Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 103

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105→Archive 107

.

Thank you for the guidance. Sorry for the rudeness; I recognize you didn't deserve that. TlonicChronic (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Eventually, being rude, apologizing, then being rude again, will falter. -- ferret (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you should learn the rules you enforce, ferret. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
You tell me to avoid taking my issues to other chats, and now you do the same thing? You miscite rules on edit warring? You hold your admin friends to lower standards than new users? You tell me I'm going to come to a bad end? You need to chill. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I haven't mis-enforced or miscited any rules. You're commenting on a talk page that I watchlist and regularly interact with, and sprouting aspirations yet again, as if I've taken any actions against you or did anything but provide you with guidance and direction. -- ferret (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say mis-enforced, I said mis-cited. You accused me of "technically" starting a war, which I didn't (please cite the rules). TlonicChronic (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
This is what I mean by weaseling. You're incapable of acknowledging you were wrong. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Or, bear with me here: I don't believe I'm wrong. I'm just disengaging (and with that, this will be my last comment here to you) -- ferret (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
You've got to stop with all this bickering or you're going to burn yourself out or get yourself blocked for disruption eventually. Admin are, of course, not perfect or infallible. But the way you keep trying to lecture experienced admin on the basics isn't helping anyone. Editors like Dirmies and Ferret have been editing and an admin for over a decade. Editors like this are well aware of basic terms like editor warring, which things are essays, etc. This is the equivalent of giving reminders like green light means go to a seasoned driver. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thank you. I'm sorry for bickering on your page. I just genuinely feel hurt that I've made two apologies on wikipedia, and the first guy I apologized to makes fun of me for apologizing, and refuses to do so himself, or even talk about it on his page (he asked me to leave).
I really shouldn't bring that here, and I am sorry. I felt bad for being dismissive to you early, and I wanted to acknowledge that. TlonicChronic (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree I shouldn't be so flippant, I understand they know the basics. I felt ganged up on by people that misapplied the basics, and felt the need to sarcastically lash out. I truly don't know how to respond when two admins either won't engage on the talk page, or. to my reading (and no one has genuinely tried to correct this reading) falsely accused me of starting an edit war on it. I tried starting conflict resolution. I tried breaking bread with a neutral question that is of interest to me of the admins expertise. I know I made mistakes in this interaction, and I know you've been one of the most level headed and neutral people in it. I'm sorry for making this a part of your morning. TlonicChronic (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Try to focus less on the arguments, and more on solutions for moving forward. Like your dispute at Off-ramps. You could have accomplished so much more if you dropped the argument and moved on. "Featured" seemed to be the only opposed word. There's all sorts of words or different wordings you could have used instead, and moved on. Dont get so bogged down with the little stuff that you don't get to the big stuff like your big cleanup project you seem to be working towards.
As a side note, since you do seem to be on talk pages a fair amount, when someone WP:PINGs you to their talk page, it mentions their preferred pronouns. You might want to take note of that, as I think you may be misgendering someone, which also may not be helping things... Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
