User talk:Usedtobecool/Archive 4

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, Barbara. You're too kind. Usedtobecool (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Why have a Barnstar when you can have a goat? Thanks for all of your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia.

Bsoyka✉ 22:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC) 
 * Thanks! I'll be sure to take good care of it. I am a vegetarian, so it's in good hands. LOL! Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 22:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much, cap'n! It's more of a work on people's representatives, haha, since I want little to do with politicians, per se  Usedtobecool  ✉ ✨ 12:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Pronounce a word audio clip.. Thank You
Usedtobecool... Thank you for the reply to my question in the Tearoom related to including a pronunciation audio snip. I (now) understand the barriers to that addition being a default part of a page. Duh, LOL I absolutely I should have realized the variations that some words/subjects or language can have.

Thank You ;-) oneluckydog1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneluckydog1 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Usedtobecool  ✉ ✨ 16:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Dayton shooting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Dayton shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Breeze Babirye Kityo
Goodday ,First I'dlike to say thanks for reviewing this page.I also see that you mentioned that some of the sources used are not reliable,is possible that you could point out which ones and what makes them reliable so that,perhaps,I will not be tempted to use them in the future. Are the issues with the article to do with the sources or with the content? Please advise, and thanks in advance AKibombo (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)AKibombo
 * Hello AKibombo! It was not a are not reliable, but a may not be reliable. I wasn't sure about all of the sources, so having verified that the subject was indeed a parliamentarian, I left it with a tag for someone else to go through all the sources, hopefully someone more familiar with media landscape in Uganda. Looking at it right now, I'd ask that you fix the error on that "howwe entertainment" reference; after that if you know that there are no reliability issues, esp. with the entertainment source or the FM source, you can go ahead and remove the tag. As to what sources to include/avoid in the future, all anyone can say is what is already in the WP:RS page, other than that only editors familiar with media/journalism in Uganda can give definitive answers, I can only ask questions with a maybe(?). Cheers!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 14:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

tea house
I was looking over things there, and saw a "helped" discussion and noticed your username: — Ched (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And nice to meet you! (I noticed your username when you requested your tools back. Thanks for taking the mop!)  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 07:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you as well. :-) .. BTW - I kinda lifted your "my time is" user box. — Ched (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha! I lifted it from someone else too. Arjun G. Menon obviously doesn't mind, there's hundreds of users using it.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 14:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sham?
Who are you calling a "sham" and what does my question and vote have to do with "sham"? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sham refers to the situation, not any particular person. If you are going to ask a non-sequitur question and then not give due credit to a thoughtful good faith reply, I don't know what else to call it. Admins can't be expected to right great wrongs, nor are they mind-readers. If you already know the right answer, don't expect another to read your mind and commit to your vision, propose your solution to the community instead. You don't need to be an admin to do that.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 05:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse IP
This person is trolling me by mocking and parodying my family and using my real first name. It is not humor. It is venom. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I totally missed that. Thanks for the heads up. Will refactor.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 08:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You could not possibly have known, so we are good. Thanks. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I decided to remove it altogether, nothing there that would be missed.  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 08:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for The 1619 Project
valereee (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Century
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy Dashain!
 Namaste, Usedtobecool, and Happy Dashain! WikiProject Nepal wishes you a wonderful Dashain filled with joy, love, and happiness. Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great Dashain! Cheers. Message sent by on behalf of WikiProject Nepal. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk  (We are the champions, my friends)  13:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much, and a very happy Dashain to you too!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 05:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fred Hampton
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fred Hampton. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Usedtobecool,
I want to talk a little about the current house speaker of Nepal. Accourding the news I have known that he has already resigned his post so if you want to see this is the official announcement of parliament of Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawal Bishal (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , I am aware that Mahara has resigned. I am guessing that's who you are talking about, though he wouldn't be "current" since the resignation. I just looked over your edit on Nepal, are you here because you thought I reverted your update of that fact there? My apologies for not noticing at the time that you had made that update (if I had, I wouldn't have reverted it), since it was buried within a thousand whitespaces, and that's what I mentioned in my edit summary. Of course, it would have helped if you had used an edit summary. It probably is the bug with the visual editor that added all the whitespaces, and since that was what was removed in the previous edit, I assumed you were just undoing that edit, just a bad coincidence. You can make the edit again and I won't revert you, or if you'd like I could make it myself. If you choose to do it yourself, it would probably be a good idea to cite it too, since you already have a source. I am guessing that if you use the mobile version, the whitespaces will be added again, guess we'll have to go along with that since it's hard to argue with the machine. Cheers!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 16:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Usedtobecool for talking back to me and telling me about this and I recommand you to recheck all the changes that you will me making in any articles in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawal Bishal (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. Please note, however, that when I said I wouldn't have reverted it, I meant I wouldn't have reverted it, that's not to say any other editor unfamiliar with the subject wouldn't have either. You made an unexplained, unsourced, major update to a highly visible page, removing a reference in the process, it was begging to be reverted. Cheers! And, Happy Dashain!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 03:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

