User talk:Rafe101

Your submission at Articles for creation: Raquel DiDomenico has been accepted
 Raquel DiDomenico, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Raquel_DiDomenico help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Splitting discussion for Clitoris
An article that you have edited or that may interest you, (Clitoris), has content that I have proposed to be removed and moved to another article, (Human clitoris). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edits to Glans penis
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Glans penis, you may be blocked from editing. 223.136.117.195 (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I did intend to vandalize. I believed I added additional information Rafe101 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * not
 * important omission Rafe101 (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia. Mislabeling good faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia" Rafe101 (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I see the problem—well—what happened. No idea about the actual problem. I was logged in. I have no idea why it logged me as anonymous and all the other edits listed under that IP address were not mine. I know nothing about Czech football or Indian politics. I did not make anonymous edits. Rafe101 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (passing-by user) I think the problem, actually, is that the IP is just trolling. They are now blocked for disruptive editing and their previous IP (223.136.110.159) was already blocked for it – there was nothing wrong with your placement of the image (I'd say your placement was better, even), just like there was nothing wrong with most other edits that they reverted and warned for, certainly none were vandalism.
 * – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that.
 * I don't know why I got caught up in that IP shenanigans. I didn't see anything wrong with articles about Czech football players either, just that I had nothing to do with it. Rafe101 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)