"As a side note, since you do seem to be on talk pages a fair amount, when someone WP:PINGs you to their talk page, it mentions their preferred pronouns. You might want to take note of that, as I think you may be misgendering someone, which also may not be helping things..."
That's a really big trout, I'm very sorry. I can see I've done more harm than good here.
"Try to focus less on the arguments, and more on solutions for moving forward."
Thank you for the kind words. TlonicChronic (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
"since you do seem to be on talk pages a fair amount"
May I ask if I'm asking too many questions on ProjectJazz or -Albums? I'm new to editing and trying lessen the amount my edits conflict with the rules or others (I had to be told about small text in info boxes, so I'm trying to be more careful now). Funnily enough this is one of the first article talk pages I've commented on, and it was due to the controversy. The conflict with Drmies got the better of me, I took it out on ferret, did my best to apologize, but, apparently I kept aggravating things, and it escalated to this. TlonicChronic (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you're asking too many questions, I think you just get a little too caught up in the back and forth that comes afterwards. Theres nothing wrong with posting follow up questions/concerns, but some of the follow-ups have been a bit...less than necessary. Theres a common mantra on Wikipedia - "comment on content, not editors". There will certainly be times where you need to report people and whatnot, but it might be good to, generally speaking, try to follow that mantra. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
"comment on content, not editors" yeah, I've done that twice and it's caused problems. I really will do my best to not do it again. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I think that will help. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time out of your day to help me TlonicChronic (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
And, if I may ask one last question, because I would like an experienced editors neutral opinion:
""Featured" seemed to be the only opposed word."
The reason I used featured is least resistance; it's the word used by DISEman, the creator of most of the pages (the very next ECM article I went to standardize after my last question to you, Always Let Me Go, uses it twice in both contexts discussed in the lead). To alter the word word be to go against the mod that created 2% of every album article on the site (over 7,000), and the creator of nearly every ECM article. The only person that had a problem with it originally was Drmies, who is supposed to be an expert on English, and they refused to discuss in the talk page, which drove a stick up my... where the sun don't shine. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
My thought on it is, we do not need absolute standardization across all articles, and statements like:
  • The album features drumming by Taylor Hawkins.
  • The album includes drumming by Taylor Hawkins.
  • Taylor Hawkins drums on the album.
  • Taylor Hawkins performs drums on the album.
  • Drum parts are performed by Taylor Hawkins.
  • Drum parts were completed by Taylor Hawkins on the album.
all essentially convey an identical message. So I'd recommend just picking one that isn't opposed and moving on. Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
That's fair. I felt slighted by the condescending language about the word changes, but I didn't need to escalate it to a universal problem; I could have just moved on, especially, like ferret said, after I had effectively won the dispute. TlonicChronic (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I understand. I've personally just learned it's better to act like this to keep things moving so I can get on to other things. Sometimes in the music world, editors are very particular about how track lists or charts are displayed. How I initially write them are often tweaked and changed. And I'm fine with that. As long as the general sentiment is generally conveyed and understood by readers, I'm fine. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
חכם TlonicChronic (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho!

