User talk:Zekerocks11/Archive/November 2022

This page is an archive of talk page messages from November 2022. DO NOT EDIT!!!

Even though this is my first major month editing on Wikipedia, I am keeping all warnings, suggestions, and messages for reference in the future

WP:DTTR

Don't template the regulars. Acroterion (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Zekerocks11 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User warnings

Hi Zekerocks11.

Just in case you didn't know, the general rule is templated vandalism warnings should not be issued if the user hasn't committed vandalism since the latest warning. See the edit history here.

I issued warnings after each of my reverts. The IP's only edit after my level 2 warn was a harmless scribble at the sandbox. In other words, they don't get one warning per each vandalistic edit. If they vandalized 10 times before anyone reverts them, they get issued a level 1. If they vandalized five times since a receiving a level 2, they get a level 3. I'm not intending to remove your warning, but just thought I would let you know how it works for future reference.

Thank you for your contributions. All the best! --DB1729^talk 01:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey!

Thanks for the heads up, I'm relatively new to the scene so I've been reading around and learning the hang of things. Thanks for letting me know! I'll be sure to jot that down!

Best - Zekerocks11 (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Cool:) Now, having said all that. Except, at their discretion, editors may skip warning levels, depending on the severity and disruptive nature. Some editors may jump immediately to level 2 if the initial vandalism is very blatant. Or at the extreme, say a user makes a particularly vile, obscene claim about a living person; the user might be issued a level 4im in that case. You will see all kinds of variations and tweaks to the rule all the time. One drawback to going outside the established procedure though, is administrators might refuse to block the vandal due to "not properly warned".

Hope you enjoy editing here and stick around! Cheers! DB1729^talk 01:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha, thank you a lot for your help! I appreciate it! Zekerocks11 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Yevgeny Zykov

Hello Zekerocks11. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Yevgeny Zykov, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Olympic athletes in any capacity are absolutely not eligible for A7. Use articles for deletion instead. Thank you. BangJan1999 22:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay thank you for letting me know! I appreciate it! Best, Zekerocks11 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I also untagged a hockey player, Josef Stříbrný, whose bio you tagged. There might be a credible claim of significance, I think it's questionable. But the stub article was written by an experienced editor. I'm hoping that they see your notice and improve the article so we get a better article instead of a deleted article.

With A7s, you also might consider moving them to Draft space if they are newly created by a relatively new editor. Notability factors can be improved by finding better and additional sources which can happen in Draft space. You don't want to overdo "draftifications" but it is an alternative to CSD A7 deletions. Thank you for your contributions! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty, thank you so much! I greatly appreciate it! Zekerocks11 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Zekerocks11, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Just thought I'd invite you to the Teahouse in case you have any questions about article creation, deletion tagging or any Wikipedia policies or practices. It's a great place to get a second opinion from experienced editors. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Honkbal Hoofdklasse

I took another look at this today. The YouTube video that people are removing is not from a 1980s band that charter. It's a non-notable video from 2020. One person is adding it as a joke and they've used 4 IP addresses to do it. It's still premature to semi-protect the page, but I've left warnings on the talk page for all 4 IP addresses. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Understood. I had no idea what was going on at the time lol, i just saw uncited content. Thanks for taking care of it! I haven't had the time to look things over till now. Best, Zekerocks11 (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

CITELEAD

Hi Zekerocks11, I noticed the {{cn}} tags you added to the article on The Sims 4. Per WP:CITELEAD, we don't have to do that, as an article's lead is the summation of that article. Sidenote, what you wrote at Talk:The Sims 4/GA3, Kotaku is considered a reliable source, while TheGamer can be used as a situational source, see WP:VG/RS. Thanks and happy editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Nominating Terzake at AfD

I'm going to add to the advice above. A TV news program that's been running for twenty-eight years is probably notable, and doesn't appear to be especially ripe for deletion on grounds of notability. I'd echo the advice that you become better acquainted with Wiki guidelines before making these calls. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup I am trying my best to learn guidelines while learning how everything works around here. I cannot not make mistakes as a new person, and its obviously being reflected at the moment. Zekerocks11 (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but you also have a tendency to revert good faith and sometimes correct edits too quickly, as you did here [1], when you restored promotional content without having noted or understood the previous edit summary, and here [2], an unsourced but verifiable addition; you then gave a final warning template to the editor [3], which looks excessive given the circumstances. Being new and exercising WP:GF will provide an editor cover for so long, but less so when they're making aggressive judgments: reverting others, issuing warnings and nominating articles for deletion. Such decisions place a greater premium on discernment in copy editing. Otherwise, in aggregate, they can lead to an ANI report for disruption. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

