User talk:SmolBrane

Hi SmolBrane! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome SmolBrane!

Hi SmolBrane. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have

If you work from

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the greeting! -SmolBrane (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Lex Fridman 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:Lex Fridman, 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 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.

Laplorfill (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the discussion at the podcast talk page—and this is a post about process, not inclusion of content:

• Please keep your general arguments to the section you titled "First-ever emergency podcast” is not DUE???". That is a regular talk page section, and you can make whatever comment you want as long as it's on the topic of improving the article.
• The RfC is for community response. Responding to others' objections is totally acceptable, but not responding to your own RfC. You did this at least twice, in the posts that start "Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe" and "I am surprised at the lack of input for this Vital article." That was my point in my last comment. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback; I am not seeing this reflected by

WP:RFCBRIEF, which says “If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp.” I can't find a policy that says I can't reply to my own RfC. SmolBrane (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to,

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν)

Cite a diff, please. SmolBrane (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement here that "This isn't a 'Vital" argument(sic) in the normal sense of the word, someone simply nominated it at the lowest level of the 50,000 that should have a Feature Article. Frankly I think that there are many more important articles than this one" is not a collaborative one, and it is WP:TENDENTIOUS. We are here to build an encyclopedia. SmolBrane (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re your response above: Not collaborative?

]

Your thread has been archived

Hi SmolBrane! The thread you created at the archived because there was no discussion for a few days. Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, you can create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Joe Rogan

I noticed that you've tagged me on an admins page stating that I'm "doing shenanigans again"? Who even are you?

When you have a problem with an edit, it's not resolved by tattling to your daddy admin on his talk page, especially when Wiki guidelines haven't been violated. Welcome to Wikipedia small brain, the name suits you. Good to know you have at least some self-awareness. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The admin in question reverted you last time you removed this sourced material from this article. Don't edit war, and don't label content editing as minor. (I do regard self-awareness as a virtue so thank you) SmolBrane (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know I went ahead and revised the draft of Lex Fridman and published it anyway. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, thanks for the efforts; how were you able to do that, and is it likely to be reverted? SmolBrane (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my mind - but if you could help improve the article with reliable sources that would help. Right now I'm having a hard time finding other kinds of sourcing because so much of what he does is centred around YouTube. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article

Talk:Endemic phase of COVID-19/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Your

Endemic phase of COVID-19

The article

the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

interesting read

[1] and pdf, you might be interested in this --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I haven't had time to review this carefully but it doesn't sound good! SmolBrane (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]