User talk:Zanygenius/Archive 1

Welcome!
This is a welcome message, this will be kept

Hello, Zanygenius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Zubiri, Navarre. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Auric  talk  14:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The below is from January 28 and further. See my archives!

Your note on my talk page
Hi Zanygenius, I've replied to your question on my talk page. I have a very peculiar few days coming up - work, funerals, medical appointments etc - but I do promise you that I will look into the issue further. Even if you do not respond to my comment on my talk page, please do give me a nudge in a few days if nothing further has happened - just drop me another note. Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That was very kind, though I will reply pretty soon as I'm working on it right now. Follow this conversation→

Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 01:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Adoption
I'd like to consider adopting you, if you would. I'm currently on mobile and will get back to my computer this afternoon (Vermont time). Thanks,  Vermont &#124; reply here  15:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , Why that was quite kind of you. If you need to, we could wait until you get on your computer thid afternoon to discuss further. Until then, thank you, and I could do some thinking as well. By the way, I would be really glad if you accepted me. :) Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 16:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Adoption 2
Let's discuss! I'm back now, and have some work to do, but I can type. Do you have IRC?  Vermont &#124; reply here  22:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, this won't drag on your style any, though I don't have an IRC right now. I haven't been able to figure out exactly what it does. Is it okay that you could either lead me through cautiously or just use a Wikipedia talk page? (If you want anything to be priate, we could set up a separate subpage for that. Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 22:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me make a subpage for ya.  Vermont &#124; reply here  22:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Vermont/Zanygenius  Vermont &#124; reply here  22:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
 Vermont &#124; reply here  01:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Signature
I highly recommend removing the "User:" prefix in your signature.  Vermont &#124; reply here  22:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can definitely do that, but I'm just curious what the reason for this is? Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 23:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nicer signature. Having the User: prefix doesn't look all that professional.  Vermont &#124; reply here  00:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Vandal Assignment 1
Your first on-wiki edit-related assignment is as follows: Position one's mouse over the left bar on your page. Click "Recent Changes", or go to Special:RecentChanges. Wait a few seconds. Edits classified by ORES to be "bad" should be highlighted in various shades ranging from orange to dark red. Click on the "diff" button next to one of them. Review the edit. If it is vandalism, use the Twinkle vandalism rollback. If it's disruptive, but good faith editing, use the good faith rollback and leave a nice note for the editor. Remember, we assume good faith when patrolling for vandalism. Your assignment is to revert 10 edits that were either disruptive, or vandalism. From there, you will link 5 of them (your choice, must include blatant vandalism (example: curse words, removing content), discreet vandalism (example: changing names, dates, small words), and good faith disruptive editing (MOS problems, tone, little bit promotional). Link them in this section of your talk page. This is what is usually referred to as the "old-fashioned way" to patrol vandalism. It's what I did before I had the rollback right. It is normal for you to click on a diff and a user or a bot had already reverted it. Here's an example of: This is your first on-wiki assignment. Contact me on IRC or here (ping me please) and I will get to it as soon as I can. Good luck!  Vermont &#124; reply here  01:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good faith disruptive editing. A user added content, but it is not in an encyclopedic tone, hence the "Be aware" and "you".
 * Blatant vandalism. A user added obviously disruptive text that could not be good faith.
 * Discreet vandalism. A user removed a letter from the lead of the article, likely as a test. Tests should be given "test edit" warnings. This is sort of between blatant vandalism and good faith disruptive edits. It requires a keen eye to distinguish, and remember, if you're unsure, we assume good faith.


 * @ Thank you for delivering my first mission. Should I wait for tomorrow so you could supervise? Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 02:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to wait. I'll keep watch on your contributions. Only do 10, and actually link all of them here, classify them (blatant, good faith. etc.), and explain what the user did and what warning you gave them. Use twinkle to warn on their talk page.  Vermont &#124; reply here  02:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Completed?
Hi,, as we talked about at IRC, here are my 10 reversions, with my personal description of them.

