User talk:OaxacaGenius

Hello Secretsgenius and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Nashville--Secretsgenius (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Pajonal has been reverted.
Your edit here to Pajonal was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://www.fallingrain.com/world/PM/03/Pajonal_Arriba.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were adding a link or reference to fallingrain.com, then you should be aware that this site is considered on wikipedia to be an unreliable source. More information can be found MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Fallingrain.com here (permanent). Please consider to use/find another source for the information.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a pleasure to greet you if I am trying to expand the article that in the Spanish language is more complete, I am sorry I did something very unconstructive, the story is only that it has few or no references, could you give me a help--Secretsgenius (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please place his death in correct alphabetical order. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello WWGB a pleasure to greet you explain to me well that it is an alphabetical order greetings and excellent work

hello WWGB Another question I'm about to create this article about a Panamanian musicak artist in my workshop can you take a look--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secret - you might want to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules first. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest--2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a partial block was declined.

Can he be removed? I don’t think that he's notable enough.

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MikaelaArsenault: I am declining this ticket because I think it was posted in the wrong place. Please use this template on the talk page of the article you want to edit. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those instructions are to help editors make updates. Please do not remove them, just leave them alone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joey Mills is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Mills until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Celestina007 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Celestina007

but the article exists in Spanish language, besides, there are articles as poorly academic as this Josh Richards--Secretsgenius (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Happy weekend. I see you've restored a deleted non-RS. It was deleted because Showbiz411 is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. This was explained in the edit summaries. The removals were appropriate. The readditions are not. You did not supply any edit summary. What is your reasoning, or was it a mistake? Wikipedia:USERGENERATED is rather clear on this. --2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your edits are very strange, surely you are not vandalizing and another create an account--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are entirely proper. Read Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. Furthermore, I explained the basis for my deletions in my edit summary. You, on the other hand, provided no edit summary explanation of your reverts. Which you should do, when reverting another editor. Obviously I am not vandalizing anything - all you have to do is read the English Wikipedia content guideline that I pointed you to, and to which I linked. Someone has perhaps spammed WP with inappropriate mention of this self-generated blog. Perhaps they were confused. Perhaps they have a conflict of interest. I don't know. But whatever the reason, that material is not appropriate for the project. There is nothing "very strange" about my edits - I don't even know what that means. And "strangeness" is not a reason to revert proper deletions. Kindly revert yourself. Thanks.--2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are someone anonymous, because you do not create an account and give them greater confidence in what you do about it, sorry your edits are very strange you are withdrawing references in paractically several articles give us an explanation of what you are doing.--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a precise explanation. In my edit summaries. And above. The deletions are appropriate because Showbiz411 is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. For the same reasons, you re-additions violate wp policy. Editors at wikipedia need not use a user name - if you think they do, you are quite mistaken. Yes - this problem plagues many articles. There are more articles that it plagues. Terrible. But it is not an RS. It is not an appropriate reference. I have already given you the Wikipedia content guideline a number of times. Now, please revert yourself, or else we can of course ask an admin to look at your edits, and indicate whether your deletions because the edits "look strange" and are "on many articles" and I choose not to adopt a user name are ill-founded. Which, as I have told you, they are. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of weeks ago someone started a discussion at RS/N on whether Showbiz411 is a reliable source or not. You gentlemen might want to consider reopening it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I opened it. Out of an abundance of caution, though I did not really think there was an issue. Nobody seemed to care less. It was archived. But given that, having taken that first step, the content guideline is clear. So I applied it. This editor, who seems new, is not arguing that it is an RS. That's not the issue. He just thinks IPs are not allowed to edit. Or to edit many articles. Or to be "strange." Whether it is an RS has not been an issue in dispute. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know a lot about the subject, please create an account so there will be no misunderstandings--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case - I've already explained this to him. Can you please? I can't seem to get through to him. As I said, he thinks the problem centers around the fact that I am an IP. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

an IP with strange intentions remove material from various articles explain all their contributions. I ask you a question? What do you really do? You have never been noticed for removing references--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Secretsgenius:, the fact that he's an IP should not have any bearing on his argument. But I would also counsel you, the IP editor, that in the absence of a discussion establishing some consensus on this, editing as if there is can be considered disruptive if you do enough of it; it won't matter how in the right you are ultimately found to be. The fact that you went ahead and did it after the discussion died doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does not give you the right to edit that way.

Perhaps you might want to start a discussion on one of the articles' talk pages? Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Daniel. I'm not sure why we are seeing this differently. I made deletions to x articles. In each case, I left an edit summary. Explaining the deletion. Writing "Showbiz411 is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED." Secret reversed y such deletions. Zero edit summary. I was unaware of his reverting me until you left word with me at 4:04. I then opened up discussion on his talk page at 4:07. I did not engage in any article edits thereafter. Secret, however, even after I opened up discussion, kept on reverting my prior edits. As here,[1] 14 minutes later. What are you seeing that suggests that I "went ahead and did it."

