User talk:Just Another Cringy Username/Archive 1

I mean, I get it, but have these people not heard of a learning curve? I don't magically know how to do everything right off the bat FFS.Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have. They actually expect you to be worse at this than you are. I prefer to imagine that newbies can be competent, possibly because I like to imagine I was myself not an incompetent noob. Also, you're digging in a pretty necessary but thankless hole right now, removing unsourced junk from literature articles, and I'd like to see more people doing that. Literature articles in general on the project are often in really bad shape. So, do please keep at it. (But maybe have another read through of

WP:NBOOK before you nominate another book for deletion. It's quite hard to get articles removed solely on the basis of "it's crap". It's close to "literally impossible" to remove an article on a multiple-prize-winning book by a famous and highly awarded author.) -- asilvering (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You do not have enough editing experience to judge which pages should be deleted and whether they should be deleted through speedy deletion, proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Please do not tag any more pages until you have much, much more experience editing on the project. You should not be getting involved in administrative work with an account that is only 4 days old with 100 edits. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone can request speedy deletion by adding one of the speedy deletion templates, but only administrators may actually delete." --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it must meet one of the

speedy deletion criteria. Liz has been around for over a decade here, and has been an admin for a while, so you probably don't need to quote policy to her. 🙂 Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I see you also tagged Catherine Barba for PROD. I took advantage of your notice to add an additional more recent source but in fact the existing references seemed perfectly adequate. Until you gain more experience, it would be more useful to do some constructive editing yourself rather than picking up articles for possible deletion. Please let me know if you think I can help you along.--Ipigott (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edit to

I did a lot more than remove dead links. The article is full of spammy peacock content and most of the footnotes that weren't dead were primary sources from J&B's own website. It's been marked for maintenance for years now, and you're going to put all that back w/o even looking at what I did? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restored your edits. Please remove in parts? My apology over that. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Will remember to edit in bite size pieces. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! There is that tradeoff between convenience and filling up the page history. Some edit histories multiple rewording of a sentence. That redlink I left above should have been

WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Thanks again! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

See my response to your comment on my Talk page. Cheerio and happy editing. Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, sorry to pester you. I just noticed something else you might appreciate some advice on.

I've noticed that one of your activities is removing promotional material from articles. As you have noticed, there sometimes isn't much left afterwards. Sometimes, the need for sections even vanishes, and the article becomes a stub. In case you were wondering, this isn't a problem. A good stub with just the facts is better than 7500 bytes of poorly sourced, promotionally toned material.

Regarding this, I have two things to say. First, if you find that, after removing all unnecessary promo and stub-ifying the article, it seems to lack the notability for an article, send it to AfD. Mention in your nomination that you had removed all promotional material, then noticed that it no-longer seemed to warrant an article. That will avoid you being accused of "gutting" or before nomination, which is considered bad faith and disruptive. I don't think you've been in this situation yet, but I figured you would like some advice on it before you found yourself there.

Second, if your edits result in the article being reduced to a stub, remember to go to the talk page and change the "class" parameter in the wikiproject templates to "stub". Then, choose between 1 and 4 of the most relevant wikiprojects listed there (but not all of them) and add their stub templates to the article. You can find out more about this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting.

Cheerio and happy editing. Mako001 (C)  (T)  03:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm writing you to let you know that I've removed your PROD notice from Shoop Shoop Diddy Wop Cumma Cumma Wang Dang. I have completely rewritten the article from scratch, removing all the original research and adding plenty of cited information as well as an infobox. As you can see, the song peaked at number two in New Zealand, reached the top 20 in Australia, and was nominated for multiple awards, so I believe the subject has a valid claim of notability now. If you have any questions or concerns, please respond. Thank you. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just Another Cringy Username! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Ugly Betty, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

The article

]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Just Another Cringy Username! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Possible Edit War Developing w/ an IP user, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello! What a coincidence, I just started working on the Adventures of Mark Twain page as well and was surprised to see activity on it. I thought I'd warn you I'm watching the movie again in the next couple days to write a full synopsis, so anything you add between now and then may not stick. It's one of my favorite movies so I'm glad it's getting some attention! FinishingTheRat (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest! I've added everything I can remember. I haven't seen the movie since I was a kid. Where did you find it anyway? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, I thought Wikipedia told me it would give me notifications on these sorts of things. Anyway, the whole thing is up on YouTube, but I ended up waiting until I got my hands on the collector's edition DVD so I can also check out the director's commentary. FinishingTheRat (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wicked (Maguire novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elphaba, the main character in Wicked, is named after L. Frank Baum, who wrote the book that inspired Wicked? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wicked (Maguire novel). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wicked (Maguire novel)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Just Another Cringy Username -- I've deprodded this. As there is clear evidence of notability as well as sources (albeit not inline), it is not at all suitable for proposed deletion. Please be more careful with proposed deletion; there is unfortunately rather little oversight of the process and valuable content can be lost by poor nominations. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your addition of a citation to Find a Grave on