1. I have occasionally made a mistake when reverting edits too quickly, but my ratio of mistakes to actually removing valid this is extremely low
2. As of WP:CHALLENGE, I have the right to challenge and remove content immediately if they do not provide a valid source when making an addition.
3. Please do take a look at the previous history of the editor. I have a right to give a 4im in the scenario of someone who has had past encounters with more than a l2 warning, as any further edits from that ip may prove disruptive as it is. Yes, I realize that I need to do better with WP:AGF, but at the same time, tolerance for past offenders with official warnings on multiple instances, up to a level 4 at times, is skeptical.

I appreciate your feedback, and I can obviously see that you are not logged in or you are on an alt account, because you seem to know your way around WP more than I do. Trust me, I will be noting what you say, but I do find that what I am currently doing is within guidelines when reverting edits. I am new to AfD's, which I will be reviewing more before nominating. Best, Zekerocks11 (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

GA closure of Club Penguin Rewritten

Hi there, and thanks for reviewing Club Penguin Rewritten article. While I do appreciate your comments and I understand these conerns, I unfortunately felt that the review was not a good one. Here are some considerations I would suggest next time reviewing articles (based on WP:GA?):

• It is important to note that GAs can be comprehensive, but not as broad as to include every single detail available. Basically, GA nominations can also include articles of short prose. Take Vivian (Paper Mario), for example. The article doesn't neccessarily include every single review or aspect of Vivian, but describes at least the main aspects of her. Of course, if that article was too short then it will fail broad coverage, but as long as it covers a reasonable information information about her creation, appearences, and thoughts from critics, it is considered broad for GA.
• I do have to say that the sources in Club Penguin Rewritten is really everything I can find about this game. Since the sections cannot be expanded any further during this time, I consider citing every reliable source possible to be broad.
• The WP:INFOBOX doesn't have to include everything about the game.
• Can you specify which sources aren't reliable?
• I can consider expanding the gameplay section a bit. I'm not quite sure how to format fangames per se (especially for ones that are almost like the orginal game), but the article included a wikilink to Club Penguin#Plot and gameplay. I felt that retelling how the original game works is clutter and will bloat the article when you can just view the gameplay on the Club Penguin article instead.
• I think that the article is properly formatted. It is short, but it covers everything I can find. As far as I can tell, WP:VG/MOS isn't strict on formatting. It's just general rules.
• Any prose issues?

I hope the advice here gives you a better understanding of GA reviewing. I'm actually unsure about whether to renominate this for a second opinion or to just leave it as is, because the article right now really is all that I can expand on. Sparkl^talk 23:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I apologize if the review to you doesn't seem like a good one. I guess the biggest issues that I had was the lack of information overall in a few sections. For example, you mentioned in the gameplay section how the game was based on a older version of Club Penguin. When you say that, I would want to know more about the version they used, what mechanics were in that game, how the game played, ect. I feel as though the gameplay and development section could use more information. If you feel like adding that information will clutter up the article, then that's fine, just my opinion on the matter. I also saw how you mentioned that the developers were pretty much anonymous. While I think more information about them would be nice, I don't know the scale of information that you are working with, and if this really is all the information you have, then I may reconsider, but again, I guess the lack of content is what is biting at me a bit. As for citations, reference 14 seemed to be a little bias to me, but anyone is free to challenge that. For reference 16, I'm not completely sure that TorrentFreak is a good source, but once again, anybody is free to challenge and correct me on that.

Again, I apologize for not going into depth on the review. I probably should've mentioned all of this in detail. You are absolutely free to ask for a second opinion, as my opinion might be a little too picky than others. Personally, what I would suggest, is to ensure that you have gathered every bit of reliable information you can, ensure that you are comfortable with what you have included in the article, and reapply. Even if you are already 100% sure you have everything you can add, I would go over it again one last time.

I have experienced some strict formatting with reviewers before on MOS, but it all comes down to the reviewer in the end on that front.

Writing wise, everything looked fine to me and flowed okay in my opinion, but someone may think differently.