My contribution changes you suggested
Can you please check the changes you asked me to make to my submission "Shortie No Mass" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannaburns123 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I asked you to add inline citations as it's a fundamental requirement for a draft to be accepted, and would also help reviewers of the draft in verifying the claims therein. I doubt it'll be declined for the same reason again, but I would be surprised if it got accepted.
 * Upon cursory look, what stood out to me was that at least some of it reads like an autobiographical reminiscence. For example: Shortie started her rap career at the age of 14 as a result of meeting Mel "Chaos" Lewis, a young DJ who would go on to work with artist such as The Roots, Black Eyed Peas, Lady Gaga and Jaden Smith. Just two young kids hanging out after school, they would develop their skills over break beats and their love of hip hop, into notable careers. It was in this environment that Shortie truly honed her skills as a writer and officially became a female MC which is not even cited to an interview.
 * I am not sure the subject is notable just yet, either. Please consider this an unofficial decline for "insufficient case having been made for notability of the subject" and "non-neutral non-encyclopedic tone, reads like an advert".
 * IMO, it would be appropriate to let someone else make an official review this time. It shouldn't take long. I advise patience.
 * Good luck!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 11:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, it would be appropriate to let someone else make an official review this time. It shouldn't take long. I advise patience.
 * Good luck!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 11:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 11:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 11:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Code for Nepal
Hey there, Would you mind to remove that Undisclosed paid tag from the article? I would appreciate your edits on it to make it comply with Wikipedia's content policies. Thank you in advance! Kind regards, &mdash; Tulsi Bhagat  ( contribs  &#124;  talk ) 17:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I just said on your own talk page, I greatly admire the contributions you make to Wikimedia. I templated you there because I thought you might not be aware of the policies on this particular project since this is not your "home" project. All you need to do is accept that you have a paid relationship with the organisation, put up a paid template on your userpage and declare other COI disclosures you might be required to make but have not yet gotten around to here, and I would happily clean the article up and remove the PAID tag. It might trim the article to a certain extent because I don't work with sources I am not sure of, but you can always expand it using WP:Edit Requests. Everyone wins. Regards!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 18:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please check Talk:Code for Nepal and remove that tag? Thank you! Kind regards, &mdash; Tulsi Bhagat  ( contribs  &#124;  talk ) 19:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Dhunge Dhara
Thanks for your feedback. Could you please explain to me what FANPOV and POV mean? --Judithcomm (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Answered on the article's talk page. Thank you for reaching out!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 13:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My talk page
Why did you revert someone's comment on my talk page without explanation? I'm guessing it has to do with socking, but there's no reason I should have to be investigating all this when a comment would make it clear. Fabrictramp &#124;  talk to me  14:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Hi! It was a block-evading SPA trying to get you to create an article for them. They seem to choose random admins to make the request each time. I have had people cleaning up vandals/socks edits, revert such posts on my talk page before, so I assumed that was allowed (it would have been a waste of your time had you come across it and were unaware of the editor's history). I did say "Sock". On hindsight, I could have explained better. Regards!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 14:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and done. Perhaps someone will bother reading.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 11:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Help request for an article?
I wanted to see if I could solicit your help with improving the Kent Tate article? Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I stopped looking at your edit requests because I worried I might end up just implementing whatever you request without making an objective assessment. I would be willing to assist with implementing changes that I think aren't covered by the spirit of COI (but are only procedurally carried out via edit requests for appearances' sake), but I might decline more substantial changes where an independent reviewer like Spintendo is more suited. What I could do, though, is format the edit requests that you happen to be trying to make to the proper formatting as the one Spintendo suggested. We could work together on an edit request on your draft page and move it to the talk page when it's ready. Sorry, I probably should have first asked what you exactly you had in mind, LOL!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 04:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , I appreciate your offer to help me to prepare edit requests, although I'm not clear at this juncture if this will help with this article. I believe pretty clearly now that the contention is that the article should not exist in the first place. I understand that the AfC process really does not have the meaning I thought it had.