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec19b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Same to you! Good seeing you around again! Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In Re: Indie Soul

1. [Undeniable - The Story Independent Soul Music Movement]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy8QF0q82Lk (which spawned a tv series with PBS focused on individual artists [Indie Soul Journey]https://www.netaonline.org/episode/indie-soul-journeys [Undeniable director brings TV project]https://rollingout.com/2017/01/25/undeniable-director-brings-latest-project-indie-soul-journeys-television/) 2. [Essential Guide to Contemporary RnB Soul Music]https://thebluesproject.co/2023/05/essential-guide-contemporary-rnb-soul-music/ 3. [How Indie Soul became a multibillion dollar genre of music]https://www.deezer.com/us/episode/277717612?utm_campaign=clipboard-generic&utm_source=user_sharing&utm_content=talk_episode-277717612&deferredFl=1 4. A google search for "indie-soul artist" which will generate 100's and 100's of articles by Rolling Stone, Fader, Billboard, Reuters, PBS, Music Blogs about song/album/artists who clearly state they are indie-soul genre including dozens of grammy nominees and winners. The 10,000+ playlists named indie soul on whichever music streamer you use. 5. Is there a way I can provide you text book notations?

In Regards to the discussion I was trying to be polite and do not want to blast him on a page. Accept I directly told him I was in the process of adding sources and was in the middle of doing so and told him I was working backwards. Then he AFD'd it after instantaneously getting rejected from speedy. For saying I made up the subject and term. At no point did he follow any of the basic steps of guide to delete. The same statements the attempted deleter made on my talk page, first saying "I made up the term" then that indie cant be a genre it justs means "independent." The case with all things that statement can be applied to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_rock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_folk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_electronic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_pop So did he mark those for deletion for the same? No. Because that carries no logic. Nor does a comment about "well an article only refers to the artist as indie soul once" Does Rolling Stone need to repeat it over and over in the same article? You only to tell me a banana is yellow once. No logic either. It seems he has another prerogative in this. These are all independent music styles as has been documented and accepted for decades because they developed on their own trajectories with more collaboration than at studio level, alternative production techniques(budget), and more freedom, and historically had more media attention as they are traditionally white music. And artists who identify themselves as indie-soul, of which there are a tremendous amount of very recognized artists now, are a distinct genre same as each of the above, and including this one. Indie soul is referenced consistently on all major media platforms, in every music publication of note, and on playlists and curation at all major music services as a genre, and the other authority "google search trends" list as a separate music genre. It is not even at all niche. It is actually preposterous his action read of white unawareness. It shouldn't have ever even been an issue. It may not be part of his world community which is fine, so he should have reserved participation. I believe that an appropriate information page on this topic ads to the Diversity of wikipedia. I noticed a non-representive and glaring hole. I am in music composition university, studying music. And now he again has marked it for deletion with everything he could think of. If you don't know about a subject and aren't willing to google you should move on to something familiar. Because his comments where transparently entirely uniformed at best.

I am hoping the case it is something he is just unfamiliar because the zealotous nature of trying to remove a pervasive music genre with exactly similar ones from more "traditional" American genres seems unusual to say the least. This page serves the mission of wikipedia to provide knowledge on a subject of interest that was inadequately ordered and addressed, without any actual question of notability and is a significant part of many communities. A simple google search would tell him that in about 20 sec's. I believe it to be a great start to an interesting subject in Wikipedias music, right along with the multiple types of other music. Black music is not a monolith. And I think you will find the references quite fine as it is easy to find thousands of articles, festivals, reviews and documentsa bout indie-soul artists. This isn't a controversial topic and if it is for someone specifically they should reflect. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there Atmospherpolyphonic. I know Wikipedia isn't always intuitive. It takes time to learn how it works, it has many concepts that your average casual reader wouldn't know about it. Its why I personally recommend people don't jump straight into article creation. But since that ship has sailed, here's a few general pointers:
  • You should be making your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie soul, not my talk page. Its fate will be decided by a WP:CONSENSUS of the discussion there. An uninvolved Admin or experienced editor will review the discussion after a week or so has passed and come to conclusion based on what was presented and how convincing the arguments were.
  • A lot of editors abuse Wikipedia, misusing it in hopes make up or create a new term, or popularize obscure ones. Between that, and the fact that most legitimate music genre already have their own article, explains why you're getting so much skepticism on your on your creation.
  • Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In short, it basically said that its invalid to point to other things existing to justify your own creation. Just because you find something similar that exists doesn't justify your creation - it may just mean both should be deleted. Hypothetically speaking anyways.
  • Please assume good faith. Some of your arguments are bordering on accusing people of being ignorant of music or social/racial issues. You have no evidence to make such a claim at this point, so I do not taking this approach. It isn't likely to help you out.

So what should you do then?

  • Prove that it meets the WP:GNG, which is our general standard on what should and should not have its own article. The best way would be to find sources that cover the subject in significant detail. Not just name-drop it or mention it in passing, but more like its the focus of the source.
  • Some good approaches include:
    • Recognizable, mainstream publications, many good examples are listed off at WP:RSMUSIC.
    • Be able to prove and/or quantify how much the subject is covered. Things like "This entire Rolling Stone article (provide link) is 5 paragraphs long and entirely about the subject" or "This book dedicates 3 pages on the subject".
  • Try to make specific, but concise arguments. Large, wall-of-text responses may lose the interest of readers and go ignored.

