User talk:Biografer

Hi Biografer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Great Idcactus3535 SFC VGCP (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Idcactus3535 SFC VGCP (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened here? --John (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: What exactly? I archived links which were dead. The article shouldn't have been nominated prior to archiving or replacing dead links, otherwise its not verifiable.--Biografer (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem with that of course. It's just that you also undid a lot of copyedits by me and others in the process. Most likely way this usually happens is you were inadvertently looking at an earlier revision. It's mostly fixed again, I just wanted to let you know what you had done The article was in a hell of a state for a TFA, wan't it? --John (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Yes, my apologies. There was an edit conflict. I started fixing some stuff a day ago, and saved it next day, by that time you already put some info. I saved the old revision because majority of times there is edit wars going on either way. One time I saved an article after someone's revert, that person didn't bothered to vandalize the article again. :) But to be honest, I only saw major revert after my edit, so I came in time. :)--Biografer (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, thanks for the apology. Please try not to do this again as you've created a fair bit of work for others. --John (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't Wikipedia a collaborative project?--Biografer (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is. Here's another thing. Edits like this one are not minor and should not be marked as such. Please see Help:minor edit for details. --John (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @John:, but I thought that because I put them and therefore it was me who removed them, it shouldn't be a big deal.--Biografer (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well that isn't the case. Read the link I sent you. --John (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Biografer, thanks for creating Naoshige Uchida!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please read WP:NACADEMIC and see if you can add to this article sufficient evidence for it to meet those notability guidelines. I'll return in due course and review how you've got on. It may be that this person is not sufficiently notable, in which case the page may be considered for removal from Wikipedia.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I did a small addition, but am wondering if you have any parameters for wcn. I seem not able to find it in cite book. It looks like its similar to isbn and lccn but have different numbers. Can you help? Many thanks in advance.--Biografer (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ignore 'WCN' and revert that last edit. I don't know what it stands for, but 02-200-208 is not unique to that publication. It seems to be some form of copyright statement (a bit like saying 'CC 4.0' for a creative commons licence.) So, no wonder it displays unknown parameter in red. See this example.

I appreciate you responding to my concerns so quickly. Rather than look for more evidence of his scientific researches, what a Wikipedia article needs is evidence that the person is 'notable' above and beyond that research. e.g. how have their results been reported in journals or the media; what national awards have they won? what impact has their work had? etc etc. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Well, one of his students got a Noble Prize, but I don't know where to put it. It definitely fits in description and proves his notability but under which section???--Biografer (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Biografer, thanks for creating Haibao Tang!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please read the notability criteria for academic staff ay WP:NACADEMIC. Can you find evidence that meets any of the criteria to demonstrate that Haibao Tang is anything other than a good researcher? The article does not show me anything, and so may well not be acceptable as a stand-alone article. I'll come back and review it again in a few weeks to see how you've got on with improving it.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biografer,

I'm sorry to be stupid, I am still trying to figure all this out.

I made an edit on a page and it has been rejected apparently, and I don't know why.

It was to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gods_(TV_series)

In the episode synopsis for Episode 5, Lemon Scented You, I added a list of David Bowie songs that are quoted in the speech that Media makes to Shadow. I think this is useful information for people who may not be as fanatical about Bowie as I am and who might not have recognized all of the lyrics that were quoted. However, as you can imagine, I have no "source" for this information as it was based on 1) my watching the TV show and 2) my knowledge of lyrics of Bowie songs.

So, how do I get my edit to not be removed? I am just assuming it was removed for lack of cited source.

Thank you in advance for a newbie question.

Khern0203 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)khern0203[reply]

@Khern0203: Click "View history" and then look at the reason why the person reverted your edit. It said that it was because it was unsourced and trivial. Hope that helps.--Biografer (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thank you for your recent "welcomes" for new editors! You've been very proactive about this and I think you deserve the recognition. Cheers! MX (✉ • ✎) 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like it :)

The Stray Dog Talk Page 23:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheStrayDog: Thanks! Goats are one of my favorites!--Biografer (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CooperMorgan (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Gowtham Siddhaarth (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your welcome too! Jy Houston (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Jy Houston[reply]

