How Wikipedia Fails its Readers

Post below for minor details.

1. Automating copyedits before human citation

1. Stiff & inaccessible administration
2. False “notability” claims
3. Dishonest donation requests
4. Confusing dialogues
5. Arguments for esoteric policies
6. Relying on self-validating sources long-term

Thanks for supporting my

Yes thank you very much I sure do love walnuts and I love you more for uploading the walnut imagine thanks for the walnut image!!! !!1!11! Buyable 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Edison and phonograph edit1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 20:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jellocube27,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture

I just wanted to drop by and say "thanks" for responding to my concern so quickly - the article looks so much better now! Knowing that the article about such a famous, beautiful piece of art was so... Ugly and badly formatted would have bothered me to no end. Now I can sleep peacefully at night, once more! PaladinWhite 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is your signature just the date and time? I saw your comment at FPC, and your nameless signature left me somewhat confused. If you hadn't intended it to be so, would you mind changing it; it is somewhat hard to reference [blank] :). Thanks. J Are you green? 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm that's funny; I just noticed that your other recent contributions had a normal signature. If this particular thing was juct an isolated incedent, please accept my apologies for disturbing you and disregard the above. J Are you green? 02:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering the reason for the NPOV tag. I did not see anything on the talk page for it.

I'm wondering that myself. Mangoe 13:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias for the reasons.

Spryde 21:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

	Thank you
	Thanks for all your WikiGnoming! Your contributions are appreciated, and we need more Wikipedians like you. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:ApproachToKataJuta edit1.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Chocolate teddy graham closeup.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Gusfriend were:

This submission is not adequately supported by

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs references from reliable sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rick Parks 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:Rick Parks, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gusfriend (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jellocube27! Having an article draft 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! Gusfriend (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello, Jellocube27. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jellocube27,

It's admirable you are trying to explain, but

This was a Turing test. Have a nice day. Jellocube27 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, you have now reinstated a post on Talk:Main Page that is off-topic and thus irrelevant to that page three times in a little over 24 hours. I have previously asked you via edit summary ping NOT to reinstate that message. Obviously, that did not get to you. Here's a final warning via your talk page; the next time you reinstate that irrelevant message, I will impose a block for disruptive behaviour. Any questions, please ask (here's good). Schwede66 00:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re threatening to block me for providing information… why, Schwede66? I will continue to inform users as requested. Jellocube27 (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are edit warring on a page that has a completely different scope. As I informed via edit summary before, take the issue to

WP:TEAHOUSE. Your ongoing reverts are disruptive (sorry for repeating myself). Schwede66 01:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Teahouse is confusing, I am just a casual editor. I’ll unwatch the main page for now, godspeed enforcing hopeless site policies. Jellocube27 (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you've figured out how to post to a talk page, you should be able to post a query at the Teahouse as there really isn't any difference. If you really struggle with that, here's a pro-tip: hit the big, blue button at the top of the page and see what happens. Schwede66 01:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:NOTHERE. I tried ARV, but it was suggested I'd go through ANI. I'm on my phone and haven't got the time to look up the many diffs of Jellocube27's edits. Hate to bother you with this, could you maybe step in? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I mean, suggesting Rhain is sock puppet is ridiculous, they've edited another's comment and they're still edit warring. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any misunderstanding, I am a very casual editor. Thanks for using my talk page. Jellocube27 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are

WP:NOTHERE. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Soetermans, take your time. File your ANI report when you have time to do so. I don't have time to do so on your behalf. Schwede66 20:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely cannot accuse another editor of sockpuppetry, Jellocube27, as you did in this edit summary. Here's a essay on conduct policy and I can confirm that it is regarded as a breach of Wikipedia:Civility to make that accusation. The only acceptable way to deal with sockpuppets is to report the editor at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations alongside your evidence. Schwede66 20:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide that evidence, I think. Jellocube27 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Book burning, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this was vandalism, I am editing the article with improvements and new sources. Jellocube27 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, no talk page access. Not sure why you decided to start trolling after all this time, but go do it somewhere else. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, talk page access restored. Not a trolling-only account. Block is still indef, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Floquenbeam, maybe revoke talk page access? Their latest comments aren't particularly civil. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Lots of unsourced statements for a

WP:CITINGSOURCES

.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rick Parks and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]