, "A Cute Fall is a flat domino that is unaware of its colors. It especially loves pink knights and another teddy eye because siphoning has no heralds." Tagging it for deletion as well. Ping @PrimeHunter:, who I believe also commented at the Village Pump discussion; are there any other pages I'm missing? Home Lander (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: This is an IP-hopping editor from France who posts nonsense not just across Wikipedia projects, but also on other user-editable sites. Although their editing looks a lot like a spambot, the Village Pump discussion confirmed that they're actually a real user; User:Croobatch was a registered account used by them. Somebody has compiled a Pastebin file with many of the nonsense phrases that they post to wikis; if you want this stuff deleted, try searching all of the titles listed there. Passenger pigeon (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption[edit]

Hi there, I’d love to be adopted by you, sorry for the late reply. incrediblysincere Incrediblysincere (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Incrediblysincere. Unfortunately I am no longer that active on Wikipedia and already have enough adoptees. If circumstances change, I will message you. Thank you, Passenger pigeon (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Beirut thunderclap" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Beirut thunderclap. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#Beirut thunderclap until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Captain Galaxy 22:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of .50-120 Federal FireStick for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article .50-120 Federal FireStick is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.50-120 Federal FireStick 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. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption?[edit]

I saw on the adopters page that you are currently open to adopting a new user. I just started doing serious edits recently and I have found the experience quite overwhelming. I think it would really help to have someone guide me through the process. Would you consider taking me on as an adoptee? Wikignometry (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out, Wikignometry. Unfortunately, that notice is old and I am no longer very active on Wikipedia; I suggest contacting somebody else. Thank you, Passenger pigeon (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol December Newsletter[edit]

Hello Passengerpigeon,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Request on 12:31:34, 22 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Naidudusanapudi[edit]

Naidudusanapudi (talk · contribs)
- Draft:NAIDU INDUSTRIES (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Can you please recheck my company details its recently created. you can find details in Indian Government sites as well as public site also https://www.zaubacorp.com/company/NAIDU-INDUSTRIES-PRIVATE-LIMITED/U51909AP2020PTC115410

Naidudusanapudi (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs references to significant coverage in independent news outlets; the official company website doesn't help to establish notability. Passenger pigeon (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Thiru_Vikram[edit]

Hi, someone speedy delete nominated your accepted article. Could you take a look please: Thiru_Vikram. Trendsmurf (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the user who nominated it did so in error, as the article establishes the notability of the subject sufficiently. Passenger pigeon (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry to trouble you again, but it was now tagged for CSD G11. I'm no expert but I don't see a promotional language there to the tune that would warrant for deletion instead of a simple clean-up tag. Trendsmurf (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there isn't; the tag got removed again. Passenger pigeon (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultragenyx[edit]

An article I helped to create was speedily deleted today by user Lettler, who incorrectly labeled another article you mentioned on his talk page as being an overly promotional puff piece. I worked hard on the article Ultragenyx and didn't even have a chance to respond. The page was deleted within hours of the tag being added. Is there anything I can do to get it back ? at the very least have an honest discussion about it ? thanks.Grmike (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

You can list the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review to request undeletion, and maybe offer to have it recreated in draft space rather than article space. It seems that there were some genuine issues with promotional tone, though, or else the admin that checked it would most likely have decided against deleting it and removed the tag. Passenger pigeon (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you said and by the end of the day someone with higher rank un-did the deletion. the article was then reviewed by someone with reviewing priviledges. however the same user Lettler who added the speedy deletion tag yesterday did it again today ! can I just remove it ? or would I get in trouble for doing so.Grmike (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Hi Grmike, no, page creators cannot remove speedy deletion templates, but the fact that your page was deleted in the first place is a fluke, in my opinion; if something like this happens again I would expect that the reviewing admin would decline the speedy deletion nomination. Contesting the nomination on the talk page, especially if you pledge to remove promotional content, also helps. Passenger pigeon (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Andrii Portnov" page. reliable sources issue and my corrections[edit]

Hello, Passengerpigeon!

Thank you for your comment on my article. It was my first text on Wikipedia, so I`ve made some mistakes. Now I`ve added all the needed sources. Could you please re-review my draft? I`m curious to know how it looks like now =)

Here is the draft-page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrii_Portnov

Thank you in advance. Victoria1788 (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, Passengerpigeon!

Thank you for publishing my first article with such a high ranking! It`s a joy for me!

Victoria1788 (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]