Working diligently to be informative, encyclopedic, and adhere to formatting standards, I submit this page for peer review while learning much about all things Wikipedian. This living person is immensely productive, creative, interesting, and has a career of collaborating with many other talented artists in the entertainment industry. This page will grow in perpetuity. Zaltru (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, Biografer. Could you kindly check out my first page (Shanti Celeste? Many thanks! Urbanfel123 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Urbanfe1123: Now it looks good. But still needs more sources.--Biografer (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Hello, dear User:Biografer; hereby this badge is awarded to you just in recognition of your tireless work on welcoming new users. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 19:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanksalot for welcoming :) PoetVeches (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please read and check the dates https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://altleft.com/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157: Well, first of all, the links that you posted here are not verifiable (except for Social Democracy one).--Biografer (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why only the socialdemocracy one? 2001:8003:117E:6D00:4D16:66C5:793E:541E (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157: Actually, I looked again at Social Democracy and its a blogpost. Blogs and social network sites are not a reliable source. Official website could be used as external links but that's about it. You should look for alt-left mentioning in CNN, BBC, New York Times (definitely not Daily Mail, since those just spread gossip, according to our policies).--Biografer (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeseburgers are not healthy Richboy Brooks (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richboy Brooks: That's maybe one reason why I don't eat them in either real or virtual life.--Biografer (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia! Good Wall of the Pyrenees (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, you welcomed this user. Be aware of accounts like this one - particularly with usernames containing food terms and symbols - they're socks of Gabriella~four.3-6. Home Lander (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: So far the user didn't harmed anyone here, but I might know what you mean. By the way, even I will welcome them its still your "job" to see if they are socks or not. I'm not a part of sock puppet investigation unit, so forgive me.--Biografer (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentioned it to you so you're aware of them. Home Lander (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: Wow. Such a quick response. Thanks. By the way, just welcomed this one, but again, her contributions are at null so far. Tell me if you will see any activity from either of the two accounts. Thanks.--Biografer (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I could be wrong but that one doesn't seem her style - they're a little more out there - like the ones at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Gabriella~four.3-6#Naming habits. The first account from yesterday was already blocked as a sock. Home Lander (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: Amazingly just stumbled on her: Look What You Made Me Do (talk · contribs) Seems to be out there in my opinion.--Biografer (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one isn't matching her behavior, though the username is clever at the moment. Home Lander (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: What about this suspicious edit by her?: diff.--Biografer (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to fit her style. A checkuser was just ran on her accounts earlier and no others were found, so we hopefully will be good for today. Home Lander (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biografer & thank you for the warm welcome! I am starting to feel like a real Wikipedian :-)Iha777 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the welcome, I think I have my first page done and I attempted to move it to be an article but maybe I shouldn't have done that? There is a banner at the top of the page to merge edit contents from the draft page to the article page. I may have done the wrong thing but don't want to move it back and cause more issues! You can see the page here and the banners at the top, if there is something I should do please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpauley (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpauley: Great job! There is nothing to worry about. You can counter the merge by simply discuss it on the article's talkpage, but I don't think it will be merged since its already over 15 thousand bytes which is more then enough for a stand alone "level C" article.--Biografer (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny sport you have, putting a new-user-welcome message on a talk page of a user contributing for about ten years in various languages... --Polarbear24 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Polarbear24: How funny indeed. :) But then explain to me why your talkpage was empty? Don't people ever talk to you?--Biografer (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because I'm perfect ;-) so they just send flowers.--Polarbear24 (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Polarbear24: I guess not. You just was in hiding from the rest of us. Like really, how many people come to Wikipedia a day (includes registered and not registered users)?--Biografer (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you overwrite someone else's talk page message and change their signature to yours in this edit and this edit? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Does it matter who warn those vandals?--Biografer (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also, you didn't answer the question. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? (scoff) Either way, if you demand my explanation, here: I realized that I inserted contributions of a different editor. In order to fix it I decided to override my previous edit. Since I can't remove the warning templates (because of your rules) I thought it was OK to just change the signature (otherwise the warning is dated to say, September 13, and my fix to my welcome message is September 15). See a problem? But to be honest, I am not required to answer your inquiries.--Biografer (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain why you changed someone else's signature to your own. Unless you can explain that, I am going to block you for running a poorly-written, unauthorized bot. I haven't blocked you yet because I'm waiting for an alternate explanation. Since you don't seem to have one, I will probably block you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... are you saying that you thought someone might be confused because your welcome message was newer than the warning? And then you removed someone else's signature and replaced it with your own because you thought that would be less confusing? I'm beginning to think that you're not running a bot; you're just disruptive. If you change someone else's talk page message again in any way, I will block you. Is this clear enough for you? Do not change anyone's talk page messages ever again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An Iranian baby cat, for you. Take care of it please. We love cats. :)

The Stray Dog Talk Page 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheStrayDog: Thanks, but user NinjaRobotPirate doesn't like my edits and threaten to block me if I will continue. And... I can't. I made some errors in Special contributions and am planning to fix it. Yet, he thinks that I am being disruptive. :(--Biografer (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hello dear user NinjaRobotPirate, please be nice to him. As I know you are. He probably made mistakes, everyone does, so if you found out them, let him know and then instruct him to fix it. I believe he does. This is a society and we appreciate the active users like him here. Thank you both. The Stray Dog Talk Page 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone makes mistakes. I'm sure I've made many. The problem is that Biografer is removing other people's messages and changing their content, against our talk page guidelines. I am frustrated that he has continued to do this after I warned him to stop before; the problem, I think, is that I was not explicit enough. In trying to be more explicit, I think I did come down a bit too harsh. I apologize for that, Biografer, but, really, you need to stop editing other people's talk page messages. The basic rule is that what someone wrote can not be changed by anyone else. This includes removing what they wrote, changing their signature, changing the time stamp, or any other edit. On your own talk page, you have more latitude. On your own talk page, you can remove old messages or archive them. That's fine. But anywhere else, you must leave alone other people's talk page messages. Beyond that, I don't have a problem with the edits. I hope that this clears up any issues, and I apologize again for the harsh tone of my previous message. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: OK. I wont change signatures or anything like that, but I still need to fix that welcome message because there are contributions of another editor that I accidentally put from August 25 to September 15 to the anonymous users and didn't realized it soon enough. Like, I am not thanking them for their contributions but for contributions of someone else. That doesn't feel right, so I decided to replace it with the one that actually mentions their contributions, that's all. Sorry if it was disruptive.--Biografer (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is there where I write back to you? There is a lot of info to figure out. Thanks for welcoming me and the articles on how to do things! I appreciate it.

