User talk:RbABC

Welcome!

Hello, RbABC, 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! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Questions

So I gather from your account history up to now that you were/are a blogger. Do you have any hobbies or recreational interests (such as sports, warfare, cars, etc)? Identifying interests will be helpful here as place where you can start getting some article experience independent of SaphireOne, and in the process will help improve your perception on wikipedia by moving you out of the single purpose account category. Where we go from here and what we do from here will depend somewhat on your answer(s) to the above question. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding! Ok, for the next few weeks we will work (broadly) on editing sports, space, and film articles. We need to broaden you editorial horizon here somewhat to help put some distances between you and the company page. The reason for this is due to a perception at the moment that this account is here for a single purpose. Owing to your appearance right after the two SaphireOne accounts were blocked, there is a perception at the moment that this account is here for a single purpose, which is one of the reasons why your account was caught up in a sockpuppet investigation almost from right out of the gate. On Wikipedia, Single Purpose Accounts are generally frowned on with the exception of our automated or semi automated bot accounts, which are designed specifically to do a one particular, usually tedious, and very repetitive thing. The reason SPA accounts are frowned on is that those who work accounts like this usually have some kind of vested interest in keeping on or more articles inside a very specific theme here on Wikipedia. To fix this you need to edit outside of the general area you've already edited in, so that means working in your hobby areas to broaden your horizons here. The more articles you edit the greater your editorial umbrella's reach covers, and that will help dissipate the perception of this being a single purposes account. As an added bonus, this will give you some hands on experience with other articles here, which will in the long run help refine your ability to gauge what Wikipedians will and won't accept on site. If you need help getting started, or would like further clarification on anything given here, lemme know and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:The Pianist

You can probably remove the citation template from the pianist article, its been there for four years and most of the article looks pretty well cited, so my guess is that its long past time that the citation template was removed. Removing the template is covered under WP:BOLD, so all you are doing is removing a template whose purpose in being in the article appears to have been addressed. As for the see also section, that is a little trickier to address. Sometimes its due to previously established consensus on pages from within projects (like how WP:SHE4SHIPS covers the use of a "she/her" format and an "it/its" format for ship articles), sometimes its due to a desire to stop what some editors perceive as creep that gets into an article they care for before said creep grows to infestation levels (I'm actually guilty of this, I go to great lengths to keep "in pop culture" sections out of battleship articles since everyone out there always seems to want to add a small or trivial information to such articles), and in some cases its due to a belief that relevant information presented in a see also section can or should be incorporated into the article body itself. You'd have to ask the reverting editor for a specific answer, but my guess is that it would probably fall into one of these three categories. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]