So how do you think I handeled them? (And does rollback count as all the reverted edits?) Thanks, Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 00:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

My analysis

 * Here's my comments:
 * Revert #1: I would not have reverted that. The sentence removed by the IP is written poorly, unsourced, and extremely vague. Thankfully, you did mark it as good faith, as it was good faith. Your warning has a small issue; you linked to a nonexistent article. This can be confusing for new editors, especially in warning templates telling them they made bad edits on a page that doesn't exist. ❌
 * Revert #2: Good, except that you started on a level 3 warning. I usually do that for recent blocks (within a month or two). This IP was blocked over a year and a half ago.
 * Revert #3: The IP removed possible NPOV-violating content. And if it wasn't exactly NPOV, it wasn't encyclopedic. Your edit summary included "I probably won't warn this user, I'm so tired". In cases like that, there's no need to push more edits in. Just go to sleep :) Also, I rollbacked this edit, as the IP made a constructive contribution. ❌
 * Revert #4: Good. I tried a Google search for the correct formula and came out empty handed. Everything was either not in English, didn't show the formula, or had a bunch of characters that look like ruined HTML (which are probably math symbols. I can't math :P). I'd do what you did, since as I was unsure I would revert but not warn. ✅
 * Revert #5: The article says "about 500 years after Euclid". I did a quick Google search, and Euclid was born around 365 BCE. The IP changed the date from third century BCE to CE. BCE would be less than 100 years after Euclid. CE, as the IP changed it to, would be 500. As the "about 500 years after Euclid" part was there for a while, we could assume that adding the B was a mistake on the part of the author, and that the IP was correct. ❌
 * Revert #6: Obviously blatant vandalism. You should have warned the IP, and including a link to 23 was useless, as it was blatant vandalism and the IP was definitely not trying to find the article on 23. Remember, you can use wikitext in edit summaries; you included a full link to the article on 23.
 * Revert #7: Suspicious. The IP removed "and is Jewish". I would have reverted, but not left a warning, which is what you did. Your edit summary is insufficient, and not complete. It should explain why the edit was reverted.
 * Revert #8: Typical test edit. Added a name (possibly the IP's), removed it a minute later. I would revert to get rid of the blank space left, and leave a warning for test editing. You only reverted. You also assumed good faith, which is good, but in this case a warning would definitely be helpful.
 * Revert #9: Again, suspicious edit by the IP. This time, they removed sources and added content. This is usually where manual editing kicks in. I would just restore the references, and leave a note on the IP's talk page. You reverted the edit, thereby removing the added content, and did not leave a warning for the IP about removing sources.
 * Revert #10: The IP was adamant about this one, and essentially undid your revert of them. I would have good-faith reverted the first time, and not warned. Second time, I would have done some searching around the internet myself and if it was a good edit, I would keep it and leave an apology note on the IP's talk page, and if it was a bad edit I would good faith revert and leave a level 1 disruptive editing warning. I have absolutely no idea how this warning messed up so badly, but it did, probably leaving the IP confused as to why there was a link to a nonexistent template on their talk page as well as an editor saying they were being slaughtered (not something to put in a warning). ❌

General note, there's no need to make dummy edits in edit summaries on the reverted user's talk page. Using twinkle, you can add your own comments to templates when warning them, which you seem to have used in this, which was odd. That edit was to an IP whose content you did not revert. Usually, don't template unless you reverted an edit. In this case, I would have probably left that template on their talk page, and reverted the addition of original research. Also, I found this quite amusing. That user was using Huggle, which is a tool for rollbackers to easily patrol recent changes. I personally use it as my main anti-vandalism tool. So, in short, the final score is a 3.5/10. That's a 35%, therefore ❌ I'll make a new talk page section for your next assignment tomorrow morning. Good job on this, for your first time it isn't too bad. You'll get better.  Vermont &#124; reply here  01:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It really is too bad that I failed on the extent I did, but hey, it's all part of learning, right? Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 01:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See User:Vermont/Adoptee_Section  Vermont &#124; reply here  01:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Your Next Assignment
Please complete the following assessment. Feel free to use bluelinks and examples in your answer.

