User talk:Smallangryplanet/Archive 1

"Vandalism" and edit summaries on Jonathan Kipnis
Hi there! I hope your new year has been getting off to a good start.

I was looking through edit history on the article Jonathan Kipnis and I noticed that you had labeled a few edits by an IP as "vandalism" in your edit summaries here and here. The edits reverted don't actually appear to be vandalism (i.e. editing deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose); they seem to be good-faith objections to the inclusion of content on the basis that the content was sourced only to a student newspaper. From a WP:BLP perspective, that's a valid policy-based argument from the IP, especially for a low-profile figure. As WP:VANDALISM notes, even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. In the future, please be a bit more careful when characterizing others' edits as vandalism, especially when good-faith explanations are provided. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there! I hear that and I'll try to be more careful next time, though in this particular case it appeared as though the edits were coming from the subject of the article, trying to remove the allegations (apparently eventually successfully) -- I should have documented that suspicion, apologies for not doing so. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect to in this particular case it appeared as though the edits were coming from the subject of the article, trying to remove the allegations, I don't necessarily disagree with you. That being said, sometimes the COI editor can be correct policy-wise regarding the content; the explicit reasons that the IP editor removed the content these are allegations based on student's interview with a student writer and This is allegation, with no evidence. This text constitutes personal vendetta and violates Wikipedia policies are pretty clearly appeals to WP:RS and WP:BLP. Now I'll be the first to say that it's rare that a COI editor's edits deleting controversies from a page are good edits, but it looks like the removal of the allegations were actually warranted in this case under existing policy. I've opened up a discussion on the article's talk page if you'd like to discuss the content issue further. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Dattatreya Painting
Hi, you rapidly labeled the date as "incorrect information" in your message. But have you took the time, you would have seen it was the date provided in the file source. See the article talk page. I hope you'll revert the revert. Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1C:8103:8A00:6BEA:6EB7:B3D7:8CB3 (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like the file source was wrong -- According to the Raja Ravi Varma Heritage Foundation, the date of creation is 1890 - I've updated the doc and the wikimedia source too. Thanks! (Since the artist died in 1906, I'm not sure how they could have made this work in the 1910!) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart (June 12)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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:Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ogletree,_Deakins,_Nash,_Smoak_and_Stewart Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ogletree,_Deakins,_Nash,_Smoak_and_Stewart reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart
Hello, Smallangryplanet. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2022 (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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart


Hello, Smallangryplanet. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ogletree".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * ☺️ thank you! Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"Unexplained" content removal
Hi, the lack of an explicit explanation in an edit's summary is not always a good justification for restoring the content – at least not by itself. I understand that, especially when patrolling recent changes which is an important work I'm thankful to see you doing, it is not always practical to look at the edit history before reverting such changes.

Looking at, on the left side of the diff, there is a revert. On the right side of the diff, there is someone reverting that revert, with an edit summary pointing to "Wikipedia:Reverting", a comparatively useless essay. Of course, pointing to that essay is not an explanation, but jumping to a quick revert yourself in this situation is very likely to make you a participant in an edit war. When editing biographies of living persons, this should usually be avoided. At very least it should be done very carefully if you are in the position of restoring the material. If you notice being in such a situation, please do take a moment to have a look at the article's history. You'd then have noticed that there was an explanation before, so the removal wasn't even unexplained.

I may be misunderstanding which information you had on your screen, though. If wasn't the page you saw when reverting, please let me know. And keep up the otherwise very helpful work, please.

All the best, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you for the feedback! I didn't realise I was wandering into an edit war there -- when I see those indicators in future I'll make sure to double-check the history. Appreciate the advice! :) Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Mistake
Oops, I undid your edit by an mistake. Greetings from Drummingman (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries :) Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Wayto Page
Explain how my removal of the information on the Wayto page is vandilism given that it was created by a banned user to serve the same purpose as a pre-existing page on the people group which carries the same information. If you can, revert the page to my last version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:CB02:686:9507:F032:AC99:23CC (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * These two articles have different information on them, as far as I can tell. Before unilaterally deleting an article, please follow the process outlined here: Wikipedia:How to delete a page#Proposed deletion, thanks! Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already gone through the process of merging the articles with the redirect. I've followed every rule in regards to that, and they don't have different information from eachother, you should actually read the pages before making a judgement. Either way, both pages have the same subject matter and both don't need to exist. 2601:280:CB02:686:9507:F032:AC99:23CC (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you for doing that! Sorry for the mixup. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops
Hello!

I suggest that if you have an issue with edits to an article, you bring those issues to the talk page instead of blindly reverting constructive edits and spamming users with templates. 71.9.31.123 (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello!
 * The removal of a huge swath of references didn't appear to be a constructive edit, my apologies if I misunderstood! Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The references were not removed. Please read the edit summary. 71.9.31.123 (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I commented on the talk page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)