Welcome to Wikipedia, Me Da Wikipedian! I'm Ozzie10aaaa, and I've been assigned as your mentor. About half of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions regimes (such as WP:GS/RUSUKR) are community sanctions and not levied by the Arbitration Committee. (The relevant Arbitration contentious topic would be EE, which does not have a 500/30 rule.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 22:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops @Jéské Couriano Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an honest mistake, since most GS regimes are set up to function more-or-less like, or as supplements to, CTOPs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 23:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, you reverted an IP editor who was editing their own comments, using an inappropriate edit summary about content removal. Then you left an inappropriate warning on the IP's talkpage about refactoring the comments of others (something that only you actually did in this interaction). I suggest you gain some more editing experience of your own before undertaking this sort of monitoring and warning of others' edits. Grandpallama (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! I didn't realize that, though it was another IP. Sorry! @Grandpallama Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hey, I wanted to let you know regarding this edit, that Wikipedia policy does allow users to remove comments from their own user talk pages. It is generally understood that removing comments (not refactoring or editing them) from your own talk page indicates you have read them. Similarly, you should not restore removed comments. I agree with Grandpallama above that you should become more aware of policies (and don't be afraid to Google policies if you're not sure) before monitoring other users. GSK (talk • edits) 22:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your error rate with warnings, reversions and noticeboard reports is unacceptably high. Please slow down and check your work before doing any of these three actions. Some recent examples:

• This edit is a breach of WP:TPO. Don't remove other people's talkpage messages without good reason.
• This edit removes a valid reference and restores a spam link.
• This edit restores a nonsense edit to an article that had correctly been reverted by someone else.
• This edit which replaces unsourced info with other unsourced info, which was then followed by this inappropriate warning.
• This current warning to a school IP address seems to relate to an edit made in 2022?
• This RFPP requested indefinite semi-protection for "persistent vandalism" on an article with no recent vandalism at all.
• This edit warns someone against "introducing factual errors" for an edit which was correcting vandalism.

You also have numerous valid reports and reversions of disruptive users, and thank you for those. However it's important to remember that multiple incorrect reverting or reporting is itself disruptive: it drives legitimate editors away, wastes time on noticeboards in clearing inaccurate material and (per some of the above) reintroduces low-quality material that had correctly been removed.

This also isn't the first time this has been raised re your edits. So, in short form: please stop and double check every proposed edit involving a reversion, a warning or a noticeboard report. If your proposed edit is not soundly based in policy and double-checked for accuracy, don't make it. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah oops.

The first and second edits no idea what I was thinking.

The third edit I just saw a lot of content removed with no explanation and reverted it. Should have been more careful.

For the fourth edit I didn't realize you shouldn't warn for older vandalism.

The RFPP, I just saw lots and lots of vandalism message reverts but it doesn't like seem like anything was outright vandalism

The last edit i though was vandalism since there was incorrect information which was then reverted to correct information. Didn't realize that was already there and only partially reverted by that editor. Oops!

All in all sorry and I will try to be more careful. Sorry for wasting people's time @Euryalus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are trying to manage a possible edit-warring situation when you have only been editing for two weeks? I think you should spend less time trying to do administrative tasks and reverting other editors and just do some article improvements so you can better understand Wikipedia policies and guidlines. You have to earn respect from your fellow editors through demonstrating competency, it's not just given to you when you registered an account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to 300 (number). This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll stop per WP:BOLD. Please explain your reasoning. Mine is that the article is basically entire about the range of numbers not just 300. What is yours?@CambridgeBayWeather Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency and long term stable title. All the others are in the format "number (number)" and have been that way for some time. If you think your title is better then follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay done....@CambridgeBayWeather Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but the removal was explained when the edit war started.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, sorry. @Skywatcher68 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You're relatively new and presumably learning as you go; I've been here almost 18 years and still defer to more experienced editors regarding certain subjects. :-)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added content on the Jack Abbott (The Young and the Restless) article, but it has been removed due to not being provided a source. How do I provide a source I order to keep my added content on this page? Jaymaster05 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability would be good places to start. How this is helpful@Jaymaster05 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This was not an unexplained content removal. The IP editor was removing an advertising link, and explained that in their edit summary. Please check these a little more carefully before reverting or warning other editors. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was unexplained content removal, as they removed "Its tower has collapsed. As of 2018, the mansion is offered for sale.". However you are correct about the reference, I thought I removed that but apparently not@Euryalus Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you removed storyline content at this article. I have WP:BOLD reverted it. While sources are important, this article is about a fictional character, and many Wikipedia articles about characters, films and such don't cite sources for everything related to the storyline/plot. I think it would be better to leave it as there is substantial content there. Cleo Cooper (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't really know a lot about this. But don't need some way of knowing where this info came from/if it's true@Cleo Cooper Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe from the other sources within the article, I guess. But I don't think it's worth removal it all. If we take a look at articles about other films sections like plot/storyline aren't sourced, as it's assumed that it comes directly from the work (primary). Cleo Cooper (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]