 * What was particularly disturbing about my last edit request was that Spintendo hollowed out the article even more, removing content that felt punitive. It makes better sense to me know that I've had a conversation with another administrator on their talk page where they questioned the notability of the article.


 * Although there have been aspects of participating in Wikipedia that I have very much enjoyed - creating pages and engaging with other editors such as yourself - I find there is a very dark aspect to it that I do not like at all and don't want to partake in. There are the intellectual arguments that feel like I've been knocked down and piled on without possessing the tools, the experience nor the understanding of the rules and how they should be applied to feel equipped to be able to defend myself. Even if you attempt to mount a defense it quickly feels futile because there are those who are better equipped to make arguments that ultimately prevail.  I've been through this situation more than one time primarily related to the COI article.


 * I reached out to you and two other individuals to see if I could get some objective help with how to more constructively make improvements and or updates to the article. You offered to help in a manner you felt would be appropriate and I appreciate that greatly.  One left their response on my page that stated that they and others have issue with my writing skills and suggested I leave the article alone. They other questioned the notability of the subject and challenged me to prove to them the article was notable then proceeded to tear apart and dismiss my arguments.  They also suggest that I should just leave the article as is.


 * I think the underlying threat is always... the threat of deletion. I obviously am not equipped to intellectually argue with these individual or other like them on this platform and certainly if I try I will only succeed in making them angry. I've spent enough time on Wikipedia to understand that there is a lot of stuff out.  The criteria for why one article exist and another can not appears to be arbitrary and certainly not consistent from one article to the next which makes it more difficult for inexperienced editors such as myself to really get a good grip on why this and why not that.  It seems very blurry and subjective.


 * I am at the point where actually I would like to concede to the deletionist's and request that this page be deleted. It doesn't tell anyone anything about the subject in any coherent manner.  Any mention of what writers have written about the artists style or approach have already been scrubbed out.  I am not allowed to add anything new or modify anything without a big energy consuming process.  So I would like to know if you can delete this article or if you know the steps I would have to go through to get the article removed.