Hello again Just Another Cringy Username -- I've deprodded this. Notability under WP:PROF would be conferred by being president of a major university, and the tags were all placed seemingly at random by a novice editor who was later blocked for sock puppetry. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joanne Witt, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gusfriend (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just Another Cringy Username! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Trying to Get a Peer Review, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

You unilaterally merged five novels to Demon Princes without even initiating a discussion. At least a couple of them have review sections, with there being absolutely no doubt the rest have been reviewed as well, since Vance is considered a major science fiction writer, so your actions are not justified and have been reverted by me. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. There was an active deletion discussion going on for the main Demon Princes page, during which I brought up the idea of merging the five pages, an idea which was approved and encouraged by another member of the discussion. I then closed the discussion under speedy keep (all "keep" votes and no ongoing discussion) and made the merge. As part of the merge, I did indeed merge the review sections into the main article. As written, the five novel articles were all or almost all plot and the main page was written mostly in-universe. Post merge, we have one article which (OMG!) meets Wikipedia standard.

But sure, go ahead and restore a bunch of glorified fanboy tribute pages! Why do I even bother? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion at Talk:Demon Princes, nor was there one at the Afd for Demon Princes. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion for Demon Princes does not cover mergers of other articles, one of which even you now admit merits its own article. All of the novels have been reviewed by reliable sources, which "meets Wikipedia standard": Star King - 6 reviews, Killing Machine - 5 reviews, The Palace of Love - 3, The Face - 6 and The Book of Dreams - 7. As stated by other contributors above, you lack the experience to make such decisions unilaterally. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. multiple reviews for The Killing Machine[2], satisfying

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Demon_Princes

Here's the AfD discussion, where you will note my making the suggestion and another editor seconding it. And why wouldn't a deletion discussion cover merging of other articles, especially if those articles don't meet standard? The only article of this group which met Wiki standard was the main Demon Prince article and that only after I deleted over 16K of in-universe fanwank. The individual novel articles were nothing but overlong plot summaries. A couple had a review or two, which were duly incorporated into the main article.

No decision was made unilaterally, and what if it was? Despite your attempt at gatekeeping, there's no required minimum tenure before an editor is allowed to make this type of decision. Stop stanning and look at it objectively.

Lastly, this discussion should be taking place on the Demon Prince talk page, not here. I've posted a link to this section on that page, so if you have anything else to say, please say it there so others can join in the discussion. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I came to your talk page to leave you a message, and saw you've added prods onto pages that have been summarily

• When nominating an article for deletion, a
  WP:BEFORE
  must be completed. Number 4 states the minimum that is required before nominating an article is a Google search. ("The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.")
• When nominating an article for deletion, there is likely to be a notability standard for that topic (ie films falling under
  WP:NFILM
  , etc). You are expected to review this accompanying notability standard.
• If you are not sure about a topic's notability, opening a discussion on the article's talk page is helpful.
• General competency in that topic area is helpful (note I've linked an essay, not a policy).

If you have any questions please feel free to reach out, or visit the Teahouse, a place for new editors to ask questions. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej Let me explain my thought process. When I see an article w/ longstanding problems, if I don't think the article is worth trying to save (an admittedly subjective judgment), I send it to AfD. I look at it as a way of saying, "OK, WP, time to put up or shut up. Either whip this article into shape or let go of it." If the article is kept, it usually comes away much improved. (See Harpies, for example.)

As far as talk pages go, I've brought up issues there before and the one thing I've discovered is, people rarely read talk pages.

On another note, I'm continually frustrated by the number of people who will rush to find sources to challenge an AfD, but can't be bothered to edit those sources into the article. Do they feel it's more important to rescue the article from the evil deletionists than to create a useful working encyclopedia? Or do they see WP as nothing more than a repository for pop culture trivia?