You should be familiar with the guidelines and policies outlined in WP:VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP:REVERT, WP:BLOCK, WP: GAIV, WP: WARN, WP:UAA, WP:CSD, WP:911, WP:OS, WP:REVDEL and WP:UN before you complete this.


 * Please answer the following questions
 * Why do we warn users?
 * Response: According to our trial yesterday, we don't always warn, but when we do, we want to make sure they know that they did something wrong (kindly) in hopes they'll correct it and become more constructive over time. ✅
 * When would a 4im warning be appropriate?
 * Response:If the user has been blocked or has been warned several times.
 * What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalises again?
 * Response: An Admin would block them at this point, but I'm not sure what I would do. Actually, I would report this to WP:AIV ✅


 * Explain the difference between good faith edits and vandalism edits. Use at least one diff of each type to support your response.
 * Response: Often the mark of a good faith edit is it's value. It adds knowledge that 1. Is verifiable and 2. Isn't trashy. This also comes if there is a helpful edit summary. ❌
 * Why do we deny recognition to trolls and vandals?
 * Response:DNFTT says it all. Some trolls do it for the reaction, sort of like playground bullying. ✅
 * If you're unsure whether an edit is good faith or vandalism, what should you do?
 * Response: WP:AGF ✅
 * Find and link two examples of usernames that violate WP:UAA.
 * Response: User:Cheryl at Faire Leather Co-Did some research, appears to be promotional and tried creating Faire Lehter Co 6 times. User:****offjew-Profanity and meanness. Obviously. (It pained me to write the f word, it really did)


 * Please give examples of three warnings that you might need to use while vandal patrolling and explain what they are used for.
 * Response: This is the vandal warning, the test edit notice, or the AGF notice. When patrolling, it will be hard to decifer who's good who's not, so it's best to give warnings based on history and current status. So dubious vandals get the vandal warning, hopefully they'll knock it off. But the border between vandalism and the rest is very vague. VERY. A misspelled word may just be an accident, or a test-edit may be confused for vandalism. Which is why it's hard to say when to give out a test-edit notice. It has to look like a test without being vandalism. Then Good faith edits get a personal messagethat says they did great, but now they should expand their horizions. This would come after a helpful eit (add citations, verifiable non-profane content).
 * Someone says that they want to kill themselves on their user page. What do you do?
 * Response:That is really sad. As much as I want to rush over to where they live to help, the best solution I read about is Wikipedia's em system. I would report it there ✅