@Hahahenny: Yes, but do it on the bottom. I will be more then happy to walk you through the process (as its rather complicated for the new editors). Also, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). :)--Biografer (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome. Please take a look at this [1], [2] and [3]. Thanks Jordi Lemebel (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordi Lemebel: Well, the source is reliable according to Wikipedia. What do you see in it that is so unreliable?--Biografer (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's Thebestwinter the one who said it. See reference [1]: (the source doesn't seem reliable, "fun facts" really?). Jordi Lemebel (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordi Lemebel: Well it seems that the source he claimed he wanted to put in there, he didn't (I checked). So, I need to assume that the problem is solved? If not, let me know, and I will pop in whenever I can. Sorry, I was away for half of the day. :(--Biografer (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user on the Scarlett (G.I. Joe)—who clearly has some Wiki experience—seems to be going on some editing spree and claiming tons of pages are invalid. I was first alerted about their edits to Microman and Micronauts pages. --SpyMagician (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyMagician: Wondering what makes him tick? Like, he doesn't even respond on his talkpage (only when it comes to reverts) which in itself is unconstructive. I told him why Yo Joe! is reliable and he still doesn't listen. :(--Biografer (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No clue. I have no idea why someone with this kind of knowledge and desire is using an anonymous account. I left a message here encouraging whoever this is too sign up for an account, but I believe they are aware of that and are deliberately avoiding logging in. Regardless, they continue to behave like this it only makes them look bad. But thank you for spotting this as well! --SpyMagician (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyMagician: No problem. I already reported him to AN/I (as you have seen) but maybe I done it too soon? Either way, I am tired of reverts myself. :)--Biografer (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Cool. I think you are fine. Just look at the edits and reverts I have done to the Red Shadows as well as the Scarlett (G.I. Joe), Microman and Micronauts pages. Odd pattern of “copy edits” that are much more than that. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyMagician: Well, he also says that he removes references because they are unreliable. But it beats me what in his head is unreliable. I'm thinking of opening a sock puppet investigation, but I don't know if he is a puppet of someone or not. In my opinion his behavior indicates that he is a sock puppet, but of whom? Beats me.--Biografer (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references thing is pedantic. In the case of the Micronauts and Microman pages, the “fan sites” are some of the most respected English sites for basic info on these—let’s face it—not very popular toy lines. Maybe some British (since the IP addresses are British Telecom) G.I. Joe collector—who knows about the Micronauts and Microman—just decided to do this? I know there is overlap in those fan communities. But still, why? Anyway, thanks again! --SpyMagician (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: And “they”—whoever that IP address editor from the UK is—are at it again. New IP address is User:109.149.4.80. --SpyMagician (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Microman assistance. Seems like Micronauts is a target as well. The only connection I see to all of this is the G.I. Joe connection; all of these lines have a common history. But hopefully the attention of the past few days ends up in something positive. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to be productive about the Microman page, I have made some review requests to the folks to maintain Wikipedia toy pages as well as those who maintain Transformers pages. Just a friendly “heads up” given the events of the past few days. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyMagician: Sounds good. I have tried to look into The Japan Times for more refs on Micronauts and Microman, but again, found nothing. :(--Biografer (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

)

The scar face (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The scar face: Actually, we welcome everyone who is here to contribute constructively. But when I realized that you were edit warring, I decided to remove it, since people here don't like welcoming people who break the rules off the bat. Otherwise they will blame the other side (in this case, me), for welcoming a disruptive editor or a vandal whatever they want to call that editor.--Biografer (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup, Biografer, Twinkle has several templates that I regularly use that are can be used to welcome users whose initial edits have problems (COI, blanking, vandalism, tests, etc.). That's another reason that I've gotten away from welcoming users before an edit is made. -- Dolotta (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jason Ybarra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Biografer. You filed this dispute at WP:AN3. What would you think of going ahead with an WP:AFD for this article? An IP claiming to be the article subject says he wants it deleted. Since the notability is on the edge, I believe that deletion would be possible. The article sources look marginal to me. For BLP articles, we do allow ourselves to be influenced by the wishes of the article subject, at least in marginal cases. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Since notability is at null I have no objection. However there were instances when a subject was mentioned in The New York Times and we didn't delete it simply because the subject wants to, but in this case, its a different story.--Biografer (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about undoing your last set of changes? I believe that all that material is actually unsourced. We don't rely on IMDB as a reliable source. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Don't know why it poses a problem if the article will be deleted with or without those changes?..--Biografer (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome on my talk page. As you suggested, I added my signature to the two talk pages that I'd contributed to. (In both cases, that created a new, wrong, date. No matter, because in both cases I've received no reply, and the errors I think I spotted remain in-place. Presumably because there's nobody Watching the page who cares about that issue/section?)