Good luck! Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I was not borderline saying it I was trying to say it without saying it in an inflammatory way that the music genre is African American derived and it is unsurprising that a white person in the Netherlands would not be aware. The frustration lies in the fact that it is such a pervasive term and genre that a google search will return 1000's of artist who call them selves indie soul or soul pop and 10x100's of references to artists being so at every notable music publication. It would equivalent to someone trying to speedy delete an article on Highlife which is like the most popular music in the entire Africa continent. And given Racial bias on Wikipedia it seemed like a classic example of that when I only was doing it because I noticed a shocking absence. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
And. What would have been appreciated was his assistance in correcting an error in application. Rather than him not following wiki's own step by step method and instructions for suggesting deletes and then turning around and try to use different wiki rules against the article. If there is this level of pushback against a very mainstream topic on music that happens to derive and be more reflective of black cultures, imagine if it was something less pervasive, that white people have no context of. There was simply no reason to push deletion so readily while he knew I was in the middle(literally) of doing exactly what I was suppose to. And then him not following the basic steps that wiki lays out to handle something an editor finds and then saying things that he hadnt research that were entirely a personal perspective and opinion. The double standards of the situation and behavior on a black topic was jarring as an early article experience. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
You really need to cool it with the unnecessary racial assumptions. You are not helping your case at all. We're talking about a musical genre. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX or the place for your to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Instead, try to find WP:THREE reliable sources that speak of 'indie soul' in detail. Articles, think pieces, scientific research, newspapers, magazines, you name it, that actually discuss it, so not in a passing mention. Don't bring race into it, don't say others need to use Google, don't copy-paste dozens of random links that just mention it, stop WP: CANVASSING. Find three sources. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
You open with "thank you for the thoughtful response" and then proceeded to ignore virtually all of my advice, especially in your AFD responses, so I won't be responding further. You're on your own. Good luck. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

New message from Sjones23

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox person § Education and alma mater parameters. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't chime in. I don't deal with this sort of thing enough to know anything or formulate a stance really. Sergecross73 msg me 21:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

added Clovermoss
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Single question

Quick question, I have plans to write about a single from an album that never got it's own cover artwork. Do I just leave the infobox image blank? Panini! • 🥪 18:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup! Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Tim96144 is back

Hi Serge. Hope you haven't forgotten the Taiwanese editor User:Tim96144, whom you blocked multiple times for copyright infringement, finally indefinitely. They were then caught socking. Well they're now using the range 111.246.112.214/16, geolocating to Taiwan. Tim has been editing on and off adding charts (which was Tim96144's MO) for the past several months. I'm aware you can't publicly connect an IP address to a user account but I'm 100% sure this is them. They return every year to add year-end charts that they think I've forgotten about. Ss112 11:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ss112. I haven't forgotten. But I don't have the know-how to do range blocks, so I don't know how much I can really help here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Atmospherpolyphonic

Mentioned you here, so just flagging as a courtesy. Of course the issue is not remotely with your conduct. Have a great evening. Star Mississippi 01:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

John de Lancie

Hello, since you were involved in the discussion about my previously proposed edit, would you mind responding to me and Meters on this discussion to give your thoughts about my new edit and help steer the discussion in the right direction? Thank you. EpicTiger87 (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I left a comment. Sorry it's not more involved, but I really have no horse in this race. I can't even remember how I stumbled across this dispute initially, it was completely by chance. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is "John de Lancie" .

Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!

EpicTiger87 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I left a note. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Minneapolis discussion

Hey, we have a dispute and we're hoping you would participate in it. Cleter (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Portalomaniac.669 serial tagging of track lists

Hello Serge. The user Portalomaniac.669 has gone around to several dozen album articles (including some I thought would be on your watchlist) and tagged listings of bonus tracks with citation needed tags despite the fact WP:TRACKLIST (in MOS:ALBUM) states track listings don't need to be sourced as we'd just be sourcing the liner notes. I've asked them to stop, but there's also multiple instances of concerning tagging for a user who's been here for two years, like putting cn tags in section headings: [1], [2], [3], and adding citations to headings [4], [5]... maybe you could help address this? Thanks. Ss112 14:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I've left them a note. Let me know if they persist after that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Auto dialer