I do thank you for your feedback and concerns, as it shows that you are passionate about this article and ensuring that it is perfected. I appreciate the feedback you are giving me, as I am also new to this. I hope this helps! Zekerocks11 (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Also I would like to add in, I am free and willing to help you in every way I can to help get this article to GA status if you would like. I really do not like failing people, and I would rather help the editor improve and pass, rather leaving them in the dust. Zekerocks11 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments! There's no pressure for you to improve the article as well. We all have different interests. I totally understand your viewpoint on the article being not broad about it's development. I just thought that the New Statesman piece was a big contributor to the section so I decided to nominate it for GA. It's also totally normal to expect different opinions and reviews from different users. For reference 14, I initally thought that it was reliable because it was written by University graduates, althought the site is somewhat fourm-like, so maybe I can look into that in the future.

I'm also sort of new to GA reviewing and promoting as well. Another good example of article lacking a development section is actually an article I am currently reviewing, Yume Nikki. Since the developer didn't want to deeply disclose about themsevles or the development of the game, my reviewing standards somewhat lower in regards to the privacy of these people and how they work. But hey, that's my take on it.

Don't feel bad to fail this! These comments were just my way of reviewing GAs, and an explanation of why the article was short. I don't have too much time on my shoulders, so I'll probably reconsider renoming this in the future. For now, I'll look at your comments as to see what is outstanding at the moment. Thanks so much again for your support! (by the way, TorrentFreak is listed as a reliable source according to WP:RSP) Sparkl^talk 01:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries! I'm all about helping out here and spreading positivity, and I appreciate you reaching out to me about this! I wish you well with the article in the future, I know you've got this! (Also totally only checked VG/RS, that one is on me completely) Zekerocks11 (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Animal Crossing: New Leaf

The article Animal Crossing: New Leaf you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Animal Crossing: New Leaf for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PerryPerryD -- PerryPerryD (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Xenoblade Chronicles 3

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Xenoblade Chronicles 3 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shooterwalker -- Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Making a Wiki For YECR

Hey my name is Yatzel Elier Calderon Rivera also known as YECR, and I was wondering if you could by any chance make me a Wikipedia as I am a big artist and , I can give you links and references that will help you make it. 2601:14E:102:FF00:65E4:711B:76A6:E417 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey there!

If you can provide me references from notable sources, and establish notability, then I am perfectly fine with doing that for you! Best, Zekerocks11 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Rappi's public Image

Hey, I understand that Wiki is no place for censorship, but if you take a look at what was shared, it's just sensationalism and bad imagery of the Company, from shady journal sources... As always, there will be people against the company, but still it should not cite Child Labor as header or include almost only trashtalk in it's bottom section. Angry people wrote the sections I'm trying to erease, as to leave the objective and informative content. Being a Latin American company, it's spanish page in Wiki is full of this actually informative content, whereas it's english page 50% trashtalk. 201.245.231.77 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I will skim the article here and see what I can find for you. The way you are removing things, especially without talking about it on a talk page, is kind of a red flag in a vandalism hunter's mind. I appreciate you explaining yourself on my talk page, and I welcome you to Wikipedia. If you have not already, feel free to create an account if you wish, its completely free and really easy to do!

Once again, I will review the article and let you know what I find. Best, Zekerocks11 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Awsome! Thanks! I had never actually edited something in Wiki. But reaching this article and just going over its first lines made me do it. I guess the best practice would be to actually translate its spanish page, where it does include some "Controverial" information at the bottom, but from a well written, non-trashtalky point of view. 201.245.231.77 (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits and made the appropriate changes that I see fit. If you have any objections, you are completely free to list them in the talk page of the article. I would not revert, as per Wikipedia:3RR (3 revert rule), you may not revert an article no matter what, more than 3 times in 24 hours. Please dispute any issues at this point on the talk page, or you may face getting banned. Happy editing! Zekerocks11 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Animal Crossing: New Leaf

The article Animal Crossing: New Leaf you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Animal Crossing: New Leaf for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CR4ZE -- CR4ZE (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You said to ask?

Hi there. I've a question about rollback as a feature of Twinkle rather then rollback as a permission. Can I only use rollback in Twinkle if it's vandalism? I've just rolled back some edits using Twinkle but it was for disruption rather than vandalism. Was that wrong? Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You have 3 different buttons. Rollback for vandalism, rollback, and rollback assume good faith. AGF is for good faith edits, rollback is for anything disruptive or of the sort, and vandalism is for the obvious. Best, Zeke (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)