I'm curious if there's any particular reason you reached out to me? Perhaps because it was you who (anonymously) corrected my syntax for archived references? (If so, thanks. And I added the apparently-automatically-flagged missing archive date.) Netpog (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADDING: I meant to say, above, "who corrected [me] on the Eric Goldberg page", but obviously it was not you, because you reversed that correction. It's now very similar to what I'd done. So, okay, now I know.

Just one thing: I do think it was helpful to have the longer anchor text (which you truncated). It's not his page; it's on a medium-specific website. Yes? Netpog (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Netpog: Don't know what you mean, but external links should be archived as I did. The official link is dead, so there is nothing we can do with it. Right? So we archive the dead link and that's it. That IP was probably not experienced, but I thank him for trying.--Biografer (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your friendly lines on my discussion page! I only now and then try to correct little mistakes, when reading english pages. My main interest is the Latin Vicipedia where I contributed many corrections, additions and a few new pages. Thus I know the main rules of contributing to Wikipedia but with my school english of long ago I'm not familiar with stylistic details in that language. So I could not write longer chapters or even whole articles. Best greetings from Bavaria! Bis-Taurinus (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bis-Taurinus: Bavaria? And you are interested in Latin Wikipedia? Either way, welcome again and greetings from Bavaria as well!--Biografer (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biografer, I want to create a article for Mahthapar, Can I Start with Draft.Kshatriya1995 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kshatriya1995: What an odd question. Yes! You create your first article in a sandbox and then ask me or anyone else to review it. Then you or anyone else can move it into the main field of Wikipedia.--Biografer (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Guidance. Can you review my Article Mahthapar. Kshatriya1995 (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Khatriya1995: Can you send me a link of your article? I'm not sure that I am spelling it correctly. :(--Biografer (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for guiding me. I want to create a one more article in wikipedia. How i start please guide me. Kshatriya1995 (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for welcome on Wikipedia. चौधरी (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Biographer, thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. The articles you provided will be very helpful and save me a few Google searches. When I first started, I felt a bit overwhelmed; however, I'm getting the hang of things now. I found the Wikipedia community to be very welcoming and forgiving. Whenever changing my edits, someone always explains why, which has taught me helpful information to remember. Rhythm of Dawn (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biografer, Can you do me a favour. Please review my article draft:Raja Pratap Singh of Pratapgarh. Singh1995virat (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Singh1995virat: Looks good, but I don't have authority to move it into main space. I will ask @I dream of horses: to see what should we do about a draft.--Biografer (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Biografer. I waiting for your Action. Singh1995virat (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: There is a going concern where I feel like I'm being ganged up against by a Self appointed toxic gatekeeper - ::@Oluwa2Chainz: My posts are not promotional material but they are getting constantly reverted without being asked for the rationale. My post is an Encyclopedic discography of the artist, hence provides value as a reference to prove that the artist has truly produced those songs. Also it is legitimate information for users to see the entire discography of the artist. I believe this behaviour goes against the premise of Wikipedia as an open web and contribution platform. If this is promotional material, then it can be argued that all references to external websites from wikipedia that provides valueable information is also promotional material. Please kindly help look into this matter as I demand a peaceful resolution. 02:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

...and for pointing me toward editorial resources. I have benefited so greatly from Wikipedia over the years that I felt it was time to start giving back even beyond financial support. I hope I can live up to the standards every one aspires to. CBinLA (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CBinLA: Have you ever questioned where your financial support go?--Biografer (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Biografer! I am new to the Wikipedia community and have a question about Articles for Creation. Is that only for unregistered users, or could I also use AfC to submit an article and have it reviewed to make sure that I am doing everything correctly? Thank you for your help! Hwilson51 (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwilson51: Doesn't seem like its only for unregistered, so you can submit and someone will be with you shortly.--Biografer (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for welcoming me! Pyrhan (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrhan: You are welcome. If you have any questions you can either ping me at your talkpage or come to mine (whatever works). :)--Biografer (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. Biografer..how are you? can you review my article Draft:Raja Pratab Singh.

For the welcome message.

