User talk:Rose Abrams/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rose Abrams. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

January 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Fanboy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Fanboy was changed by Gaioa (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.9792 on 2015-01-11T19:37:54+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

April 2017

Hello Gaioa. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Deepak Sharma (activist). It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

tagging as nonsense G1

Hi before tagging a page as nonsense please check that it isn't simply written in a language that you do not understand. What I do is use Google translate and I paste part of it to see if it recognises the language. Domdeparis (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Warning levels

Hi! I noticed that you've been putting warnings on user talk pages. However, you've been putting 1st level vandalism warnings on talk pages that have already been given more warnings by other people e.g. [[1]], which I already put a first level warning on (it now has two first levels and one second when it should be up to a third level warning) and [[2]] (which was already at a final warning and has been reported to admins, but now has a first level warning tacked on the end). So please check the existing warnings on a user talk page before you add more c: Blue Edits (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. Noticed my mistake instantly afterwards. Will take for habit to check talk page before warning next time. Thanks!Gaioa (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gaioa,

I made some changes to page 'Robert Gallagher'. I can verify they are legitimate, as I am Robert Gallagher. I can add some links to some of the changes too, and plan to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.19.20 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Everything on my page is truthful and accurate. Do i need to add links to everything? if so no problem, I can do that immediately. I'm not sure how exact;y I make anything Verifiable other than placing links everywhere! Please advise.

Don't write on my talkpage. Write on the article in question's talkpage. Write there why you, as an individual, qualify for notability according to this policy.Gaioa (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing edits

I keep getting a message from you that you are reverting attempts to change information on Liz Goldwyn's page. I am her assistant and trying to update the page. What do I need to do to add information so that you will not block it?

Is that so? You're her assistant editing her article? Then, I'm afraid I have to tag the article in question for conflict of interest, and, now when I think about it, insufficient references and peacocking. Please read our policy on self-promotion and keep in mind that "I know her" is not an alternative for citing sources.
Hey, don't look at me like that! Don't shoot the messenger!
Gaioa (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not meant to be a promotion thing. I'm just updating an already existing page with the correct information for her filmography. I don't understand why this is an issue.

It is. Your word is not enough as a source. Sources, sources, sources is what you need.Gaioa (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
(And please, sign your talk comments with ~~~~)

I just edited it with a citation and it was still removed. Also, I did not write or create this page, I am just trying to add a link so it's not autobiographical. I am happy to follow whatever instructions you provide.75.82.206.21 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm extended-confirmed!

500+ edits! And permission to edit Donald Trump and all other high-risk articles! Yay for me! I'm helping!
(sorry, just a bit happy for myself)

Gaioa (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Robert Gallagher

Hello Gaioa, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Robert Gallagher, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. So Why 15:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your CSD

Hi Gaioa! Many thanks for your help patrolling new pages. While going through new pages just now I noticed two of your CSD: Zamani Mbatha has been tagged as A1. This would not be the correct category. A1 is used for entirely unclear topics. This is not the case. The person is clearly identified as actor including the files. This is a case of BLPROD at first. A1 and A3 should also not be applied to soon, as happened on 徐环expose. Please allow at least 10 minutes to give editors - especially newbies - some time to make their point. Normally there's no rush to A1 and A3, see WP:NPPNICE. Any questions, pls let me know. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Entirely unclear topics? Okay, gotcha. I checked the criteria and you were right. Thanks :)Gaioa (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Thank you for your warning regarding the new page I created on Joe Clifford. In the talk section there, I have added an attestation that it is not an autobiography. I have also added some supporting material in keeping with Wikipedia's BLP policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rory1262 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know if this now meets the basic notability criteria. If not, what more needs to be added? Rory1262 (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added citations. Please let me know if there's a cleaner way to present the notes and references with less overlap. Continued thanks. Rory1262 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Banana peels are hate crimes now.

'Hello! Great that you wanted to talk about the banana peel in the tree, and thank you for providing a source. That's what we like! However, in my opinion, the event is really not notable enough for a Wikipedia mention. I'm sure you feel that it is (since I have a feeling you were involved with it somehow or attends the varsity), but it's not really of interest to people reading about the university in general. How you understand and have a great day! I'll throw in a welcoming too. Gaioa (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised it took as long as it did for someone to remove that. I suggest reinstating it, if you wouldn't mind. Given that almost all searches of the school's name yield that it's only notability to the majority of the world is the banana incident, I see it as hugely notable. So does the media, and so does anyone searching for the school. I understand it seems ridiculous, but it is not for us to judge - they chose to react the way they did to a banana peel. We might see it as silly, but it's not our role to judge it merely to document what is notable. It's not as if it was a small thing either. They completely overhauled a curriculum, held several university wide investigations, seminars, counselling sessions, and spent a huge amount of money on it including hiring a marketing firm to 'handle' the PR spin.

And to date it is the only significantly notable thing about them - especially on a global stage. I understand the university might want to cover it up because it makes them look somewhat insane, but again, that's not our responsibility. On the contrary, assisting them in burying this story would be a clear case of POV. (I have posted this on your talk page as well, for ease of viewing.) Agendabender (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Linguistic glosses

Please see MOS:SINGLE, and go self-revert any other changes of single-quoted English glosses of non-English terms that you converted to double-quotes or italics (I already fixed this at Apostrophe and at Vasaloppet (which also needed {{lang}} markup). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 00:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for putting MOS:SINGLE to my attention. But don't you worry, it's not something I actively go around doing. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 12:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GAME OF THE YEAR: 420BLAZEIT (November 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drewmutt 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 general guideline on notability, 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:GAME OF THE YEAR: 420BLAZEIT and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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.

Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Gaioa, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)