User talk:Venomous lion

Welcome!

Hello, Lake Van monster, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Lake Van monster, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism reverts

Regarding this exchange; "Your change was identified as malicious and Vandalism by the vandalism tool, so I reverted your change" is not a valid explanation for reverting vandalism. If you're going to use such a tool, you should be able to identify what Wikipedia policy the edit is violating. Tools are not perfect, and false positives are not uncommon. The edit in question was certainly not vandalism, though it's arguable that it violated WP:NOTBROKEN, which is mildly disruptive but not vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiloop

Hi, I notice that you use Wikiloop to detect and revert vandalism. However, it seems as if many of the edits you revert are either not obvious vandalism at all, or even beneficial. Here your version is worse than the "vandal" one, here the "vandal" version is either as good or better than yours, here I don't think you have any idea which of the two plot versions is actually better, the edit you reverted certainly seems like a good faith attempt to improve the article, this is not vandalism but a fair attempt to improve the lead with info already present in the article, this doesn't look like vandalism, ...

While reverting vandalism is an essential element of keeping Wikipedia useful, care must be taken not to label good-faith edits which are improvements or at least not actual vandalism as "vandalism", as that can be seriously offputting and disheartening to (new) editors. Please check WP:BITE and be more careful in what you revert. Fram (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aşk Mantık İntikam has been accepted

Aşk Mantık İntikam, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]