 * Thank you for your time and for you consideration. It is appreciate very much!LorriBrown (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am very sorry to hear that all that has happened. Turns out I didn't have your user talk in my watchlist, just the articles we'd interacted on. So, this really caught me off-guard, I was unaware of any developments since the Nov 6-7 edit requests on that article.
 * It has been a known issue with Wikipedia that paid editors are discriminated against contra policy, and although COI editing is not that, most editors don't keep the difference in mind unless asked. I guess the courtesy given you due to all your other contributions to Wikipedia is limiting deletion to a threat and not actually going through with it, or maybe they don't have the time to go through an actual WP:BEFORE.
 * It seems Tate is still active which means more sources are sure to become available in the future. As such, even if he's not notable in the views of some editors right now, he's likely to become uncontroversially notable soon. Yes, it's true that AfC acceptance is approval of just one editor, but it is usually a very experienced one making such an acceptance, so you know that there are at least some who think he's already notable. There's a lot of room for subjectivity within the objective guidelines of Wikipedia, and there are many factors deciding which articles get what kind of treatment, not all of them reasonable.
 * I would advise against trying to get this deleted. The state of a Wikipedia article is not a verdict on the subject of it. It just means that the subject is notable in a field not of wide interest. Even Van Gogh died not knowing that he'd be considered an artist of any merit by anybody. It can take anywhere between years to millennia for an artistic work's actual merit to be realised and widely accepted. I am sure Kent Tate wasn't going for broad appeal or popularity when he chose to pursue his interest in art. I would advise that you leave it to evolve naturally if it's become impossible to try and improve it yourself. You know there will be others reverting vandalisms and such, and given time someone else will come across sources discussing his work, and will want to do something with them.
 * That said, if you really want to delete it for good, since it can always be recreated later on, I guess the first thing to try would be WP:G7. All the stats indicate that you're the only significant contributor to the article, but the history lists many other editors so it could be declined. WP:PRODDING it would be the second option with some chance of success. Anyone can contest a PROD but if you don't yourself, not many others might bother to; well, except maybe whoever accepted the draft. We could try it giving whatever rationale the admin you contacted gave when they challenged its notability. The final and sure-shot way to decide one way or the other would be WP:AFD. Discussion goes on for seven days and if it's deleted at the end, it's unlikely to be allowed to be recreated without one or two additional WP:SIGCOVS being presented. Similarly, if it's kept, it's highly unlikely that any good faith editor will choose to challenge its notability any time soon. AFD also creates a permanent record of whatever editors argued about the subject of the article in the deletion discussion. While many experienced editors will know not to forget there is a real living person behind the name that they are discussing, not all might. Ultimately, things that might be said on permanent record that is an AFD discussion could make it not worthwhile for anybody who cares about the subject, to actively pursue this particular recourse.
 * Regards!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 21:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would advise against trying to get this deleted. The state of a Wikipedia article is not a verdict on the subject of it. It just means that the subject is notable in a field not of wide interest. Even Van Gogh died not knowing that he'd be considered an artist of any merit by anybody. It can take anywhere between years to millennia for an artistic work's actual merit to be realised and widely accepted. I am sure Kent Tate wasn't going for broad appeal or popularity when he chose to pursue his interest in art. I would advise that you leave it to evolve naturally if it's become impossible to try and improve it yourself. You know there will be others reverting vandalisms and such, and given time someone else will come across sources discussing his work, and will want to do something with them.
 * That said, if you really want to delete it for good, since it can always be recreated later on, I guess the first thing to try would be WP:G7. All the stats indicate that you're the only significant contributor to the article, but the history lists many other editors so it could be declined. WP:PRODDING it would be the second option with some chance of success. Anyone can contest a PROD but if you don't yourself, not many others might bother to; well, except maybe whoever accepted the draft. We could try it giving whatever rationale the admin you contacted gave when they challenged its notability. The final and sure-shot way to decide one way or the other would be WP:AFD. Discussion goes on for seven days and if it's deleted at the end, it's unlikely to be allowed to be recreated without one or two additional WP:SIGCOVS being presented. Similarly, if it's kept, it's highly unlikely that any good faith editor will choose to challenge its notability any time soon. AFD also creates a permanent record of whatever editors argued about the subject of the article in the deletion discussion. While many experienced editors will know not to forget there is a real living person behind the name that they are discussing, not all might. Ultimately, things that might be said on permanent record that is an AFD discussion could make it not worthwhile for anybody who cares about the subject, to actively pursue this particular recourse.
 * Regards!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 21:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Regards!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 21:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Regards!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 21:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. Does this mean that even though I am not suppose to edit the page I can blank the page and put the tag you mentioned above WP:G7 at the top of the article page?  Can I blank the talk page also?


 * Thank you again for helping me understand this process and for showing some actual human emotion (which seem to be absent with many on this platform) about this really unfortunate situation that I actually am quite sad about. Best, LorriBrown (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am not sure. I mean you ought to be, but some could consider it a blanking not made in good faith and revert it, considering the frustrations you have recently expressed with Wikipedia, and if that happened, you'd have to go back to the talk page anyway, since re-reverting isn't allowed. I don't remember reading anything about what COI editors are supposed to do in either the COI page or the CSD page. I suppose you could write a new section on the article's talk page with your deletion request, clarifying why you think it meets the G7 criteria. Something like
 * I have a COI with the subject and I am the only contributor of all the content in the article. Other editors have edited it but all of those edits were either minor maintenance tasks or carrying out my edit requests. Even edits related to implementing my edit requests did not involve adding any new content to the article. Therefore, I would now like to request deletion of this article under the CSD G7 criterion, as the sole author of all of the content in the article. The reason is that editors in good standing have advised me that upon closer inspection, it appears that the subject may not yet meet the notability guidelines.
 * Then, I could request CSD on the article linking to your request (it has an option for adding a detailed rationale, where I can clarify who the author is and link to where they've requested deletion.) That's unless you'd like to make that an edit request. This is my best guess, we'd have to seek help from more experienced others if we'd want to be surer first.
 * The associated talk page of the article is always deleted when the article gets deleted, as the sole purpose of it, is to help maintain the article, which would need to first exist for it to need maintaining. Regards!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 04:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The associated talk page of the article is always deleted when the article gets deleted, as the sole purpose of it, is to help maintain the article, which would need to first exist for it to need maintaining. Regards!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 04:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The associated talk page of the article is always deleted when the article gets deleted, as the sole purpose of it, is to help maintain the article, which would need to first exist for it to need maintaining. Regards!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 04:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ... I've been pondering this matter and have had some insights shared with me from a couple other editors re: my KT edit request, which have been most helpful in gaining a different perspective. The administrator did not tag the article. I've had time to reflect on my part and to try to sort out a path forward. I really would be prefer even a slightly better article that to delete the article.