Good luck. Write your answers above next to "Response".  Vermont &#124; reply here  11:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
Please don't template me over silliness. WP:DTTR may be informative. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was in a little bit of a rush yesterday, so I didn't do my usual user checking that I do to adjust my post. I notice you did say "Self-published", and thus put a correction on there. I'm just curious though, why don't we template "the regulars"? (I may just have to take this to IRC). Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 15:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the essay explains it. But after 10 years and over 35,000 edits, do you honestly think that telling me there's a sandbox available serves any purpose? If you want to discuss the edits, there's a talk page at that article. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Read WP:DTTR. You confirmed on IRC that you have this enabled, so you can use it to hover over a username and see how many edits they have, and their user rights. If you're unsure, leave a helpful note on their talk page. Niteshift36 here left a reason in the edit summary as to why he removed that content. If there is a reason, assume good faith, and either don't delete it or leave a note on the user's talk page asking for clarification.  Vermont &#124; reply here  22:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So greetings everyone,, I realize, espically with my pop-up info script, that I could really take the time to slow down and ensure that I'm only templating a new user or ip, that was a terrible fault on my part. I really want to make a big sorry, but don't want to create a sccene, so a small apology will have to do. Yes, , I did see that in your duture edits, you provided summary: "Self-referenced material", and so I thank you for doing that, and I stand corrected. And , Thanks for your willingness to chat this over. I'll be a working on things. Also, I don't think my humor in IRC is so good, so I'll fix it.  Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 23:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Humor is fine! I'd say I get more laughs out of the Wikipedia IRC chat then I do out of most other communities I'm in. Just we need to take our time to make sure we're doing the right thing. Rushing, when doing anti-vandal work, is almost always bad (i don't like using absolutes, but it essentially means 99.999999% bad.) I'll use this to piggyback onto my next topic. I realized that before I sent you off into the depths of Recent Changes, I forgot to give you a nice step-by-step list of doing this. So, I've taken the liberty to make one. You'll find it in a few minutes, I'm currently working on it.  Vermont &#124; reply here  00:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's all good. As a tip, you may want to look at the article edit history, rather than a single edit. Sometimes if an editor is doing clean up and makes a series of edits, we may have left an edit summary on the first (or last) few, but get lazy and don't do one for each entry, especially when the edits are for the same reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Um...
Does anyone know if anything has been opened up against me lately (besides on IRC)? If so, I'm considering a wiki-break to get away from all of this. (Also: If you use checkuser, you should be able to confirm I'm not related to User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 19:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking if administrative action against someone is being considered, be it at WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:AN3, the user being discussed is notified. If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! So nothing yet then? Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 19:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing that would mandate a notification. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Policies and Guidelines
As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia operates on a base of policies and guidelines formed through community consensus. Therefore, it's imperative that you know and understand these guidelines. I'm going to include a list of some of the important guidelines. There are many more policies and guidelines, and we will probably do more of this sort of assignment, because understanding the community consensus on these topics will greatly help you become a better editor.. Your assignment is to write a summary of each, that also gives a theoretical example of when the policy is useful. I will write an example response below:
