User talk:Drill it/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
Hi Drill it! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Notfrompedro (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Welcome
Hello, Drill it, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 23:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for your recent contributions! DC | Thank you (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| So many edits in just 2 days! 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 13:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC) |
Important notices
You may already know this, and such notices are usually not required for recent changes patrollers who just revert vandalism. However, I have a feeling I should document having warned you about contentious areas of this encyclopedia. The first notice is the most important, the second one will become very important over time, and the other two are just for your general information.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
| This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Not vandalism
Hi Drill it, the contributions provided by Hazzz2252 are not vandalism, they're just not neutral. Vandalism is intentional, malicious disruption, and it is unlikely that Hazzz2252 had such intentions when providing their opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Deciding on a speedy deletion before it happens
Drill it, Special:Diff/1026008663 was an attempt to link to an existing article. The syntax was incorrect, but your usage of a vandalism warning template at Special:Diff/1026008768 was inappropriate: You could tell them about the correct syntax, fix the syntax error instead of reverting the change, ignore it until the deletion happened – whatever you like, but please not a warning for vandalism that hasn't happened. The page might be speedily deleted in the near future, but until this happens, adding a wikilink to the page isn't inherently wrong. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Problematic biographical edit
Drill it, I have reverted your contribution to Val Venis for now, but you're welcome to seek consensus for including the content on the talk page of the article. If you do, please keep WP:ONUS and WP:BLP in mind, and please be more careful about this in the future. I find it extremely unlikely that you have taken the time to verify the claim in the 32 seconds between the removal and your restoration. If you did not do any kind of verification or source-checking before restoring the material, then consider this to be a warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Please do not review AfC drafts yet
Please have a look at WP:AFC/P for the procedures and requirements around AfC draft reviewing, and do not do so yourself yet. I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Bradley S. Feuer because the page is not exclusively promotional according to the criterion WP:G11. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Not vandalism #2
The contributions by 2600:8805:A08C:E600:75B9:2EAF:37D1:C96B are unlikely to be "vandalism". Reverting them without any explanation (cf. WP:ROLLBACKUSE for concerns about this behavior) and adding vandalism warnings to their talk page, as you did in Special:Diff/1026012540, isn't appropriate. You had been warned about this before and are making way too many errors way too quickly. I'm blocking you to prevent further damage and to encourage taking time to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines before attempting to enforce them. A few bad reverts (such as the BLP edit pointed out above) can outweigh the benefit of a larger amount of good contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- They turned out to be evading a block, and reverting their contributions without any further explanation was appropriate, but the reason for this is probably a surprise to you as well. If the block was just for this specific incident, I'd unblock you now. However, there have been too many problematic edits in general, and the two-week pause still seems beneficial to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Please keep WP:3RR in mind
Hi Drill it, I understand your concern, but please keep WP:3RR in mind, as this was apparently neither vandalism nor a BLP violation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi again, and sorry in advance for the negative content of this message. I was happy to see your "Thanks" for the above message and thanked you for the AIV report in response. I promise I'm still thankful, even if the previous block and this message make it look differently.
I have been approached about your edit to the Mariam Kamara article, which has re-instated disputed material without an inline citation that directly supports the information. The editor you have reverted was not a vandal but someone claiming to have a close connection to the article subject. The editor has voiced their concerns in a very reasonable way, and has provided a citation in their edit summary. Of course, that's not optimal, but when something like this happens, the following two approaches are fine:
- Removing the challenged material for now, asking the editor to provide a proper inline citation to prove verifiability (give them a link to WP:INTREF); or
- Verifying the citation from the edit summary, then adding the inline citation yourself if you feel confident enough to do so.
The following approach is not fine:
- Restoring the challenged material, and
- Accusing the other editor of vandalism on their talk page afterwards.
When dealing with biographical articles about living people, extra caution is required. I have described this as "the most important" of the notices provided in Special:Diff/1026006862, here on your talk page. I didn't expect the message to have a large effect; it was more of a formality. I expected there to be problems in the future, and the expectation sadly became true.
Please be more careful when editing biographies and welcoming new editors.
Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Some bubble tea for you!
|
Excellent anti-vandalism work. Beating me to the revert button, and RPP. Have some bubble tea and keep editing :) Justiyaya (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC) |
User page
Hi Drill it, do you need a userpage, if so, I can create it for you. Also, I saw ToBeFree's messages and you really should reply to them, admins are generally really nice here :). Justiyaya (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Drill it,
Next time you find a user page like this, instead of tagging it for deletion, why not engage the new editor and post a welcome message? Deletion should only be used when absolutely necessary and we rarely ever delete user talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Re: Your AIV report on Stephen J Flesch
Thank you for your report on Stephen J Flesch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and you are encouraged to revert, warn and report inappropriate conduct. I have however declined to act on this report because while using talk pages as a forum is discouraged, it is not vandalism. Maybe they will understand and improve?
The Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism might be a helpful read if you wish to improve your future reports. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- Luk talk 11:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Please slow down
Your six reversions at List of largest extant lizards have not been followed by any edit summary, nor do their edits seem to be vandalism. Please engage with the editor with something other than templates and stop edit warring. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
CodeLaunch
I noticed you put in a CSD G11 for Draft:CodeLaunch Startup Accelerator. There's another draft at Draft:CodeLaunch Seed Accelerator if you want to spot-check whether that is overly promotional? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Accountability
Hi Drill it, you have been correct about reverting 89.240.112.154's edits. A short "They're a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change for details" would have been a helpful answer for Notfrompedro. Sure, in such cases you may prefer to deny recognition to long-term vandals, but if I understand the situation correctly, your intention was not to deny recognition, but rather to brush away someone else's concerns about your infallible contributions. 
~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- (While not strictly technically applicable to Twinkle's rollback emulation, WP:ROLLBACKUSE#4 explicitly asks rollbackers to "be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to"). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)If your next few edits are not obviously improving the encyclopedia, I will increase the block to indefinite, site wide. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Question
Is this your first Wikipedia account or have you used any others? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
July 2021
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)I have disabled your talk page access as you are clearly not interested in appealing a block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)