User talk:Potatornado

Welcome!

Hello, Potatornado, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baraboo High School

Can you please add your sources to this? The WP:BURDEN is on the creator to do so. Without sources, this risks being nominated for deletion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Cashton High School (Wisconsin)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cashton High School (Wisconsin), Potatornado!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This was redirected because it was judged to contain too little information to be a valid article. High schools are usually found notable (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) but they need to be verified.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin WikiProject

Have you considered joining the Wisconsin WikiProject? We would love to have you! Dolotta (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Cashton High School (Wisconsin)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cashton High School (Wisconsin), Potatornado!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This has been tagged as needing more references.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

Thanks for adding wiki-links to that article! I should have just done it myself but well... thanks :D

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wakefield Trinity players…

Hi Potatornado, with regard to List of Wakefield Trinity players… as far as I'm aware, the red links that were on this article would not be considered overlinking. I believe overlinking is when an article links to another article many times, and/or when a sentence becomes "a sea of blue", i.e. there are that many links in the sentence, that the reader becomes confused as to which article the links are linking to. In this instance I would generally only use the nolink=1 when a link can't realistically be created, e.g. the person's forename/fore-initial is unknown, and hence the red links were a positive thing, as they are an indication that an article doesn't exist, and are are an encouragement to create that article. Please see Wikipedia:Red link. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DynamoDegsy: I understand that that is the definition of overlinked, but I have gone through most of the articles on the Category: Articles with too many wikilinks page and have found that a majority of them have been ones that weren't overlinked, but had hundreds of red links. I wanted to eliminate these red links, but as far as how to do that on the List of Wakefield Trinity players page, the |nolink=1 was the best option. If a link to that page is eventually made, it can be removed and relinked. I know that you have extensive history editing Rugby-related articles, so I also didn't necessarily know the table format protocol either. Would you like to undo my edit? Potatornado (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe eliminating these red links would be okay if the people were considered "unlikely to be notable", but as it stands probably all former, and definitely all current Wakefield Trinity players would meet WP:Notability (sports)#Rugby league. Though to be honest, I'm a laissez-faire about it, but I do find red links a useful aide-mémoire (I believe I have now exceeded the acceptable level of French in any given English sentence, by a non-French speaker). Interestingly. (I say "Interestingly"… its all relative I guess) of the rugby league club squad templates that you've edited, all the players would likely meet WP:Notability (sports)#Rugby league, except for players of; Bradford Bulls, Hull Kingston Rovers, and London Broncos, as they are currently in the second-tier (though an individual player may be notable because of his previous experience at other clubs). Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ophidiophobia

Unfortunately, the style [[snake]]s is preferred to [[snake|snakes]], always putting punctuation before quote marks is dispreferred (WP:MOS), and substituting "theorized" for "theorised" is an unexplained WP:ENGVAR change. AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Potatornado! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 14:30, Monday, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Potatornado. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017 GOCE Drive awards

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Potatornado for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE November 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur) 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/Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Kolu (company)

Hello, Potatornado,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Kolu (company) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolu (company) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Rentier (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Conflict of Interest

Hello Potatornado. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Potatornado. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Potatornado|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Rentier (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Rentier Thank you for your consideration! A lot of my edits focus on companies and whittling down the backlog in the category of pages using infobox company with unsupported parameters (couldn't link it for some reason), and in addition to that, I try to further improve those articles, as well as write new ones about companies I find via specialized google searches. I also sometimes, albeit not that often, venture into draft articles and evaluate them and try to get them published. I am not being paid for these edits, unfortunately. If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact me email. Thank you! Potatornado (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the most concerned with articles Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur) and Jason Matias. You created Rune Sovndahl on December 5th, and Jason Marias on November 29th. You used the images File:Rune-Sovndahl.jpg and File:Jason-by-Jennifer-.jpg which were uploaded on November 28th and November 16th, respectively. The rights to the former were released via an OTRS ticket, while the latter was uploaded by the subject himself. What prompted you to create those two articles? Rentier (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, I was just exploring more of Wikipedia, looking through draft articles, and found these two, and decided to edit them. I just wanted to improve them. I didn't have anything to do with the upload of those files. Potatornado (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jason Matias

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronhjones I'm sorry; I didn't know about this. I was looking through drafts and evidently didn't know the conventions of converting drafts into articles. I thought it was acceptable to create a page based off a draft. Again, I'm sorry. Thank you. Potatornado (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We all have to learn wiki funny ways. Lucky it was a simple cut and paste to fix - sometimes it can be a nightmare. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexa Curtis (lifestyle blogger). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jason Matias (January 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Drover's Wife was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jason Matias and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jason Matias, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Potatornado! Having an article 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! The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 16:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3] and [4] are choice diffs. You are also blocked for undisclosed paid advocacy editing, despite the demand above to disclose. Your actions are reprehensible, inexcusable, morally bankrupt and explicitly not welcome here. MER-C 16:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Potatornado (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, MER-C. My reason for appealing this block is as follows: This is not an advertising-only account. I have made thousands of contributions aside from those selected by you to support that claim. There is also no conflict of interest. I was not paid for any of these edits, and all were based on supplementary research that supported their relevance. I am not here to intentionally make, in your words, "reprehensible, inexcusable, morally bankrupt" edits, and that was never my intention at any point. All "sockpuppetry" that has occurred in the past was inadvertent due to my inexperience with Wikipedia and an IP block that affected my network of computers, which I have explained to the administrators who have blocked me previously, and have sorted it all out correctly, although the problem seems to be worsened every time something like this happens. Again, my rights are at your discretion, but I would simply like for you to consider these things. Thank you. Potatornado (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

I have reviewed your contributions and concur with MER-C's assessment - those edits are clearly spam and your unblock request has not attempted to explain why you made them. SmartSE (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Proposed deletion of Navy Safe Harbor Foundation

The article Navy Safe Harbor Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A laudable aim, but miles away from meeting WP:NORG

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. SmartSE (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]