Hi Sergecross73, its not the best idea putting unsourced back into a mainspace after its been redirected. More than 90% of article was unsourced. It reflectd the worst habits of spammers and UPE and wouldn't expect that behaviour from yourself, not that your either. If it was newb editor I would issue a distruptive edit warning against them. I think it was a particularly poor choice. scope_creepTalk 17:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I was objecting to the WP:BLAR, not endorsing unsourced content. It's a notable concept. It needs trimming, even if it's heavy handed, not outright erasure. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep @Sergecross73
Given the contested redirect I've created an AfD on the subject (as per guidelines). If you wish to make contributions to the discussion there it would be appreciated.
Regards, Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I agree with you, absolutely. I think it is an absolutly notable subject. Auto dialers were huge from 1940-50's onwards, as far as I can see. Its not an Afd-viable subject. scope_creepTalk 18:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It was good fan art, though

Party pooper... Panini! • 🥪 20:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a fine fan art, we just have no shortage of Mario images on Wikipedia. Or even images in general in that article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
That's sounds like valuable info! How about we add a gallery? Panini! • 🥪 20:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Zacharythoden attacking another editor

Music editor Zacharythoden saw fit to mistakenly attack @Lk95: on their talk page (thinking Lk95 had redirected the song article they just made) here, calling them a "loserrr", "lame ass" and saying they took the "lame-o editor nazi route" (one message and already being accused of being a Nazi, don't worry about Godwin's law). Not sure what action you want to take against this, if just a warning or not, but thought you should know, as they don't reply to me on their talk page. Ss112 14:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ss112 thank you for bringing this to attention. There was absolutely no reason for such an unhinged reaction, aimed at the wrong editor at that. Lk95 (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that's awful conduct. I gave them a warning that they'd receive a block if it ever happens again. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Property Vandalism: Misattribution of Music Genre Origin on Wikipedia by registered administrator

I am reaching out to report a critical issue concerning the accuracy of information on Wikipedia, specifically regarding the origin of a music genre. My recent registration on Wikipedia was prompted by the discovery of false information attributing the origin of a music genre established in South Africa to Nigeria, as claimed by a registered user.

Upon reviewing the Wikipedia page on [the gender 'Amapiano'], I was troubled to find that the origin of the music genre was inaccurately represented, falsely labeled as originating from Nigeria. As someone familiar with the history and cultural significance of the genre, which was established in South Africa, I am deeply concerned about the implications of this error and the potential dissemination of misinformation to readers.

To rectify this issue, I am kindly requesting that the misattribution of the music genre's origin be thoroughly reviewed and corrected to accurately reflect its establishment in South Africa.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this urgent matter.

I will be available to provide further clarification or assistance if needed. EncyclopediaEureka (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. While music is one of the areas I edit, I can't say I'm personally very knowledgeable about South African or Nigerian music genre. So I can't personally agree or disagree with you. But the best way my to handle issues and disputes is by starting up a WP:TALKPAGE discussion at the article's talk page, and explaining your concern there. A heads up - per WP:V, most statements require proof through reliable sources. So you may want to find some sources that back up your stance. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia Administrator

kindly please assist, EncyclopediaEureka (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. See above. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Experienced editor adding the full lyrics to a copyrighted song

Just letting you know as I found it strange, but it's not every day you see an experienced editor adding the full lyrics for a classic rock song to Wikipedia like they're not aware of our policy on copyright or not think that that would be a copyright violation. And moreover, the fact that nobody cared for nearly a whole month until I just removed it, tagged the page for copyvio-revdel, and warned them not to do that. Ss112 14:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is pretty weird. And obviously not something they should be doing. I can't say I'm familiar with the editor though, so I can't say for sure that they should "know better" per se, but that certainly is a high edit count for such a mistake... Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Jeff Friedl

Hello Sergecross73, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Jeff Friedl, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Friedl (2nd nomination).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. 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.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Chris troutman}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chris troutman. I appreciate the heads up, but I only created the redirect, not the article. Just an FYI, in case there's other editors better suited to be notified. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry about the automated message. I don't see a way to prevent it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
No worries, I figured as much. I'll participate in the AFD all the same, and may not have seen it otherwise, so it worked out. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_103&oldid=1212137589"