Thank you from me too! I appreciate the welcome! Raynerlucas (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re: User talk:Cooldude21830: "Thank you for your contributions" is extra lulz for a joker; basically, you are inviting them to do more pranks; they just think "duh, what a moron!" instead of being thankful for your kind greeting. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: Well how should I know? Does it say on their forehead that they are vandals? I was in the shower after that welcome, so I didn't had a chance to check what they did. Sorry about that though.--Biografer (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't edit Wikipedia in a shower :-) If you see a stupid user name, you better check their contributions. No big harm done, but I really hate the idea of somebody chuckling behind Wikipedian's back. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, good news: @Staszek Lem: As soon as I saw your message, I immediately removed that welcome message (which I do sometimes when I see that a vandal was welcomed). There was once a story that I welcomed a vandal after seeing him editing his draft section (obviously nothing wrong here), so I welcomed him. But then he blanked a page in main space and I was like, what the... Either way, you got the point that is not easy to distinguish a vandal from non vandal, and not welcoming a good contributor will do even more harm to our project. So, its 50/50. Lunchtime!--Biografer (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it seems you've placed the first entry into my talk page. I've had my account on Wikipedia for a pretty long time though and usually edit not too frequently. I'm just mostly confused that I got a welcome message seeing as I'm a bit of an old user. That's about it really, feels odd getting that message when I am pretty seasoned of an editor. Lzer (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lzer: Well how would I know? There are tons of contributors that come every day and some have their talkpage in blue and some in red. Those that in red I target. But yeah, its not the first time I welcomed someone who was an old contributor. It's odd that no one greeted you upon your first arrival here?--Biografer (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess you could quickly check the contributions on a user to be extra sure that it's a new user. Anyway, no biggie in the message anyway, stuff happens. Yeah, nobody really gave me a greeting when I was new. Best I got was someone giving me an "intentionally blank userbox" on my main user page but that was several years after my account creation. Lzer (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lzer: Well, that's not fun.--Biografer (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia -will definitely be checking out the tutorials and no doubt asking for help!--Margymaclibrary (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biografer, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My redirect of Sequence-controlled polymers to Sequence-controlled polymer was not vandalism; the articles are (nearly) identical and should be merged. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but please be more careful while doing reverts in the future. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antony-22: Oops, I guess so. The reason why I treated it as vandalism was because of the -1000 or more bites. Sorry about it. Plus, as far as I remember, you didn't wrote anything in edit summary, therefore it said (blanked the page), obvious stuff that vandals known to do. No edit summary, just page blanking is their motto.--Biografer (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm coming to you to inquire about your edit on DanTDM a week ago. I see you had tried to remove vandalism from an editor who had previously vandalized the article before its protection. What I saw was the change of a few references' access dates, the removal of HTTPS on some links, removal of archive links, and other changes which some would find extremely disruptive. I do have to compliment your removal of extraneous spaces and the change of some {{Cite web}} templates to {{Cite news}}, but the rest confuses me even though that editor's vandalism was already removed by Oshwah before the page's protection. What made you try to fix the damage? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292: Well, first of all, I was doing a revert at the time when Oshwah was doing his, so it was an edit conflict. I assumed that the edit conflict was caused by a vandal trying to remove more content (which sometimes does happen). As for removing of archived links (and I will do it again), there is a reason to it (yes, I should have mentioned that in the edit summary), but when you archived a YouTube link the ref in the archive is blank. It says An error occurred. Please try again later. Apparently archive.org can't archive YouTube links, while it does work with actual link. Any questions?--Biografer (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with removing the YouTube archive. Thanks for the clarification. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292: Not to mention, that we are not allowed to use YouTube as a ref. But, I assume, this case is an exception?--Biografer (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YOUTUBE for a better idea on how this works. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292: That was exactly what I was talking about. You see, on one hand it says While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites but on the other Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. So apparently the line is drawn when the Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis., which in this case is the YouTube's subject. Am I understanding this correctly?--Biografer (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Not opposed to this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to monitor the Mangalore article for vandalism by Anonymous IP address users.
They are trying to insert fake information.
D7G1FV49C (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome. I will definitely use the links on the help page and do my best to follow the five pillars of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia Zuniga (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia Zuniga: You are welcome. The five pillars are just the bare bones of the project. Once you will venture deeper, rules become more and more complex, to the point that some of our editors even end up committing suicides. :(--Biografer (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome!

Mermaidalchemist (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mermaidalchemist: Thanks. Now, two goats gonna eat my cheeseburger. :)--Biografer (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about that, I noticed after posting you already had the same goat, was going to change it but then thought really, what's the harm in two goats! Mermaidalchemist (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mermaidalchemist: Its a good thing that they are virtual goats so you can give as many as you want. :) In real life though, the more goats you have, the more trouble you will endure. That includes cleaning after them and breaking all those horny fights, especially if they attack your neighbor (and they mostly attack pretty much anything, even fences if you color them red). If they are of Spanish breed, that is. :)--Biografer (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there! Thanks for the friendly welcome. :) TheBlueBlur (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBlueBlur: No problem, I at first forgot to thank you for your contributions and decided to add it when you will come again (which is a good thing that you did).--Biografer (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. First, Charles Eldridge Bailey died January 1966. People from Asbury Park and Neptune know more history than any article and probably would share information that wasn't covered by in your article. Asbury Park is one square mile that has a rich history. Did you know that Thomas Smith former Police Chief Asbury Park also took the civil service exam which integrated the Fire and Departments. As a native, I am proud of this Asbury Park. Asbury Park jazz scene was famous. So you need help to do a great job. Have you asked any of the old timers? Thanks--Chargood18 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chargood18: First, I would like to apologize for such a long delay in my response, second, I don't know of any old timers. Third, I don't leave in NJ so I don't know anything about Asbury Park, but if you want to add some information (as long as its properly sourced), you may. Especially about that jazz thing that you mentioned, sounds intriguing.--Biografer (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me some more about editing and the wiki! User1696 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have received welcome messages from you on many of my accounts. So, I wondered if you are a non-human BOT? --New OS system (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@New OS system: I'm a human bot. If you know what I mean? ;)--Biografer (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MEATBOT? Yeah, that's forbidden lol. 2A02:908:F35B:4FC0:991E:D223:78E:D3E2 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @2A02:908:F35B:4FC0:991E:D223:78E:D3E2: Don't know, but the admins say that its fine. Like, I am not spamming anything that will be considered harmful to the project do I?--Biografer (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hint to the article creating guidelines. Allensbacher (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Allensbacher: Thanks Allen. I think the above editors didn't got the joke and assumed bad faith of me. Common thing to do on this project. If you knew, this what you will endure I guess. :(--Biografer (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How was my edit vandalism everything I said was backed up by facts. I added in information that was deliberately left out and removed irreverent information that was there to create a false narrative. Silent mocker (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Silent mocker: You removed Austin Chronicle, a reliable source.--Biografer (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source of lies. Legal documents are better as they detail the facts and have to summarise it in a few paragraphs like news cites do. Silent mocker (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Silent mocker: Actually, this is just your opinion. According to Wikipedia reliable sources are, in fact, newspapers. Legal documents are dubious, and have never seen an article here citing a legal document! Show me one that does, please.--Biografer (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I literally found one the first page I tried and I am confident I'll find more on other pages. "Ted Bundy Multiagency Investigative Team Report 1992". Thank a wild guess where I found this.

