Please read this box first! Welcome to my talk page! Questions, information, warnings? Say it here! Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, please sign your topic by placing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the very end, and please remember, assume good faith! You can click here to start a new topic.

An article you recently created, Fern, Iowa, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Interstellarity (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2020 (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 Sulfurboy 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. 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:

We need to see a reliable source showing that this place was once populated.

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:Fern, Iowa 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:Fern, Iowa, 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, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse! Having an article 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fern, Iowa. Thanks! Zanimum (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fern, Iowa, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the 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!

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on starting Cucumis prophetarum, a nice little article. If you ever need help with taxoboxes or categories or talkpages or references then let me know but leaving a message on my talkpage and I can take care of it if you want. All the best. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garcinia leptophylla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Margin. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse

Thank you for creating Salacca affinis.

User:Herpetogenesis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Herpetogenesis)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse,

Please do not add nonexistent, red link categories to articles unless you plan on creating the category AND it fits into the existing Wikipedia category structure. Otherwise, you are creating work for other editors. If you have questions about categories on Wikipedia, you could go to Categories for Discussion or the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to David Marconi. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at David Marconi. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 22 September 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 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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Torbjörn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thurber.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dominica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domenica.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware and added parenthesesAllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dominica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domenica.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still aware AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Spahn (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Emir Shane (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no button AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Conference (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. Thank you for your work on Krief. User:Boleyn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please add references

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Boleyn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Reynell (disamiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Reynell (disamiguation) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 13 § Reynell (disamiguation) until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! There's no need to create dab talk pages if they will only contain the project banner ((WikiProject Disambiguation)). You can see the template's documentation for more about that. – Uanfala (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllTheUsernamesAreInUse! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:54, Thursday, March 23, 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Etiene has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 11 § Etiene until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AllTheUsernamesAreInUse

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Mattdaviesfsic and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Bodnick, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 18 § Bodnick.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Mattdaviesfsic)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Forgiato Blow has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable per WP:BIO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1907 disestablishments in Iowa indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Populated places disestablished in 1907 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Karl Fritsch indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nevan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the further explanation, and now understand your edits were not vandalism. However, the Nevan article contained referenced content on various instances of the name that should not have been wiped out with the redirect to a distinct subject (Nevan Krogan). On further review, a better practice is to use a hatnote while keeping existing content. A disambiguation page could be set up as future articles warrant. Dl2000 (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AllTheUsernamesAreInUse!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cucumis prophetarum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Anderson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AllTheUsernamesAreInUse,

Thanks for your work here. Just a short, friendly reminder that Category:Botanical taxa by author refers to the botanist who described the taxon, rather than the species. Gderrin (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Sambucus australasica‎, the species Sambucus australasica‎ was named by Fritsch, the taxon was named by John Lindley. Please discuss the change you made in the talk page of the article, on my talk page, or here. That way, we may avoid an edit war. Gderrin (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: Yes, and Sambucus australasica is the accepted species, which was named by Karl Fritsch, as you said. It was first described by John Lindley in a different genus, and that taxon has now become a synonym of Sambucus australasica. As I explained in my edit summary, the species as it stands was described by Karl Fritsch, hence the parentheses accrediting Lindley for the basionym.

