User talk:Waferpedia

May 2020
Hello, I'm Smuckola. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. You have been spamming change.org, which is not a valid source or even an encyclopedic subject whatsoever in itself. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or weblog, so please see WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTBLOG. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 04:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Hello, I'm Tartan357. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Jo Jorgensen have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Howie Hawkins. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. DemonDays64 (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was not adding promotional material. The videos I posted links to were created by the political campaigns and examples of the political platforms of the politicians involved. Secondly, if you are going to delete anything deemed promotional, you should also delete the links to the campaign websites as well.  The campaign websites of the politicians are also promoting the political platforms which can be deemed promotional.  Please also use more polite terms when communicating with other people and do not accuse people of promoting any agenda.  I am not a member or any said political party.   Waferpedia (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What those users said was perfectly polite and saying otherwise is nonsense. Also, people tend to post such messages via automated templates so they include an informal wider variety of relevant reading, which should all be read before attempting to contribute to a public resource. In this case, the point is that the official website is sufficient, the rest are redundant, and you should read WP:ELNO WP:NOTDIR and many other articles in depth. Wikipedia is not a directory of indiscriminate links, but a source of identifying the subject so that the user can go from there. The overwhelming majority of your contributions were trivial and unencyclopedic, and have been reverted at the waste of the time of many other volunteers. You have been corrected, so learn from it. Thank you for learning what an encyclopedia is and how to contribute before attempting to do so. — Smuckola(talk) 19:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Trivial is in the eye of the beholder. If everything trivial was to be deleted, wikipedia would seek to exist.  Wikipedia is reservoir of information.  I posted links related to and created with the authority of the politicians who were listed.  The information which I posted was not indiscriminate.  I wish you would refrain from calling other people's writing "nonsense."  You are perpetuating a form of bullying through the use hurtful terms to prove a point.  Right or wrong, I never insulted anybody's viewpoints.  There is an utter witch hunt and mob mentality against me for simply expanding the information listings of a topic.  All topics and links I have listed were all created by the politicians themselves.  I am deeply traumatized by being accused of soapboxing or posting nonsense.  If you consider the content of the links I posted nonsense, why not simply delete the entire politicians wiki page and consider them spammers, because the content came from them. Waferpedia (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , saying that all of Wikipedia must be trivial and therefore needs to be deleted because called your links unencyclopedic is ridiculous. While determining what external links merit inclusion does involve some subjectivity, we have content policies here on Wikipedia, and opinions formed without knowledge of or regard to those policies are not given equal weight with reasonable arguments that display an understanding of our policies. The external links section serves a specific purpose, which is to point readers to additional encyclopedic coverage or defining content central to a topic. In this case, a campaign website is a key component of a campaign, and a link to one therefore serves to give readers a more complete understanding of the topic. The external links section is subject to our content policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO in the same way that all other content in an article is. You have now been pointed twice to WP:ELNO, our guideline for determining the suitability of certain external links. Read and understand that guideline before adding further external links. You have made personal attacks in your above comments to, which are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Smuckola did not call your writing "nonsense"; they aptly used that word to refer to your claim that the standard warning messages you were given were impolite. Calling your links "indiscriminate" is entirely reasonable as you are not making a solid encyclopedic case for their inclusion. Most problematic are your claims that Smuckola is "bullying" you with "harmful terms" that have "deeply traumatized" you and is carrying out a "witch hunt" driven by "mob mentality" against you. These statements are absurd and show tremendous immaturity in responding to reasonable, constructive criticism of your edits. These extreme false accusations against Smuckola constitute personal attacks, which we take very seriously on Wikipedia. You will likely be blocked from editing if you continue making such attacks. Step back, consider that this very reasonable, policy-backed criticism of your editing is not intended as a personal affront, and adjust your editing behavior accordingly. ―  Tartan357  ( Talk ) 00:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Waferpedia, I am trying to comprehend what you are trying to say. "The videos I posted links to were created by the political campaigns and examples of the political platforms of the politicians involved"--yes, that is pretty much the definition of promotional material, which you added to their articles. So, no matter how much time you spent arguing that somehow everything here is promotional unless your additions are not promotional, you will need to adhere to our guidelines, which has outlined pretty well, and others before them. I just saw your post on 's talk page--Masem is an experienced administrator and I doubt they'll have a different opinion from what you've already seen on this very talk page. So please, follow the guidelines--or you will find your tenure here cut short. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll reply here but I agree with Drmies and the above. Simple inclusion of campaign video without any other purpose is being promotional and effectively helping to their campaign. A campaign video that is the subject of discussion under the principles of non-free content may be acceptable, but we'd be including that for purposes of illustation and try to avoid using it as a means of promotion. The uses I'm seeing are not of that sort. --M asem (t) 02:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

To MASEM, I recognize your response. I appreciate that you were able to give judgement of any mistaken protocol of posting links. However, my complaint is still unfinished because I deeply resent being ridiculed and getting accused of being a spammer or engaging in soapboxing. Secondly I also resent that another administrator intervened when I did not even seek them. The purpose of my complaint was because I felt I was being insulted, mobbed, and wrongly accused of being a spammer. MASEM was able to get the point across without accusations, insults, or ridicule. The other people whom I have complained about were disrespectful and used hurtful words. Drmies had no need to threaten that my "tenure would be cut short". Words can be just as hurtful as any forms of injustice. I still feel I was mobbed and intimidated by all the people I had filed complaints against. Instead of calling me a spammer or accusing me of soapboxing, they could have mentioned options to post videolinks in the proper way. I shall mention again, the people who I complained about abused their authority over whatever mistakes I made through ridiculing me and invalidation. I feel targeted by Smuckola and all the others. I do not want them to contact me ever again and I feel they should apologize for using weaponized language. Ordinary society has just as many protocols as wikipedia does, but Smuckola, Drmies,DemonDays64, Tartan357 had no sense of tact or being civil towards me. Waferpedia (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with MASEM. I respect MASEM. The other people were quite disrespectful towards me. I still feel traumatized from their hurtful language and accusations. Waferpedia (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

 * I recommend the Teahouse as a friendly place to go with your questions.
 * But please know that every editor, no matter how long they have been editing, faces constructive criticism and can find their edits reverted. It's the nature of collaborative editing. If you are going to be traumatized every time you have a conflict with another editor, which happens to all of us, you will not find editing Wikipedia to be a pleasant activity. Disputes are part of working with other people who have different opinions so if you want to continue editing here, it's best to assume good faith and try to work with other editors instead of viewing their comments as an attack. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll second Liz in recommending the Teahouse as a place to go to get friendly help and advice. It's a place specifically set up to help newer editors understand how Wikipedia works. I'll also second her that we all face criticism here. It can feel uncomfortable at first, but approach it as well-intentioned helpful feedback provided as a way to help you learn to be a better editor. 99+% of the time, that's how it's meant. —valereee (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)