Would welcome your thoughts on any of this. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Another Cringy Username, thanks for the reply. I understand the frustration with coming across subpar articles and wishing the editors who created them had put in more effort. I hear you there. AfD is not actually meant for a "put up or shut up" moment, although I can understand how as a new user it could seem that way. There's actually a WP essay on this exact thing called "Deletion is not cleanup" (link here: WP:DINC).

When coming cross a subpar article, I usually think "Should this exist on WP?" I will quickly look for searches, starting with the Google search I mentioned from my original post here on your talk page, and if I find reliable sources, I move on. I remind myself although that article is absolutely subpar, I can't clean up every subpar article on WP by implementing all the sources I've found for it. Since we're all volunteer editors (a belated welcome, BTW!), editors need to have an interest in the article they've come across or they won't invest the time. If I came across an old football player's bio from the 1920s, for example (something that doesn't interest me in the least), I could say "Should this exist on WP?", quickly look for sources, see they exist, and then move on, since the AfD likely won't be successful.

In the past I've been frustrated myself when I've brought an article to AfD and sources I couldn't initially find start turning up. I find myself asking "Where were those before? Why haven't they been implemented?" as you seem to agree with from your post above. The trick (for me at least) is to do the BEFORE search and if I don't find anything, I nominate away! I can rest assured I'm not misusing the AfD process to get an article cleaned up. If I find sources, I move on and let it go.

You seem to be an active and engaged editor, and we need those on WP. I only reached out because I want editors to stick around, and if editors are judged to be "misusing" processes, like AfD, they can find themselves working at odds against the community we're all here to support.

Thanks again for the reply, and for reading my long-winded post. I never want to bite the newbies and hope your experience on WP is a good one. Let me know if I can help with anything! --Kbabej (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Just Another Cringy Username

Thank you for creating Murder of Joanne Witt.

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Glad to add something worthwhile to add to WP! Perhaps you'd consider reviewing the DYK nomination? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know per

I felt confident redirecting because those are actually old Doctor Who tie-in novels, which AFAIK don't get much attention from reviewers. The articles themselves are nothing but plot recaps, and as I've heard admins say before, if someone wants to make a real article out of it, it's there. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:FANCRUFT, but hey, if the weeaboos like it, who am I to judge? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That description may be your viewpoint, but it does not align with my perspective or, presumably, that of the dozens of other editors who have worked on the page over the last eight years. The

WP:FANCRUFT

page is an essay, not a guideline. Even if you feel that a page should be categorized as such, that on its own isn't enough justification for deleting the page.

By the way, you might not realize it, but "fancruft" has rude connotations (which are described further in the essay that you linked), and "weeaboo" is an outright insult. Please refrain from using uncivil terms in the future. Soraciel (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just Another Cringy Username! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Tv Episode Articles, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello, I think you did this innocently, but be aware you should not post links to sites on which can lead people to directly contact other users. This is in violation of the

Oh, yes, I was trying to out (not doxx, but just expose) a spammer, but it's been taken care of now. Sorry about that. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, if you have such information and it is needed to expose an undisclosed paid editor, send it to [email protected] instead of posting it on-Wiki. This way it gets into the hands of trusted functionaries. For more details, read the box at the top of

WP:COIN. Cheers, SVTCobra 11:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Add {{Television episode redirect handler}} (ideally with the values filled in)
• Link to the episode entry in the table instead of the general article.

As an example, see this.

Thanks! Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, @Just Another Cringy Username, you are basically deleting dozens of articles, some of which are up to 14 years old. Did you seek consensus before embarking on this adventure? Or do you just unilaterally decide what is "overlong plot"? SVTCobra 20:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working off of the list of "plot summaries which need attention," in particular this one: [3], which happens to contain a lot of Ugly Betty episode articles. Most of these articles consist of a far-too-detailed plot recap, lots of OR, unsourced trivia, and a sentence or two about how the ratings were for that particular ep. Sources are...light and, as you say, some of these have been tagged for years w/ no action taken.

I PROD'ed one such article, it sat for a while, and somebody eventually just redirected it, so I figured that's the way to go. I'm not indiscriminately deleting all of them. If there's something that seems genuinely notable and properly sourced (other than just "here were the ratings") I leave it. I figure if somebody really wants to resurrect the article w/ proper sourcing, it's still there and they can. I'm not playing G-d, just cleanup crew.