@Silent mocker: Its rather old. Like, 1992 is last century, man. All of those sources that we provide are much recent and are unbiased. Providing Investigative reports are considered to be orginal research, a no-no, according to our policies.--Biografer (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Biografer thank you for your quick welcome message. Cheers! Dbug75 (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sincerely. --48f (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you would compare the two maps you would probably see that the current map doesn't show the East Franconian language area. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only region the current map is actually correct about, is the Dutch-speaking region, probably because it's a Dutch map. The legend is also wrong, because some parts of the Netherlands being traditionally Low Saxon-speaking, the Dutch-speaking part of the Netherlands and Belgium is shown correctly. It should be obvious that the other map is better. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that has been brought to your attention before. Indiscriminate welcoming of newly registered users is greatly frowned upon for multiple reasons. Many of the editors you are welcoming have never made an edit on the wiki and most likely will not make an edit in the future. Also, your edits do nothing to address the issues presented at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use a bot to welcome new users:

1. If a bot is used, it is cold and impersonal, and the bot is incapable of mentoring and assisting newcomers.
2. Many vandals are exposed when an edit made by them receives extra scrutiny because their user or talk page shows as a redlink.
3. The bot would make thousands of pointless edits welcoming vandals and accounts that never make an edit.

You actions are consistent with a WP:MEATBOT, regardless of the method you are using to welcome users. Continuing to welcome users in this manner will require that you obtain consensus. Failure to do so will likely get you blocked from editing. Nihlus 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: I already obtained consensus. Talk to @TheStrayDog: and @Home Lander: if you don't believe me.--Biografer (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for being a meatbot, how come its perfectly fine for users such as @Oshwah: and @PlyrStar93: to do their blocking of vandals and its perfectly fine for @Rich Farmbrough: to do his colons. Yet when I put my effort to invite folks to join our project, I am here threatened with blocks?!--Biografer (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not formed by two editors for something as wide as this. You need to obtain consensus from the community in order to continue. As for your second point, Murph9000 put it best: There are a large number of different welcome messages which cover different scenarios. Indiscriminate spamming of messages interferes with using messages which are more appropriate. In particular, giving a good faith message out to vandals is counterproductive and frequently a waste of space. Even in non-malicious scenarios, there are messages which are intended to give specific help based on the user's contributions. If we wanted a standard welcome spammed at everyone, we would have a bot doing it. Please discontinue this behavior. Nihlus 18:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: Oh, I will wait patiently till all others will arrive here. In fact, for the quick response, I will send them a message too. Maybe I should mass produce articles? But wait, that too would be consider meat boting.--Biografer (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, so your accusation of "mistreatment by admins" is baseless. Additionally, Rich Farmbrough was asked to stop by me as well. I don't understand your point about Oshwah or PlyrStar93 though. Nihlus 18:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Here is a suggestion, have a look at Special:ListUsers, tick all three tick boxes, then you are getting only recent accounts that have edited. Ideally check their contribs.