 * WP:GNG
 * Example Response: GNG, the General Notability Guideline, is the overall rule for whether or not a subject is notable enough to have an article. It says that a subject must have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This policy is useful when patrolling Special:NewPagesFeed, as many of those pages do not meet this guideline, and should be tested against it as well as other notability guidelines. For example, if someone creates an article about a birdhouse that has been in their town in the same spot for 20 years, and there's one source about it in a local newspaper, it does not meet GNG and will probably be brought to AfD.

I will type the list below. Respond next to the word "Response". I'll be mostly inactive this weekend (there's snow, i'm going skiing), so I'll check when I'm back. Feel free to message me on IRC with any questions in the meantime. Good luck :)  Vermont &#124; reply here  12:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:N
 * Response: Articles need to show notability; as a biography would need to be about someone with a national impact, or is famous, rather than someone in a random neighborhood. Also, notability means you can obtain a lot of info about them because of their info. A local football team without a field is like a subject without notability.
 * Notability does not mean you can obtain a lot of information about them. It means they meet WP:N. Sometimes, very little information can be obtained from a quick Google search. For a lot of articles, books and documents are used that one would not find from a simple keyword search. I might also add that I have no idea what you mean by "A local football team without a field is like a subject without notability." That is not an example of a case in which this policy is used, if it is what you meant it to be. Read WP:N again. This is one of the most important policies/guidelines on articles we have.  Vermont  &#124; reply here
 * WP:VAND
 * Response: This essay goes over how vandalism is dubiously messing up an article for personal amusement. (There seems to be SOOOOO many essays on Wikipedia about vandalism). Pointly, vandalism is wrong, it disrupts the Wikipedia. Editors can get warned a nd blocked quickly because of how sacred it actually is, often the block procedure is 3 steps: {1. Warn. If minor, there will be a warning. If major (like when the citation needed templates were vandalized) skip this step. 2. Block for a period of time, but often is not used, for vandalism is blatant. 3: Block indefinitely, and block the IP address associated with th avandal to prevent future problems}
 * I have one, main problem with this response. This isn't an essay, it's a policy. Also, removing CN templates isn't major. If you meant going to Template:cn and messing with it, then yes, that would be major. "Editors can get warned and blocked quickly because of how sacred it actually is." Sacred? I don't fully see what you mean by that. Your response was close, but too many errors that show me you didn't spend the time to read through WP:VAND. Before we do a real test, like the original trial, I need to see that you demonstrate understanding of our guidelines and policies. Please check this out. It may be useful. ❌ <sub style="border:2.5px solid #16872C;padding:1.3px;"> Vermont &#124; reply here
 * WP:NPOV
 * Response: Wikipedia's most often mentioned policy, for even though WP:NOTANENCYLOPEDIA, it is still sort of an enclyopedia. More importantly, it is designed to hold facts and information for the public to read, and a lack of NPOV, (or for that matter, WP:COI), can make the "non-encyclopedia" messy. Which is why, depending on how well an article is built, it can make or break Wikipedia, because of NPOV policy.
 * I'd assume you mean WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Please, proofread or at least look at your responses to these questions. No need to be in a rush, I'd rather you finish this in a week with perfect answers than a day with sloppy answers. I want you to re-read WP:NPOV and respond again below. ❌ <sub style="border:2.5px solid #16872C;padding:1.3px;"> Vermont &#124; reply here


