User talk:SmolBrane

SmolBrane, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Welcome SmolBrane! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 41,414,844 registered editors!

Hello SmolBrane. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page and someone will try to help. To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own personal sandbox] for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your userpage.

Please remember to: The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
 * Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

 Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

A lengthy welcome
Hi SmolBrane. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the greeting! -SmolBrane (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lex Fridman (July 2)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Laplorfill were:

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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lex Fridman 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:Lex Fridman, 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 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:Lex_Fridman Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Laplorfill&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lex_Fridman reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Laplorfill (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Rogan RfC process
Regarding the discussion at the podcast talk page—and this is a post about process, not inclusion of content:


 * Please keep your general arguments to the section you titled "First-ever emergency podcast” is not DUE???". That is a regular talk page section, and you can make whatever comment you want as long as it's on the topic of improving the article.
 * The RfC is for community response. Responding to others' objections is totally acceptable, but not responding to your own RfC. You did this at least twice, in the posts that start "Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe" and "I am surprised at the lack of input for this Vital article." That was my point in my last comment. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback; I am not seeing this reflected by WP:RFCBRIEF, which says “If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp.” I can't find a policy that says I can't reply to my own RfC.  SmolBrane (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notice - American Politics, COVID-19, BLP
User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν )

July 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:The Joe Rogan Experience. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 18:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cite a diff, please. SmolBrane (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your statement here that "This isn't a 'Vital" argument(sic) in the normal sense of the word, someone simply nominated it at the lowest level of the 50,000 that should have a Feature Article. Frankly I think that there are many more important articles than this one" is not a collaborative one, and it is WP:TENDENTIOUS. We are here to build an encyclopedia.  SmolBrane (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked
Re your response above: Not collaborative? WP:TENDENTIOUS? And implying that Doug Weller isn't here to build an encyclopedia? I'm not sure if you're trying for some sort of irony by replying with such super-assumptions of bad faith to an actual warning that you need to assume good faith, or if you're just being clueless. In any case, you have been blocked for 48 hours for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC).

Joe Rogan
I noticed that you've tagged me on an admins page stating that I'm "doing shenanigans again"? Who even are you?

When you have a problem with an edit, it's not resolved by tattling to your daddy admin on his talk page, especially when Wiki guidelines haven't been violated. Welcome to Wikipedia small brain, the name suits you. Good to know you have at least some self-awareness. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The admin in question reverted you last time you removed this sourced material from this article. Don't edit war, and don't label content editing as minor.  (I do regard self-awareness as a virtue so thank you) SmolBrane (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Lex Fridman
I just wanted to let you know I went ahead and revised the draft of Lex Fridman and published it anyway. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, thanks for the efforts; how were you able to do that, and is it likely to be reverted? SmolBrane (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not in my mind - but if you could help improve the article with reliable sources that would help. Right now I'm having a hard time finding other kinds of sourcing because so much of what he does is centred around YouTube. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
— TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Endemic phase of COVID-19
The article Endemic phase of COVID-19 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Endemic phase of COVID-19 and Talk:Endemic phase of COVID-19/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Endemic phase of COVID-19
The article Endemic phase of COVID-19 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Endemic phase of COVID-19 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 02:44, 26 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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

interesting read
and pdf, you might be interested in this --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I haven't had time to review this carefully but it doesn't sound good! SmolBrane (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I did run this Administrators%27_noticeboard Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I will try to remain participatory, I don't allocate much time to wiki and as I'm sure you know, these discussions can be time consuming. SmolBrane (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, me too. I have reduced my time a bit as well. Wikipedia gets more and more entrenched over the years and is less fun to edit, or maybe I have changed (hard to say). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)