Yes - Sambucus australasica is the accepted name. The species Tripetelus australasicus is a nomenclatural synonym of, and the basionym of Sambucus australasica, but the taxon was named by Lindley. Furthermore, Fritsch did not describe S. australasica in Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, he merely changed then name.^[1] (Bottom of the page, "Sect.VII") You are confusing "species" with "taxon". Please add your opinion to the talk page for the article so we can have other editors involved in the discussion. Gderrin (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Andreas Voss indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Andreas Voss (botanist) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name articles you are proposing to delete are notable because they appear on the top 10 list of one country or another's most popular names. I created definition articles to link back to the list at List of most popular given names. They're referenced, provide information, and have existed for over a decade. What is the point of deleting them? Yes, I am an inclusionist. In any event, I will oppose attempts to delete all of these articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookworm857158367:I personally don't think that being in a top 10 list for one year provides enough WP:SIGCOV for notability. This falls into WP:NOTDICT territory. Additionally, many pages that have existed for years get PRODed or nominated for deletion; they had simply flown under the radar. I will copy this to the Maneh talk page for an admin to review. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen the point of deleting articles that provide useful information when they are accurate and referenced. I have a major problem with deleting articles en masse. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookworm857158367:What matters is notability. If all coverage is WP:ROUTINE then it is probably not suitable for a Wikipedia article. One can always find information about it on other, more relevant websites. I occasionally hold these attitudes as well, but Wikipedia has these rules in place for a good reason. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree with that rationale. These rules have become increasingly bureaucratic and inflexible over the past few years and seem designed largely to discourage people from editing. In any event, I oppose attempts to delete those articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookworm857158367:Ok, well, you're entitled to your opinions, but I don't think discussions about the validity of the rules is really appropriate here, so if it looks like neither of us are going to change our minds, we should leave this discussion for an admin to review. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the same topic, this is unnecessarily personal. Please make comments about people's arguments, not about them. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel: I realize that now. I am sorry, sincerely. I can get kind of frustrated when I believe efforts to improve the encyclopedia are being impeded, but I should have formulated a much better response. I will think things through better in the future. I hope you can accept my apologies. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Bookworm857158367, as a response to your final response on the Pranvera AfD page, I kind of agree with the first sentence, that it can be, and I definitely agree with the second sentence. As for the third sentence, the "useful to someone somewhere" argument I believe kind of goes against WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and as for the last sentence, I guess I haven't been around as long as you have, but policy is generally community consensus and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Anyway, this argument will probably keep circling back to notability, so I don't think it would be very productive to continue it much longer seeing as the discussion is now closed. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, but thanks for your comment, These conversations do get a little involved but I don’t think any of it is personal. I think we just come at a subject with different viewpoints. You do good work. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bookworm857158367, Thank you, yes, I don't mean for anything I say to be personal. I will probably keep responding to most of your votes though my replies may be intended more for passersby. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the ((proposed deletion/dated)) tag from Qianliyan, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add ((proposed deletion)) back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! — LlywelynII 04:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In particular in this case, you may have been working in good faith from some monitoring software, but you (a) failed to fix the hatnote on the linked page to cover the information on the page you were proposing to delete and (b) ignored the talk page message that already covered your concern. It probably wouldn't affect any other of the pages I've worked on but it'd be better if you avoided similar mistakes in the future, just generally. Cleaning up is fine. Blanking content or ignoring existing discussion should be avoided. — LlywelynII 04:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:LlywelynII, I am not sure exactly what you mean in "(a)", as the hatnote at Qianliyan was already how I believed it should be, and as for "(b)", I did forget to check the talk page, which I am at fault for. I don't recall blanking any content, but I'm not sure if you're referring to me there. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you checked for (a) and just left it, then, yeah, nothing for you to do there. The 'blanking' in the talk page actually refers to the edit just before yours that turned the page into a 'one other' issue. I get it that your edits were entirely in good faith based on what you saw at the time. I do disagree that the other topics are non-notable or that readers are well served by blanking them and removing the dab page. Generally, you want to keep things tidy, but Wikipedia's general WP:BIAS means that even extremely notable Asian/African/&c topics fall by the wayside for some time. Even myself, I'm not invested enough to go source and create those topics. I just know they're notable enough to bear mentioning and future creation. — LlywelynII 04:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, AfD has been issued for this dab. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into AIFF. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: That makes a lot of sense. I somehow did not know this. Thank you for telling me and thanks to the other editors for fixing my mistakes yet again. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note at User talk:NmWTfs85lXusaybq. That editor decided to delete my advice, at [1]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Civil war among the disambiguation titans?

Jokes aside, I do hope they heed your advice. Their edits are overall valuable but they do seem to act with unnecessary haste sometimes. Courtesy ping Shhhnotsoloud. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AllTheUsernamesAreInUse how u doing? Jutos222 (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jutos222: Fine, thank you for asking. I noticed you had left a message on your userpage saying that you are leaving Wikipedia, then removed it. Is it true? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am not leaving....very much active....making deep research on articles to create Jutos222 (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jutos222: It's good that you've decided to stay and try to improve the encyclopedia. I have two things to tell you:

1. I have edited your sandbox to fix the grammar and make the wording more encyclopedic. When you feel you're ready to submit it for review, let me know and I will tell you how to do so. You can read it and get a feel of how you should phrase things in the future.

2. Concerning the incident surrounding Fisayomi Abebi, there are no worries. It's okay that you, as an inexperienced editor, don't know all of the policies and guidelines; your mistake was not heeding the advice of editors that are experienced. Listen to them in the future. I also saw that you blanked your user page and talk page. I won't ask you why, but in case you are worried, I can assure you that no one will hold a grudge against you for your mistakes. Anyway, happy editing. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the editing.... Can you run a test through the sources(References). Have notice that if a subject is notable but lacks good sources. It may not be accepted. Jutos222 (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jutos222: Well, some of them seem to be primary and I am not sure of the reliability of several others, but on the surface there does seem to be WP:SIGCOV there. I'm no expert, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this person is on the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Nigeria and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Film producers. Jutos222 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well that’s usually a good sign, then. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how to submit an article using Afc method Jutos222 (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To go through the AfC process, you would start an article with "Draft:" in the title, preceding the actual title. Once you feel that it is ready to be reviewed, you would click the button that says "submit for review". If the button is not there, then you would put ((subst:submit)) at the top of the page. You can also do this through a guided process called WP:Article Wizard. There is more information about it at WP:AFC. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks Jutos222 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shit Alltheusernames (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I assume you're referring to the similarity of our usernames, in which case it's no big deal. You could add a note to your potential userpage or something like that if you wanted to. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...this,[2] which of the many links actually lead to a discussion page about the proposed deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: You may start a discussion on the talk page of the article being proposed for deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that wants it deleted, after 5 years with no complaints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: As it stands, the DAB is not valid per WP:ONEOTHER. No complaints - what about the user who initially tagged it with with ((One other))? PRODs, like speedy deletions, do not come with a discussion page, and so relevant information/discussion can go at the talk page of the article in question. If you can find additional topics with their own articles or that are discussed substantially within another article that may be referred to as "National League Park", great. If not, let it be deleted. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This argument betrays ignorance of the origin of terms such as "League Park". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Could you clarify on why you're concerned with the origin of "League Park"? Also would you prefer that I keep pinging you? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "League