User talk:Adrian232/Archive 1

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steven Avery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Today Show. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Synthwave page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=719144505 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F719144505%7CSynthwave%5D%5D Ask for help])

1RR
You may not be aware, but the Kevin Folta (and all GMO and pesticide related articles) are currently under a one revert restriction per 24 hours per editor (described on the talk page). This is a special sanction from the Arbitration Committee that's different than the normal three revert rule. People can get easily get blocked for reverting more than once. There are others that have violated this that could be brought up for sanctions for breaking this rule, but I haven't had the time (or energy) to pursue that lately. I will start trying to make sure the one revert rule is enforced in the future, so I just wanted to let you know to be wary about it as many editors not aware of it get caught up in trouble over it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning. I did notice the announcement. Trying to keep my reversions to a minimum :) Adrian (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

please provide full references
Claims that are referenced only with a url, also called raw links, like you did on Kevin Folta, are subject to WP:link rot. To learn what a full reference is, please check WP:CITEHOW and provide the missing information, including the date of publication.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the few bio pages on Folta, they do not have a publication date since they are either 1) not in a publication, and/or 2) not an article. For those, the only information that can be provided is the accessdate, which can be used to gather an archive if link rot settles. If you are talking about something else, please be more specific. Adrian (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Smile" by Deftones
Are either of these references reliable for this claim?  danny music editor  what'd I do now? 15:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Both seem iffy to use as reliable sources in most cases, but I think for this particular case either would be acceptable and definitely better than nothing. The audioinkradio.com source appears to be the better one for this instance, as they list an editor for the blog—meaning there is some quality control for the information. I'll go ahead and add this reference there. Thanks! &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 16:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Deftones
Your recent editing history at Deftones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

The other user involved is only 1 revert ahead of you and they just got a 3RR block. Please take it to the talk page. HighInBC Need help?  20:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of the situation. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 01:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=724713018 your edit] to Paul Graham (computer programmer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Graham proposed a "disagreement hierarchy" in a 2008 essay "How to Disagree", {cite web | url = http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html | title = How to Disagree | publisher =

Brendan Dassey
Greetings

Thank you for your assistance with the article.

Just to get some guidance Steven Drizin and Laura Nirider have created a video along with other attorneys and a former prosecutor that addresses interrogation tactic etc, is an article as reference concerning that not eligible for inclusion in the article? Even under Public Response??

Many thanks

Tracy Symonds-Keogh (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem here is twofold: WP:Verifiability and WP:UNDUE. Firstly, the only reference provided in the paragraph removed was, which is a legal definition of coerced confession. This doesn't verify anything in the information provided, which was: Dassey's appellate attorneys, Steven Drizin and Laura Nirider, have released a video analysis of that interview that addresses the circumstances that may result in a coerced confession. What would verify that information is a source talking about the video that the attorneys released. Additionally, it has undue weight since its significance in the article cannot be determined. In order to do that, we need reliable secondary sources. The idea that his confession may have been coerced is already introduced earlier in the section, so specifically what needs to be determined is whether the fact that the video was created has due weight. Without that, it doesn't meet the standard of inclusion in the article. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 08:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Brendan Dassey
Thank you I am learning!

Much appreciated

Tracy Symonds-Keogh (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem!
 * I would like to add that I'm impressed how quickly you were able to put that article together. I know that changes to articles—especially ones you have spent so much time and effort on—can sometimes feel like an attack against you personally. Just know that your work is definitely appreciated :) &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 09:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry
I made the edit and now I feel bad. Call me a vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.72.180 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about your edit on Vaporwave, I thought that edit was OK and was made in good faith.The result simply didn't meet the standards for Wikipedia, which is a normal thing to happen for new Wikipedia editors. Don't be discouraged. I've dealt with some really nasty actual vandalism in the past and that was certainly not it. =) &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 19:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

NutriBullet
Hi there, Adrian232. I noticed that you created the redirect to Magic Bullet (appliance). However, it appears that "NutriBullet" doesn't have any affiliation with "Magic Bullet". They seem to be separate products produced by different companies. I was wondering whether you could clarify this. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Both products are owned by Homeland Housewares, and began as different versions of essentially the same product. The NutriBullet is larger and marketed for a different target consumer. If you believe the two products have diverged enough to have separate pages, feel free to create a page for the NutriBullet.&#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 08:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . You're totally right. I took a closer look, and I can see that they are indeed made by the same parent company here. Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for bothering you. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)