I've been doing something similar w/ old Doctor Who book articles. Most of those are literally nothing more than reiterations of the books' plots. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Murder of Joanne Witt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in June 2009, a teenage girl and her adult boyfriend stabbed her mother to death when she objected to their relationship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Joanne Witt. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Murder of Joanne Witt), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 11,621 views (968.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 15:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a process to delete articles which was followed for Idol: The Musical and there was no consensus to delete. As someone who is part of the musicals project, I'm keen to expand musical theatre articles on Wikipedia, especially when there are suitable sources, rather than have them deleted. If you genuinely believe there is no place for this article, then follow the AFD process again.

To answer your question "And at the risk of sounding juvenile, what if I do redirect it?" - then it will be undone and the correct process followed. Mark E (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem: there's nothing to expand. All properly sourced material was merged into the main American Idol article, which amounted to two lines. As you will read there, the musical died a quick death w/ no more than a couple passing mentions in the media. As for the AfD and surrounding debate of what to merge/expand/redirect, it was long and contentious and it ended w/ everybody sort of throwing up their hands and saying, "IDK, do whatever."

I did what I felt in good faith was best for the article. If you think you can do better, well, this is WP and you don't need my permission to try. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Have added in two sourced lines (plot/creatives) which was missed out of the merge, and will leave at that. Mark E (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now that's been reverted and the skimpy little article has been restored, where it will no doubt sit there for another 10 years untouched. Might as well cut those lines from the main article now. SMH Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, *Facepalm*...

I'll give it a spruce up. There's a plot summary which was deleted in the past, and I've found a few more articles on the web. Mark E (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot better now! Do you happen to know if the "Joe Walker" who was in this show is the same Joe Walker from Team Starkid? One of the reasons I didn't bother trying to save this article was the lack of notable participants, but if he was in it, that would help. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe so from these pictures - https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Photo-Flash-Idol-The-Musical-20070706 Mark E (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Just Another Cringy Username I saw that you tried to redirect a couple articles from Heros but they got reverted. I agree that they should be redirected to the season list. I've nominated two of them for deletion so they can redirect to the episode list. I just wanted to let you know and keep you in the loop. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes Voted on both of them! I'm fighting this same battle over on Are You Being Served? I nominated their character list for merging and the inclusionists pounced. "But all the other 50 year old Britcoms have one!" They've bluntly stated they don't accept the concept of cruft. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain. Also I wish Mr Humphries could slide in to that conversation, it would at least be amusing. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if he's free? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains (Heroes)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eclipse (Heroes)

Hello, Just Another Cringy Username. I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. Would you please consider applying to become a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 07:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

I've seen your work, you have a solid understanding of the guidelines, you make bold edits, have an eye for detail, and clearly care about wikipedia. I would really encourage you to look into New Page Patrol.

Sorry if this sounds like I'm trying to recruit you into some sort of cult or MLM, I swear it's mostly normal and only a little culty. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.

Hi. Your copies (

Yes, please do. I did the edit as part of the merge and by the time I remembered I was supposed to use the template, I had already published the edit. I didn't know there was a way to fix it or I would've done it myself. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a dummy edit (Special:Diff/1104653489) and added {{Copied}} templates (Special:Diff/1104653499, Special:Diff/1104653505). Feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert this please? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_State_Prison,_Los_Angeles_County&action=history 2601:206:301:4A90:4132:BAAC:F0DC:8A90 (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why me? I've never touched that article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking you for a simple favor.--2601:206:301:4A90:B6A3:15D2:BC46:CF7 (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is a sock of prolific sockmaster Cadeken. See

meatpuppets with this message to evade a block or policies. This IP was recently blocked for such solicitations. Sundayclose (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't often see publication information sourced. Even including pub info at all seems to be more of an "old WP" thing. Have you found policy on this? I've looked w/o success. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By publication information, I mean content like the publication date, publisher, published sequels etc. The policy in question is WP:Verifiability. One of the core content policies of Wikipedia. If the verifiability of any unsourced content is challenged (as I did by placing the maintenance template in the first place; and then again by re-adding the template with the explanation: "[...] I added it with regards to all the uncited content including no citations whatsoever for all the publication information"), the onus is on any editor who wants to remove the template to provide inline citations to reliable sources that address the verifiability concerns. The whole point of WP:Verifiability is to help weed out errors like the one I found here when I was trying to verify the publication dates given in this very article. Bennv123 (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify,

lead sections (unless the same information is already sourced in the article body) and so on. Bennv123 (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I've looked at the edit history and I see what's going on. Just before you came into the picture, I had PROD'ed the article for being a glorified plot recap w/ insufficient sourcing. Somebody else came along and added a bunch of reviews, thus proving notability. I removed your tag, thinking it was left over from that issue. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am messaging you since you have made edits to the above page before. In fact the issue arises from you approving the merge. Please check