 * WP:DENY
 * Response: This stands for Deny Vandals; the wording though, is very similar to "Don't feed the trolls", in why: "...usually suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community", and thus, making a big deal out of it is not what we want. According to Wikiversity's Article, It's "funny" to see people stop their work and take care of the damage. It's "entertaining" to show friends what one has done on pages that many other people visit. Disruption is "cool". By refusing to acknowledge individual vandals, we take away what they crave most.. We deny vandals because it helps stop the vandalism process. In the end, they can always just get blocked. (Did I overdo here?)
 * Good answer, although your response is more of a "why vandals do what they do" then a "what WP:DENY is", but it fits. ✅ <sub style="border:2.5px solid #16872C;padding:1.3px;"> Vermont &#124; reply here
 * WP:AGF
 * Response: As I mentioned in a previous questionnaire (see our last section (I'll provide a link in a moment), I think it was your 4th or 5th question), then not everybody is bad, and there is no immediate proof of vandalism, usually. (unless it was that one time when Template: External links needed became vandalized with a picture that linked to a profane YouTube video). Most editors just made a mistake, usually not warning, or a uw-1 will do. When we assume good faith, we are staying true to the America that Wikipedia was born in, and thus our 14th amendment. And, we make Wikipedia a better place, and who knows? Maybe they really did meant good.
 * "When we assume good faith, we are staying true to the America that Wikipedia was born in, and thus our 14th amendment." Well then. As a Vermonter, I love America and our rights. BUT, I will stress that this English Wikipedia is open to and accepting of all English speakers, whether they be from India, the United Kingdom, America, or elsewhere. I know that you understand what WP:AGF is, so this is a ✅, although borderline. <sub style="border:2.5px solid #16872C;padding:1.3px;"> Vermont &#124; reply here
 * WP:3RR
 * Response: Three revert rule! Also stemming from the AGF article is not to pursue your point, "even if you know your correct". Often, if you pass the 3RR, it shows insecurity, potential vandalism, and uncooropeativeness. Often, you could get blocked for edit warring. If you really think your edit should stay, take it to the noticeboard, or ask somebody for their second opinion. I ended up doing that a few times, which has helped me on my stay on Wikipedia so far.
 * To answer your "How do I spell this?"; it's "uncooperativeness", although Wikipedia spell check says it's wrong. See my talk page history. I was personally blocked for Edit Warring with the subject of a BLP over what I thought was an exception to this policy as outlined in WP:3RRBLP. Evidently, it wasn't, and I was blocked for 1 hour and 40 minutes. When you say "take it to the noticeboard", I hope you mean talk page rather than WP:POPCORN. ✅ <sub style="border:2.5px solid #16872C;padding:1.3px;"> Vermont &#124; reply here
 * WP:CSD
 * Response: Sometimes, whether it's not WP:N, or it's blatant vandalism, some things just need deleted, fast. Criteria for Speedy Deletion is ultimately a list for Admins to review and decide wether an article needs deletion. The category DiMaggio Family is and it's parent category, "List of Italian Families in America" is being considered per G11. What's that? Well, G11 is supposed to mean "category for deleted page" though the admins seemed to think of it as "Un helpful category as it lists a small list of articles about a family". (for the record, there's only 3. Either way, it's practically unhelpful, and unencylopedic.
 * I know you understand what CSD is, as a way to request deletion of articles that the reason for their deletion was already achieved per consensus (in one of the deletion criteria) and can therefore bypass any discussion that's required in a usual AfD nomination. Your response used an example that wasn't perfect, but you ✅ <sub style="border:2.5px solid #16872C;padding:1.3px;"> Vermont &#124; reply here
 * WP:OS
 * Response: Meaning Oversight. At first I thought that meant perhaps page watching, but it actually means "specialized deletion of content", and this content is deleted so that only oversighters can see this stuff. Often, it has to do with copyright, or exteremly private info. So if a userpage said "Hi, am (name) and I live at #### (Street) (Street Suffex) in (City), (state), and I am ## years old, and (some other things about the user, perhaps self-fescription). This would be oversight deleted.
 * Good example. Not all too recently, in December if I remember correctly, an editor decided to get to work on the Simple English Wikipedia (where I am also active). He was a student from a country in Asia, and included pictures of himself and his family, his town, age, full name, and other personal information on his user page. It was oversighted within a day of me reporting it. Good explanation and example. ✅ <sub style="border:2.5px solid #16872C;padding:1.3px;"> Vermont &#124; reply here
 * WP:REVDEL
 * Response: It's an admins tool designed to redact private or inappropiate edits. It is only meant to be used very scarcely, and it takes a long process to decide to redact anything.
 * It's probably just me, but I request revdel a lot. Likely this happens because of my involvement in new page patrol and articles for creation, where, for some reason, people like to ignore copyright laws and paste blocks of copied text. It is meant to be used scarcely, but there is no long process to decide to redact it. I want you to answer below how revdel is different from oversight. <sub style="border:2.5px solid #16872C;padding:1.3px;"> Vermont &#124; reply here
 * Response:
 * WP:UN
 * Response: That's the Username Policy, similar to the Userpage policy above. No profanity, and it should be readable/legible. You can pronounce and ping "Zanygenius", "Vermont", or "1Thousand". But you can't do " – " it would probably mess up the system.
 * WP:CIR
 * Response: Competency is Required. It's hard to explain, but basically, don't go do something you know your not good at. It's also WP:AGF, where we are positive at first. Like I said, hard to explain.
 * WP:IAR
 * Response: Means that if a rule prevebts an editor to effectively work, Ignore it!
 * Good answer. Short, to the point, and representative of what WP:IAR is. ✅ <sub style="border:2.5px solid #16872C;padding:1.3px;"> Vermont &#124; reply here

