User talk:Draftsandcaffeine
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Draftsandcaffeine! I noticed your contributions to Troy Nehls and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
- Thank you! Draftsandcaffeine (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
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:
Happy editing! Marquardtika (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Other accounts
[edit]What other accounts have you had on Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Bbb23:! Before this account, I edited through my home IPs. It was last year.Draftsandcaffeine (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your editing history under this account is unusual. You created this account one month ago. Since then you have made about 400 edits. Your first group of edits were to many different drafts. Sometimes new accounts create drafts, but you edited only existing ones, not typical at all of a new user. You added Project information to Talk pages on your second day. You used abbreviated edit summaries, much more typical of experienced users, from the beginning. Also on the second day, you started using automated tools such as reFill 2. You subsequently began moving pages on your own. More recently, you've been making obvious WP:GAMING edits, e.g., removing spaces around section headers and adding unnecessary wikilinks, to apparently get your edit count up to 500 so that, combined with now being here for 30 days, you will be WP:ECP. I'm sorry, but I have trouble believing that you've never had any registered accounts before now.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I understand your concern regarding my editing history. It is true that I want to raise my edits count, but I only intend to do it while respecting all the rules. The reason I know how to use abbreviations in editing summaries, and other things experienced Wikipedians are familiar with is because I've spent a considerable amount of time reading help pages and templates syntax here on Wikipedia. I also have a Software Engineering background, and so creating a draft or editing it from scratch using only the source was easy to learn. I've spent the past year editing through various IPs. There are tens of Wikipedia articles that I submitted and are now in the Mainspace. I never considered having an account a priority, more so because I believed the environment is not encouraging to new editors, not to mention amateur and novice ones. As for editing drafts at the beginning, itg is obvious in my nickname that I intended to start by playing with existing draft first, but then I thought to myself why limit myself only to drafts? In my book, the typical stages/learning curve for a Wikipedia editor is to: 1/Read the Manual of Style and familiarize oneself with various templates; 2/start doing minor edits anonymously; 3/weigh the pros and cons of having an account; 4/Either continue editing anonymously OR figure out that just like fellow editors learned and grew over time so can you; 5/Start editing with boldness and courage (minor edits->copy editing->Articles expansions->editing semi-protected articles->participating and voting in nominations for deletions->editing extended semi-protected->Starting moving draft you believe are notable to Mainspace... I believe that as long as an editor is clear and straightforward, helps expand existing articles and draft, uses Talk pages to start and/or participate in objective and rational discussions, then we shoud ASSUME GOOD FAITH IN HIM/HER. Draftsandcaffeine (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- You started your message above with "I understand your concern regarding my editing history." I too understand Bbb23's concerns, and when I saw your early editing I wondered about it, though my way of dealing with my doubts was different from Bbb23's, for a number of reasons, including a preference for assuming good faith. One significant factor influencing my approach to new accounts which dive straight into editing with extensive knowledge of how Wikipedia works is that I too started without an account, so I have less of a tendency than many editors to assume that prior knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings must imply having had a previous account. However, the one fact about your editing which really did cause me to have doubts was the evident attempt to arbitrarily increase your edit count. My suspicion was the same as Bbb23's, namely that you were trying to game the system by artificially getting your account extended confirmed, but perhaps you can clarify matters by explaining why you were so concerned to raise your edit count, now that you have confirmed that you were indeed trying to do that. JBW (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for joining this discussion @JBW:! My main motive behind trying to increase my edit counts is to have access to the Wikipedia Library. Since I started editing using IPS now for over a year, I've found myself deprived of the opportunity to access such invaluable resources and literature. Having access to the newspapers archive included in Wikipedia Library gives someone curious about historical events and biographies (like me) a tremendous sense of joy and satisfaction. Draftsandcaffeine (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- You started your message above with "I understand your concern regarding my editing history." I too understand Bbb23's concerns, and when I saw your early editing I wondered about it, though my way of dealing with my doubts was different from Bbb23's, for a number of reasons, including a preference for assuming good faith. One significant factor influencing my approach to new accounts which dive straight into editing with extensive knowledge of how Wikipedia works is that I too started without an account, so I have less of a tendency than many editors to assume that prior knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings must imply having had a previous account. However, the one fact about your editing which really did cause me to have doubts was the evident attempt to arbitrarily increase your edit count. My suspicion was the same as Bbb23's, namely that you were trying to game the system by artificially getting your account extended confirmed, but perhaps you can clarify matters by explaining why you were so concerned to raise your edit count, now that you have confirmed that you were indeed trying to do that. JBW (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- I understand your concern regarding my editing history. It is true that I want to raise my edits count, but I only intend to do it while respecting all the rules. The reason I know how to use abbreviations in editing summaries, and other things experienced Wikipedians are familiar with is because I've spent a considerable amount of time reading help pages and templates syntax here on Wikipedia. I also have a Software Engineering background, and so creating a draft or editing it from scratch using only the source was easy to learn. I've spent the past year editing through various IPs. There are tens of Wikipedia articles that I submitted and are now in the Mainspace. I never considered having an account a priority, more so because I believed the environment is not encouraging to new editors, not to mention amateur and novice ones. As for editing drafts at the beginning, itg is obvious in my nickname that I intended to start by playing with existing draft first, but then I thought to myself why limit myself only to drafts? In my book, the typical stages/learning curve for a Wikipedia editor is to: 1/Read the Manual of Style and familiarize oneself with various templates; 2/start doing minor edits anonymously; 3/weigh the pros and cons of having an account; 4/Either continue editing anonymously OR figure out that just like fellow editors learned and grew over time so can you; 5/Start editing with boldness and courage (minor edits->copy editing->Articles expansions->editing semi-protected articles->participating and voting in nominations for deletions->editing extended semi-protected->Starting moving draft you believe are notable to Mainspace... I believe that as long as an editor is clear and straightforward, helps expand existing articles and draft, uses Talk pages to start and/or participate in objective and rational discussions, then we shoud ASSUME GOOD FAITH IN HIM/HER. Draftsandcaffeine (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your editing history under this account is unusual. You created this account one month ago. Since then you have made about 400 edits. Your first group of edits were to many different drafts. Sometimes new accounts create drafts, but you edited only existing ones, not typical at all of a new user. You added Project information to Talk pages on your second day. You used abbreviated edit summaries, much more typical of experienced users, from the beginning. Also on the second day, you started using automated tools such as reFill 2. You subsequently began moving pages on your own. More recently, you've been making obvious WP:GAMING edits, e.g., removing spaces around section headers and adding unnecessary wikilinks, to apparently get your edit count up to 500 so that, combined with now being here for 30 days, you will be WP:ECP. I'm sorry, but I have trouble believing that you've never had any registered accounts before now.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. I confess that I hadn't thought of the Wikipedia Library. JBW (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't know that I needed to wait 6 months to access the Library though. It's sad, but I'll keep editing and wait; good things often take time. Draftsandcaffeine (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. I confess that I hadn't thought of the Wikipedia Library. JBW (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Clarisse Karasira (June 5)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Clarisse Karasira and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Draftsandcaffeine!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Only Love Matters (September 7)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Only Love Matters and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)