You might consider using the WP:Teahouse welcoming template, if you want to use a template at all. I have welcomed thousands of new users using this template, and though it was a fairly quick exercise, comparatively few responded, so I am not 100% convinced it is worthwhile, but at worst it seems harmless.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Another tip, make a copy of the welcoming template you use and set it up to "subst:" BASEPAGENAME - it looks much better when editors read the source, IMHO. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Thanks, but the thing is, is that no matter what template I will use, biased Nihlus will tattle-tale on me to the admins and then I will be blocked regardless.--Biografer (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments directed at me are not welcome. I have adequately explained why your behavior is an issue. If you wish to continue it, gain consensus from the community. I will gladly defer to that once established. Nihlus 19:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments directing at me, are not welcomed either. You gave a link to consensus, but there is no where I can see the issue that I am in being listed there. As for welcoming them differently, @Nihlus:, I have tried to at least add an image that will go well with their user name: diff, but because there are only a handful of such (majority of them just have their names and/or numbers listed, its hard to give them plausible welcome, which wont be banal. As for people who don't make a single edit after being logged in, take a look here.--Biografer (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are related to your actions on here. Additionally, I have removed the image from that user talk page as we cannot use copyrighted images outside of article space (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #9). Nihlus 19:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nihlus: Hmmm, some editors use Cookies images to welcome new comers. They are apparently free?--Biografer (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we have permission to use that image. You can find the permission information on the file page: File:Choco_chip_cookie.png. Nihlus 19:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nihlus: Is that the only one that is allowed? Or are there some others that I don't know off?--Biografer (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Anything that states This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license is fine to use. Nihlus 19:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the comments from Biografer are not welcome. Perhaps you (Nihul) should re-read your comments on this page and see why you have elicited them from this undoubtedly good faith editor. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps have a look at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. I don't have the horror of welcoming vandals that some have, and indeed it has been suggested that converted vandals are an important source of recruitment (again, not sure I agree, but it is by no means a fringe idea), but I understand why its seen as something to avoid.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Thanks. Yes, but its not vandalism that Wikipedia admins are obsessed with, is the fact that once a new editor establishes firm ground here, its the perfect way for admins and or other users to gang up on someone who is good and make him feel bad for himself. But I don't feel shame of welcoming new users, should I be ashamed of welcoming somebody that might potentially here to help us? Maybe I should just welcome them with Stay away from this project like a plague! sign. It seems that this is what Nihul wants to me to do... :(--Biografer (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it seems that way. In the past I have felt I could not honestly encourage people to edit, after the way "admins and others" had behaved towards me. This is however the exception rather than the rule. The majority of editors are normal decent human beings, even those who seem obsessed with rules and hat-collecting are pretty nice to meet socially. I see this sort of behaviour as a problem with social interaction, where the script runs:

• These are the rules.
• You are breaking them.
• You must stop
• If you don't stop I will impose sanctions/cause sanctions to be imposed.

This is basically a sound societal interaction - but it misses firstly the nuance that the last three steps don't in general have to e spelled out to peers, and secondly that rules are actually not like mathematical tenets. Moreover the type that pursue these arguments will often use a "rule" that doesn't actually exist - one admin spent years reverting other users over a minor template change for which there was consensus, and mis-interpreting a couple of other policies.

You can't let this sort of thing get to you. You have to stay positive. You have had some nice responses to your welcomes. See if you can find a way to continue, and make Nihlus happy at the same time - that is the true win.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

My name is Nihlus. Also, if someone cannot find anything else to do on this massive wiki than to spam welcome messages, then perhaps they are WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia. There are guidelines and restrictions for a reason; if we wanted people to welcome every single user who came through the door, a bot would have been created a long time ago. Nihlus 19:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A bot would be cold and unwelcoming" - this contradiction in your early statements is one of the things that, for me, undermines your message here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Incidentally - take a look at the top message on this talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) How is that? I'm saying we don't want someone or a bot doing this as the difference is negligible for spamming the messages. I'm saying that if we did, we would have a bot do it, but we don't, so we don't want either one doing it. Nihlus 20:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No @Nihlus:, this is not what I see you are saying. You are saying that we should stop welcoming editors. Period. And this in turn will end bad for the project. There is also another rule that you forgot, its called ignore. No harm is done.--Biografer (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Well, I added myself to the list. But I still dubious this is what Nihlus was pointing me at.--Biografer (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No where did I say that. I asked that you stop the indiscriminate spamming of welcome messages. If you come across a user while editing who hasn't been welcomed or perhaps made an error, then it's appropriate to welcome them with a message that is tailored to their situation. Spamming 20,000 messages over the last three months is the problem, not appropriately welcoming users. Nihlus 19:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not appropriately welcoming them???!!! Fine. From now on I will welcome them much differently. You all see.--Biografer (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biografer was probably using hyperbole... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, the welcome you placed in this edit was uncivil and uncalled for. It appears to be made in retaliation as per this comment. For the time being, cease your welcoming of any new editors. If I see any more welcomes like that, I will block you -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were more examples that were made before this warning. What the hell do you think you're doing, other than directly driving away potential editors? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime: What the hell do you think? Telling them the truth. Telling them how people here don't care about anyone or anything, that its all a scam. How should I have reacted if Nehlus told me not to welcome them with this Welcome message. And no, it have nothing to do with this comment, it have everything to do with with this tirade. Everything was going fine before this Nehlus arrived. You know, I got many thank you's, barnstars, goats, cats, you name it. All because I welcomed editors. You two on the other hand don't seem to appreciate it. :(--Biografer (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't appreciate you telling new editors they were inserting overly useless information (as a welcome message), or that we will block you if you will persist on helping us. That's not helpful at all. Welcoming new editors who have made a couple of edits with a standard {{welcome}} template is helpful, and I would appreciate you doing that instead -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 21:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime: Thanks, the template works great!--Biografer (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I am not involved in this, but I came across your talk page (as I often do since I patrol user creation log) and I thought I'd put in my two cents on this discussion. Your intent to welcome new editors so that they feel more comfortable with editing and are not afraid of making mistakes is greatly appreciated. However, I see that you've taken offense to people pointing out some potential problems with the way you are going about with your contributions. No one is ganging up on you! We're trying to settle problems by talking about it. On the other hand, please don't put out passive aggressive "welcomes" as a retaliation. It doesn't resolve anything and just makes you look bad. The work you've done in welcoming users is great! But would you agree that it is incorrect to welcome a sock-puppet who's sole intention is to cause disruption? Similarly, would you agree that it would be better to welcome users who have shown an active interest in editing Wikipedia by doing good edits than just impartially handing them out? Simply put, a bot cant really make those decisions. Thats why there are concerns regarding using a bot to welcome users. I quite like Rich Farmbrough's idea of welcoming editors that have made edits and are recently created accounts. But that wont stop accidentally welcoming vandals so its not a fool-proof method, but a good one nonetheless. Now, regarding welcoming vandals - there's nothing inherently wrong about it. There are templates made specifically to welcome editors who may have acted against Wikipedia's policies (they can be viewed under Twinkle's welcome user options). The problem with handing out a generic welcome notice is that the notice begins with "Thank you for your contributions." and thats isnt really correct. We arent thankful for the bad edits, are we? :P I hope you dont mind me posting this here. I'm curious to know what you think.

