Welcome to Wikipedia!

Whack!

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

HAHA. Welcome to Wikipedia. How unfortunate for you to start with fishy business, but c'est la vie mon ami. You should've received a notification and in the talk page enclosed you can find my reply which has the trout reason enclosed. Anyways, here're some useful links to get started:

Happy interneting! Aaron Liu (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

what i did was fine i mean every one loves that song  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:5BF0:C1C0:CAA4:2F29:B55D:D760 (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

One, please create a new section when commenting on talk pages. Two, your edit was not relevant to the topic of the article. GrayStorm^{Talk Contributions} 03:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Amin husain

Hi greystorm- this wiki page has inaccurate information based on an my post article that has no verifiable proof. This is also an investigation in progress. Can you remove claims on antisemitism until proven? Sunkissed2024 (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I am currently looking into this. GrayStorm^{Talk Contributions} 23:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Sunkissed2024 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome. I have taken action on the article. You may see my edit summary for more details.GrayStorm^{Talk Contributions} 23:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so so much for handling this so quickly. Can I ask if we can also remove the line under criticism claiming that he advocates for violence and is behind the subway attacks? That is also by the NY Post, and is not substantiated to my knowledge. Sunkissed2024 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not remove that. I no longer can remove that, since the article is extended protected not. I dont have the time to make an edit request right now, but if you wanted to you could. You should argue for the removal of the ny post source under WP:NYPOST. GrayStorm^{Talk Contributions} 15:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

ah okay, thanks so much! Sunkissed2024 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

See article attached if helpful. [1]https://nyunews.com/news/2024/01/29/pro-palestinian-professor-suspension/ Sunkissed2024 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Como, New South Wales

Did you review the text I removed before you reverted my edit? Did you read my edit summaries? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, I am still relatively new to editing using wikitext, and I was using a wikitext based tool to revert that edit. I did not understand your edit summary when read in isolation, but now it makes more sense. I will try to be more careful in the future. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 23:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 76.14.122.5 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I’m glad we could resolve this peacefully. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 23:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Philip Benwell

Hi @GrayStorm,

Thank you for your edit in reverting the unconstructive edit made by editor, 220.235.45.49. I am asking for your opinion on the matter regarding the claimed ‘fraudulent content’ in the section of the Benwell article that details his alleged controversy that was written by a verified source, The Sydney Morning Herald. Essentially, do you think it is an appropriate edit or should it be reverted again? Thank you for your time.

Regards, Carey3146 (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it is an appropriate edit. GrayStorm^{Talk Contributions} 15:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Carey3146 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Ahem

"Suspended Adjunct Professor" is NOT an occupation; it reads more like a slur--a BLP violation. Plus, you're citing the Hindustan Times for something in NYC? Drmies (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I was acting in good faith. I acknowledge that I made a mistake and will be more careful making edits in the future. GrayStorm^{Talk Contributions} 18:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I reverted the edit because it was in violation of WP:NPOV by claiming his suspension was unjust. The sources issue has since been resolved. Also, hiow is "Suspended Adjunct Professor" a slur??? GrayStorm^{Talk Contributions} 18:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Suspended" is a bit of a black eye, don't you think? And, eh, is it part of someone's job to be suspended? Drmies (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't no what you mean by "a black eye" but i do agree that it is not part of someone's job. However it does seem relevant. Perhaps it could be written as "Adjunct Professor (Suspended)". GrayStorm^{Talk Contributions} 21:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: I am cleaning up my talk page by archiving old discussions. I intentionally did not archive this disscution dispite it being nearly a month old, because of your lack of response to my most recent question in this thread. I also wanted to say that your remarks towards me came off as condescending with how they were phrased. I agree that being suspended isn't part of someones job, but I don't see how it is a slur. I am saying all of the not so ass to attack you, but so that we can get any misunderstanding cleared up. Regards, GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 02:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC).

I didn't see there was a response. "Suspended professor" is not something you should put in an infobox for the parameter "profession". Of course it's a black eye: you're saying "he's a professor BUT HE GOT SUSPENDED, haha". That's what I mean with slur, and I think that if this was discussed on BLPN it would not be allowed to stand. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies:I'm sorry, but, who is ~~ready~~ reading suspended professor as "THIS GUY GOT SUSPENDED HAHA"? I don't think that many people would think you were mocking someone if you said they were a suspended professor, unless your tone specifically indicated you were making fun of the, which was not the case. If you could elaborate further on how including a fact is a "black eye" (still don't fully understand what you mean by that term) that would be greatly appreciated. Also, I just wanted to make you aware that the word "slur" has a different usage than the way you are using it. Usually, slur refers to a derogatory word used on a minority. Regards GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 03:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC).

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Your wording indicates that well enough. Please don't lecture me on what this or that word means (and you're wrong: "an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation", which is exactly what you were doing) when you cannot see that "suspended professor" is something completely different from "professor". Oh, when you fix typos in order to ping someone, you should sign again, or the ping doesn't work. Now go ahead and archive this. Drmies (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait: you warned a user for "controversial information about a living person"--how was this "controversial"? "Dheu i Bardh" is indeed a neighborhood in Gjilan--is that a bad thing to say? Yes it's unreferenced; no, it does not deserve a BLP-related warning. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Rollback granted for 3 months

Hi GrayStorm. After reviewing your request, I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 04:34, 16 May 2024. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Brecksville, Ohio

I did put a note when I deleted the 2010 census information. I assumed it was understood that it was irrelevant since the 2020 info was on the page and I can't see a reason both census summaries need to be on the wiki page. If a user is interested in previous census information, they can refer to the citations. CLEhobbit (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because your edit summary did not explain why you removed the content. In the future an edit summary explaining why the content was removed would be helpful, thanks! GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I understand, thank you! Do you agree it should be removed, or should I put it up for debate in the talk page? CLEhobbit (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It should be discussed on the talk page. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 19:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see my replies, re: NRPS edit

Sent you sources for edit you reversed 67.223.109.5 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Valaurum (March 5)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Valaurum 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, GrayStorm! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo - initial description

Can you put someone look at this page because I'm fairly certain something about "Kaiden eating children" shouldn't be there??? 73.242.107.26 (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the article, but I don’t see what you’re referring to. it might have already been reverted. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 22:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)