User talk:TheDracologist

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gender disparity in computing has been accepted
 Gender disparity in computing, 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. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disruptive Editing
Your recent starting of AfD discussions: Articles for deletion/Day of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem and Articles for deletion/Islamo-Leftism are a sort of WP:DISRUPTtion of the project. In general, if you come upon an article that is strongly sourced but that you suspect may be non-notable or not encyclopedic, the proper thing to do is to run a WP:BEFORE to look for sources. Doing so in both of these cases would have shown notability. If you believe that an article needs more sourcing or other improvements, use a proper template. But taking these articles to AFD with a terse explanation like "Lack of notability." is a kind of disruption. And an awfully aggressive move for a new editor with a total of 193 previous edits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Many new editors run into problems when they bring strong personal opinions to Wikiepedia withotu being aware of the standards that we apply to editing. Your comment here  reveals not only an an antagonism to Christianity and/or the Bible and ignorance of the significance of individual Bible verses in Western history, but an ignorance of the standards by which we judge notability.  If you want to contribute to this project, you need ot learn the rules.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/World Apostolic Congress on Mercy is similarly disruptive. You could demonstrate good faith by changing your opinion at these thre AfDs, or show even better faith by sourcing and improving them, which would also help you learn about WP:RS and how to edit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @E.M.Gregory: You are mistaken about me being hostile towards Christianity. I am actually a Christian myself and have been for my entire life. I had simply noticed that there seemed to be several articles related to religion and/or that did not appear to be notable. I chose AFD instead of PROD because I wasn't sure. As for that specific comment, there are 3122 verses in the Bible, so each individual verse having its own article would be cumbersome. Some verses have a lot of discussion around them, which would justify giving them their own articles, but the article in question was just the text of the verse. TheDracologist (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brogrammer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Cuckservative (4th nomination) yet more WP:DISRUPT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Brogrammer (2nd nomination) yet another article brought to AfD. Dracologist, you need to consider WP:BEFORE and, as in this case, look at the talk page to read previous AfD nominations before starting an AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I may have jumped the gun a little here. Your editing pattern was highly unusual.  I want to apologize for my tone.  I hope you'll stick around, we need deletionists.  But we need careful ones who do their homework and spell out the reasons they are bringing an article to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken in my nominations, but the silver lining is that we caught and corrected some vandalism in the process, so it wasn't all bad. My mistakes weren't good, but at least some good came out of it, right, ?

On merging v. AfD
Sometimes, as with Fake geek girl where you proposed an obvious merge topic, it is more efficient and more collegial to propose a merger than to start an AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. My initial thought was deletion because I thought I had seen it covered elsewhere like with Brogrammer, but I was mistaken. TheDracologist (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see that you are continuing to contribute. You might make some reparation for the time other editors have had to invest by returning to each of the AFDs you started, and, where appropriate, reconsidering you position. A Nom can change her iVote at any time, and they often do when presented with good arguments and sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll go do that. TheDracologist (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

DRV
Sorry you were subjected to this obnoxious comment about your (my?) competence. I'd ignore it. That editor is clearly mistaken; WP:CLOSE and the intro of WP:DRV clearly suggest that DRV is the appropriate place to challenge an AfD closure that results in a consensus to merge. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reassurance. I'm new here and I don't mean to cause any problems, so having my motives called into question scared me a bit. Glad to know I haven't run afoul of any rules and that at least one person out there isn't mad at me. TheDracologist (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Dracon to Platypus!


Thanks for adding the correct tags to STEM articles. Greets from a self-nominated WP:WikiDragon, 5 feet and some inches, when with a hat ;)

Zezen (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC) 

PS. Do you seriously study the Eurodraconidae ;0 ?

Article move
There is a renewed discussion about moving the Gender bias on Wikipedia article you might want to participate in again. See also this section.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)