 * If you would be willing to help me draft some improvements that would be great. I've made a draft page already and perhaps you could help me sort out which revisions would be reasonable or not. I can see now how some of my request could be annoying to the administrator. I think your idea would be very generous and could be very instructive to help me navigate this more constructively. I don't have grandiose ideas of how much content can be added to the article - but if it could be improved that would be awesome. Let me know if you are still interested in doing this and how to proceed. Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration! : - )  Best, LorriBrown (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , sure! Ping me when you're ready to pursue a request, and I'll jump right over to your draft page. This is good.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 20:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

[Moved from the top]Hello Usedtobecool

 * Hello Usedtobecool! Thank you for that information. I’ll do some additional research and make some edits as per your suggestions. Thank you again for taking the time to assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineminutesuntil (talk • contribs) 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome, . And, best of luck with your endeavours!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 07:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Usedtobecool! I am in severe need of your assistance. Recently, I received detailed information from you in which I took accurate notes so that I could properly edit the draft for Out of Bounds (2019 film) that I am currently working on. A moment ago reviewer DDG rejected the article with extremely harsh and offensive comments. I have been accused of submitting the film as an advertisement. More hurtful than that, I've been accused of adding deceptive references. I looked at several accepted film articles prior to submitting my article. For example, I included quotes from the talent in the film, but DDG frowned upon that inclusion. The film articles I've reviewed, such as Get Out included several quotes from talent in the film. I also included the website links for film awards and was accused of being deceptive. The only reason I included the websites was so that the readers can find information about the film awards. In some cases the film is listed on their website as well. During my research I discovered that a few of the film festivals, such as the International Sound & Film Music Festival (ISFMF) has several board members and participants in the jury that possess an Oscar, Emmy, or both. I felt that a reader should know that information, so I thought adding the website link would be helpful. You made a point to the awards in your response and I took notes to make edits. One reviewer stated I was getting closer to having my article approved, so I am takenaback by these false accusations. I've been patient in working on this article for several months and felt good about my draft especially after receiving suggestions from you and other reviewers. I should not have been accused of any wrongdoing. DDG has taken the excitement out of this process by accusing me of false actions. I do not have any affiliation with this film or the production. The months I've dedicated to drafting and submitting this article have been for free and out of pure enjoyment. The comments were ridiculous, outlandish, and offensive. I feel insulted and bullied by DDG and I would like to report this unwarranted treatment. This is unfair and I feel this film may have been discriminated against. I am in need of assistance. Thank you in advanceNineminutesuntil (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Hello again! I'll take a look back at our Teahouse discussion and changes you've since made to the draft, and provide you with a response, later on. I'll also try and provide an interpretation of DGG's comment, at the end of which, hopefully, we'll find a way to read them in better light. In the meantime, please read WP:BITE for what might have happened to you, and WP:AGF for how you might respond.
 * Reporting "this unwarranted treatment" is way too premature. We are all volunteers here and we have quite a bit higher a threshold for reportable behaviour. Just imagine what kind of threshold might be practical for a project that maintains an encyclopedia anyone can edit and is not censored. What you can do, is go to their talk page, and tell them how you feel about their comment, and I'm sure they'll be happy to refactor their remarks. We all make remarks from time to time that are not received as well as we think they'll be when we are making them. Wouldn't we appreciate being asked for clarifications rather than being reported, when that happens?  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 07:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Usedtobecool! Thank you again for always being so helpful. I've recently spoken with DGG whom not only apologized, but also revised the comments. DGG immediately addressed my concerns, so I agree that reporting the comments is not needed. This was a mere misunderstanding. I am currently conducting research to update Draft: Out of Bounds (2019 film) in accordance to your suggestion and DGG's re-review. I take pride in contributing on Wikipedia and will continue to edit my draft so that it can be approved. Thank you!Nineminutesuntil (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am glad to hear that it's all sorted. I looked at the draft and I have a few notes (I won't ever by reviewing that draft, and whoever does is unlikely to see this exchange, so take this as just that- a friendly note with notes).
 * First, all reviewers are looking to see is if the draft is for a notable subject. It could literally be one sentence and have three references to reputable reliable sources and reviews, and it would get accepted. On the other hand, a well-written article on an obscure subject with obscure sources is bound to raise suspicion of paid or other COI editing. When this happens, they are really gonna look for a clear pass of notability, they won't take a chance with borderline notable subjects.