I'm simply waiting for him to understand that I am allowed to edit, as an IP. And that Wikipedia:USERGENERATED is a wp content guideline. And that reverts of non-RS refs are appropriate. Especially when they involve BLPs, as many of these do. And that his feeling that something is "strange" is not reason to revert. These are the issue this editor has raised. I think you know, as with (thank you) his view that IPs are not editing properly and therefore it is OK to revert them, this other views of his are without basis. Perhaps if you could gently inform him of that, it would be of assistance. --2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the right thing to do before removing any references from the articles that I edit, ask if it is possible, do not do it the way you have been doing--Secretsgenius (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is fine to edit as an IP. You have a mistaken impression. Perhaps Daniel will chime in and assure you. In the meantime, you may find this - though it is only an essay, not a guideline or rule - to be of interest. Wikipedia:IPs are human too. So simply get it out of you head that the fact that I am an IP gives you a right to revert me.

Also, you again use the word "strange". Now, you say I have "strange intentions." My intention is to edit in accord with Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. That is not "strange". It is appropriate. What is inappropriate is you reverting my edits. And adding back a non-RS. That is a violation of wikipedia rules. So, no, don't revert a proper edit because you find it "strange" or assume with no basis that my "intentions" are strange.

I do not know what you mean when you write "What do you really do?" I explained above what I am doing, and why.

I also do not know what you mean when you say "you have never been noticed for removing references." That makes no sense to me. But it certainly is not a reason to revert me.

Again - you seem to not understand the rules here. I have laid them out for you. Repeatedly. As well as why my deletes are proper. And your reverts, inserting inappropriate material, is a violation of our rules. Please fix that. I don't see a need to bring this to others if that can be addressed. I've been very patient I think trying to explain this to you, as perhaps you are a new editor.

And it is perfectly fine for me to make those proper deletions on pages that you edit - most of which have blp implications to boot, without asking your permission. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, please. This isn't going anywhere. I implore you both to step back for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Secret. I tried to respond to Daniel Case in our thread. But you deleted it.[2] I do not know how else to respond to his comment to me. Can you perhaps restore it? I'm trying to help our conversation by having him chime in on the points we had different understandings of. That should be helpful. Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6825:3E6:E1FF:4C08 (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry are you having a conversation with yourself on my talk? Anyway it's common practice to eliminate the redlinks after a month (a day before a month to be exact) lapses and they fail to achieve their own article. It's been common practice for years. Rusted AutoParts 03:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! 220 of ^ßorg 07:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when you add people to the Deaths in 2021 page, please note that they should be in alphabetical order under each day. Thank you. --Marbe166 (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder. --Marbe166 (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another reminder. Please pay attention. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marbe166 Understood, excuse my recklessness, only sometimes it is very difficult for me to speak. OaxacaGenius (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify which "article" you were talking about Yozdek (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since two days I have received no response to my question which I asked you on 28 march 2021 Yozdek (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which of my contribution has been reverted . And mind you are pulling me into a long conversation . Just answer this question. That's it. Yozdek (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yozdek you are not being very nice, the problem you had has already been solved. Thanks for your interest.OaxacaGenius (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh i am getting tired with you. I am telling you to tell WHICH OF MY CONTRIBUTION HAS BEEN REVERTED.Remember i am trying to be nice. Yozdek (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not contact OaxacaGenius anymore. You can see which contributions were reverted on your talk page and in the edits of specific articles. Shushugah (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Shushugah you for your mediation. OaxacaGenius (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Orbe Luis Rodríguez has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:NBASEBALL.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OaxacaGenius! Your additions to Garrett Reynolds (BMX riders) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DanCherek I understand but Garrett Reynolds deserves to be on enwiki as well as many bmx riders if the covyios is eliminated and an improved one is made or a consensus is reached, could you please--OaxacaGenius (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the subject to assess notability. However, articles should be written by summarizing reliable sources, not copy-pasting text from copyrighted websites. Please read through some of the guidelines I linked above to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's copyright guidelines. Have you copied text into any other articles? Feel free to ping me further if you have any questions. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Users DanCherek bmx riders Garrett Reynolds is a very prominent cyclist on the field having several accolades from X Games and Red Bull His ability to perform highly technical tricks with seemingly easy and effortless style earned him a reputation as one of the best park and street riders, despite being one of the youngest in his field. These days, Garrett is a regular on the X Games podium, having dominated the BMX Street contest and Dew Tour events every year since he was 18 years old.OaxacaGenius (talk)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]