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🇺🇸 Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
 * 🇮🇳 Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
 * 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🇮🇳 Numerounovedant, Carbrera, 🇳🇱 Farang Rak Tham and 🇷🇴 Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon
Hi Zanygenius,

Welcome! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your great edits related to our project WikiProject Oregon!. We are a group of editors working on improving articles in the scope of this project, and we need your help to meet the project goals. Please come over to our project page to take a look!


 * You will see a list of articles that need most improvement.
 * You will find a group of editors who share similar interest with you.
 * Overall, this is a friendly place to discuss any issues related to Oregon, ask questions, and collaborate on improving articles on Oregon!

Feel free to put your name on the project member list. Hope you will have fun here, let us know if you need any help! Bobo.03 (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you in advance, . I never realized how involved I ws with Oregon until I read this. Now, is there some requirements, rules, conditions, I should know of before I begin? (Then I help)

Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 18:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Yeah, feel free to work on related articles if you are interested. Here is the project page. There might be some general rules you could take a look at. Also, feel free to contact  who is a member of the project if you have any project related question. Happy editing! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter
The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
 * Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
 * 🇮🇳 Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
 * SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
 * Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
 * Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I know you said you were going to take a Wikibreak, and I originally thought it was for one month. It's been two months now. Are you coming back? Vermont (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! I Septrillion will adopt you!
Hi I just wanted you to know that you know have a "wiki-parent" as requested. Do you have any questions? Please type them below! Also, you don't need to "apply" for adoption. If the adopt me template is present you will be adopted. Septrillion (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. You have already been adopted by Septrillion (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * *waves* Vermont (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer, that was kind! Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 02:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

A Request for making Userbox
Hey man, a sincere request to you from my side. Please make 3 userboxes for Pearl jam. It should be like-"This user is Super fan of Pearl jam", "This user listens to Pearl jam", "This user loves Pearl jam". It would be really great if you add something really innovative like photo or something in it.Note that its not an order brother but just a request as i am finding problems doing it myself. When you make it please tell me how i can get access to it since i am helping in categorising some bands fans on wikipedia.To reply to me simply leave a message below, i will see it as soon as i get free. Regards 47.8.235.244 (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you have any colors in mind? Please see User:SportsFan007/UserBoxes and let me know what you think!!! <span style="background:#000000;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;k; color:#00FF00">SportsFan007 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Announcement
Greetings, Wikipedia

As you know, I have been long dormant here. What has it been, a year? Well today I intend to come back to at least semi-active status. My current projects are Draft:List of tallest buildings in Cheyenne and Icelandic Sea (one I will pick back up). Thank you.

Happy Valentine's day!

Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Analog Clock
Feel free to use the analog clock on your page. I actually did very little in creating it, User:Ais523 did all the hard work. All I did is put a clock background behind User:Ais523/Sandbox/Clock. Anyway, I'm glad you like it, and I feel honored when anybody wants to use it. Have a good day.  Shards of  metal  21:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I think it's a very neat clock. Have a nice day, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 23:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Userbox request
I eat Peanuts.Catfurball (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out to me about your userbox, and I have created one. :) I didn't even realize I was still on the list! Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 20:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any specifics you would like for this userbox, like wording, design, etc? Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 20:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional requests
I eat Asparagus.Catfurball (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I will create an asparagus userbox soon, and you can check out the progress here. Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 15:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I play Dominoes.Catfurball (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long to respond. I must say my boxes looks great in your collection. You can check the progress of your Dominoes box here Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 16:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Cats rule, dogs are naughty.Catfurball (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'll create a userbox, and you can see it here: User:Zanygenius/Userboxes/Catfurball/Cat. Have you considered making your own userboxes? Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 23:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, and  Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
 * Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter
The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * 🇳🇫 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
 * Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
 * SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of tallest buildings in Cheyenne


Hello, Zanygenius. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of tallest buildings in Cheyenne".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi,, I am not very active (or as active as I used to be) on Wikipedia, so it makes sense that my drafts are going out of date. Do you think it would be a good idea to just publish them all to the main-space and let other contributors help finish them? Ideally, I feel Dell Range Boulevard, Runza, and Icelandic Sea would make good articles, assuming someone was more motivated than myself. Additionally, the List of tallest buildings in Cheyenne would be a good article, as many cities do the same here. Thanks, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 17:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:


 * 1) with 964 points
 * 2) with 899 points
 * 3) with 817 points
 * 4) with 691 points
 * 5) with 388 points
 * 6) with 146 points
 * 7) with 145 points
 * 8) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)