 * You still have a lot of citations to IMDb. I know for some of them, you can make an argument that even though it is IMDb, it's not making any claims you could/would realistically personally be able to forge over there. The flipside to that is, if the information is really worth including, it should be available from reliable sources as well, not just user-generated sites like IMDb.
 * Most of your lead is plot of the film. That reads like an attempt to rouse curiosity on the readers rather than provide encyclopedic information. A film has many important aspects, like what it was about, who made it and how, who was involved, when it was made, when and where it released, how it was received by audiences and critics, how much profit did it make, whether it had a long-lasting impact, and so on.You could probably have one sentence in there about the plot but that's it.
 * Your plot reads like a trailer, designed to intrigue people but bereft of any spoilers. Again, that's something bound to be regarded as an attempt at promotion rather than provide encyclopedic information. We don't censor the plot for spoilers, we write the whole story. Readers can just skip the section before they've watched the movie if they want.
 * Even the cast section looks designed to raise intrigue without giving away the spoilers. Another thing I noticed in that section was describing a character with their relationships with other characters yet to be introduced. Saying Travis is younger brother of Rico is unhelpful as Travis is the first character to be introduced and Rico's introduction says anyway that he's Travis' older brother.
 * You have listed many awards, none of which seem to have a wikipedia article, and then you've gone on to explain what each of the awards is. For one, listing many non-notable awards gives the impression that it's trying to compensate for not winning any notable awards. For another, describing all the awards in a long list is out-of-topic and adds to the impression that that was done because the author is aware that none of the awards are notable.
 * "See also" section is used to link to other related articles in Wikipedia. For example, is there another indie movie by the same cast/crew? or any other movie about coming of age with a lot of problems all around, preferably drugs, incarceration or basketball too? All external links go to the external links section. Careful not to add too many though, that would be spamming.
 * Finally, an encyclopedia article should be neutrally worded. Try Playing basketball was no longer a priority instead of Sadly, playing basketball was no longer a priority, leaving the judgement of how sad it was entirely up to the reader. Other words/phrases I noticed on skimming through were: star basketball player, immeasurable odds, life-changing decision, on the cusp of graduation, he's fleeing a nightmare instead of chasing his dreams, deepest and darkest secrets, worst nightmare, opportunity to showcase the fresh new faces of talent, upon recognizing Hunter's raw talent (unattributed and uncited, this one is a clear giveaway that the draft's author has a close connection with the film), great gravitas to the role,  galvanized by the unfortunate real-life state, and so on. Some are superlatives, some are euphemisms that need to be reworded to state directly- what they mean, some are very opinionated and not at all neutral even if not superlatives, some are claims that you couldn't have known without being closely connected with the subject (which you've denied) since they're not cited to any source. I am not saying all of them have to go, but a lot of them might have to, or at least be reworded. Your best judgement.
 * I wish you good luck!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 16:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish you good luck!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 16:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish you good luck!  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 16:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2312 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am honoured. Thank you very much, Gerda Arendt.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 07:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Usedtobecool, and welcome to Women in Red. On the basis of all the biographies of Nepalese women you have already created, you will be a useful member of the project. I see you are quite an expert at writing short, informative, well-sourced stubs but if you want to create longer biographies you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the warm welcome, . Very kind of you to offer assistance. I usually work on subjects where there is a dearth of sources to even meet GNG, that is primarily why most of them are stubs. Hopefully, I will be able to remedy that and begin writing proper articles soon. When that happens, I'm sure I'll have a few questions esp. about BLP issues. I am very impressed with your body of work. Visiting your userpage would be a humbling experience for anybody. Thank you!.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 20:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julian Assange
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julian Assange. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Google rich results
Can you help me to add one movie to the google search "Tamil Movies 2019" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotta (talk • contribs) 12:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's about our List of Tamil films of 2019 article... --CiaPan (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's about the Vandalism note I left on their talk page.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 13:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse featured host
I added you as a featured host to the rotating selection of hosts at the top of the page. See here. Feel free to change the picture to someone you like. Interstellarity (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's quite an illustrious company. Thanks a bunch, .  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 19:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)