Hello, i wanted to clarify why you deleted the Guardians of Ga'Hoole story section? That is blatant article vandalism. There are ways to summarize the story instead of wiping the section of the face of the internet. I have undid your deletion. If you still want to summarize the story, how about not deleting the entire thing? 2600:6C4A:4E7F:EE7F:9B3:4076:2C69:1581 (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long, detailed plot recaps are not desirable on WP. Since this article is about the series as a whole, it's best to give a brief overview of the basic premise and leave it at that. See WP:PLOTSUM. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your source says the following: "The description should be thorough enough for the reader to get a sense of what happens and to fully understand the impact of the work and the context of the commentary about it."

The story plot summary is only 378 characters, this is tiny compared to other, smaller book series: Harry Potter (6890), Wings of Fire (3203), hell even the Wolves of the Beyond section on the same page! (4048)

Maybe your removal was justified, but just removing it outright with no notice feels like a slap in the face to fans of the series. You could've at least tried to bring it to our attention rather than just remove it outright. RegularBlueJay (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, it continues to say: "On the other hand, however, the plot summary must be concise because Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should be about more than just the plot. Plot summaries that are too long and too detailed can also be hard to read and are just as unhelpful as those that are too short."

But, by removing the 44k description, you may have satisfied one objective but then failed another. Now the summary is too short and doesn't give enough detail or context to the series.

And even then, it finishes: "Finding the right balance requires careful editorial discretion and discussion."

Which I believe was not done in this case, where you just blindly deleted an entire section because it was "too detailed". You could've asked for help in trimming it down or even tried to summarise it as best as you could with the information that you instead deleted. I'm just saying that you may have overstepped your boundaries and ruffled some feathers, but if you rectify this then we can find a balance between detail and length. RegularBlueJay (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I don't think there's anything to rectify. The article is presented as an overview of the series as a whole, not to highlight individual books. If you disagree, you're free to write a few short sentences about each one, or even do articles for each individual book--as long as you can prove up notability for said book.

As far the fans go, we're writing an encyclopedia, not a fansite. While fans are welcome to contribute, those contributions should be made objectively and free from emotional attachment to the material. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Harry Potter, or Star Wars wiki page. Those series have a very detailed plot section, but you dont seem to bring destruction to those pages. If you wish to contribute to the GoG page, you can summarize the story line instead of obliterating it. 2600:6C4A:4E7F:EE7F:41DD:E26C:B06C:EA3D (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're also slightly more well known and thus would hold more interest to the general public. Let go of your emotional attachment to this fairly obscure children's book series and ask yourself, "What if I had never heard of this story?" I doubt you'd want an overly enthusiastic fanboy infodumping this level of detail when a couple of well chosen sentences would be sufficient. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and a 378 story 'summary' is not a couple of well chose sentences. You just blindly erased the entire story section, leaving the 375 'summary' there. Your wiki account is 10 months old and full of people complaining that you deleted stuff you shouldn't have. Also, if its so obscure, why does it matter if the story page is detailed? 2600:6C4A:4E7F:EE7F:1CA7:3460:1664:9BD (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It matters because as I've said several times already, this is not a fan wiki. A summary is not a recap and should not be able to serve as a substitute for reading the book. As long as we're playing "mine's bigger than yours" with accounts, you're posting from an unregistered IP, which in Wikiland means you'll come in for even more scrutiny than I will.

And this is my final word on the matter. We're not going to agree and I don't think any further discussion would lead to anything more productive. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hackers is a work of non-fiction and it is American history. I believe the more information provided by sources like wikipedia only accentuates the book itself. The need to pursue editing down pages that provide details about such books should not be a priority IMO. Ianposton (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy the information was useful to you, WP is not intended to function as a study guide or supplement to another work, and doing so would be an infringement of that work's copyright. WP operates under the legal doctrine of fair use and we need to walk a fine line. That's why we deliberately keep summaries short and not all-inclusive. (I suspect the Bury My Heart page was edited for a similar reason.) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm letting you know that I've reverted your BLPPROD at Alexander S. Bermange. BLPPROD only applies if there's no form of source or reference, including external links and authority control. With that said, I do think deletion is reasonable here. You'd just need to use AfD or a standard PROD (isn't bureaucracy fun). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to PROD it or start an AfD, go right ahead. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]