P.S. I'm seeing that you've started removing old welcome signs and putting up new ones. What exactly is the purpose of that? Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 23:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jiten Dhandha: The reason why I decided to remove the old ones is because the new one have more helpful links. Considering that our editors haven't looked at them yet, it is probably OK to update them, don't you think? Otherwise there will be more confusion as to what and how. I do agree with you on everything though, but you need to understand that I am here to help too.--Biografer (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is doubting that you are here to help! I know you mean well! But you haven't answered the concerns raised by me and other people yet. A bot cant make the decisions I've talked about, so use of a bot isn't all that helpful. BUT... and thats a big "but", it is possible to welcome users and not make a mistake. For that to happen, you might have to do it manually though! You might not make as many edits as quickly as possible, but what you'll be doing will be greatly appreciated. You can start going through Recent Changes and when you see good edits being made by a user or an IP, you can welcome them. If they have made some errors, you can even write out personal messages about where they are going wrong like: 1 2 3 4 5. That way, you'll be more helpful to the people who are genuinely interested in editing. What do you think about this idea? Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 23:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was just about to suggest pretty much the same thing, Biografer. By all means, keep welcoming new users, but only if these conditions are met:

• You have verified that the user has edited. For whatever reason, hundreds of thousands of accounts are created that never do anything. By welcoming these zero-edit accounts, all you're doing is wasting your time.
• You have verified the user is a good faith contributer. Some people really don't like it when vandals/trolls, spammers, and sockpuppets are welcomed, and for good reason too-it's counterproductive. Imagine a vandal adds libel to your article, and when you check the said vandal's talk page, there's a big friendly welcome message on it. It makes it look like Wikipedia welcomes these kinds of trolls.

That sound like a good compromise? Also, are you running a bot? Just wondering. Sro23 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: No I am not. And never will. I don't welcome trolls and vandals, and if I do, that welcome gets removed by... ...guess who? Me! So, I don't see a problem that all of you here see.--Biografer (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't it make more sense to first be certain that the user isn't a vandal, so that you don't have to go through the process of welcoming them and then removing your welcome? Sro23 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: Hmmm, no. The reason is, is that while I would look into one editor's contributions and determine what he is here for, the other good editor will make some good edits and we wont even say thank you to him. Got my reasoning?--Biografer (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for using the word "bot" in the previous comments I made. I thought you were using a bot seeing how quick you were making your edits. Regardless, the edits were still made a bot-like fashion so I think my arguments still stand. You said "I don't welcome trolls and vandals, and if I do, that welcome gets removed by... ...guess who? Me!", but I might have to disagree with that. I've seen numerous instances where the people you've welcomed were editors whose sole intention was to vandalize and the welcome template hadn't been removed: 1 2 3 4 5 6. I'm not saying that you should remove the welcome notice from the links I've given, but that its very easy to miss out people when you are reviewing your edits because of the sheer number!

I was going to ask the same thing as Sro23 but I see you've already answered it. I dont quite understand the reasoning. You are trying to give out as many welcome's as possible because you want to welcome the good editors? The slight problem here is that a large number of accounts that are made usually dont edit - only a fraction of them stay past a few edits. Welcoming editors who haven't edited can be considered a waste of time that could otherwise be used to welcome IP's or answer new editor's questions at Tea House, etc. Its fine if you miss out on some good editors in the time you are reviewing another editor's contributions. Its not possible to single-handedly welcome all good editors on Wikipedia! If you do review the edits, you will ensure that you dont make mistakes and the people who are actually interested in editing are welcomed. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions •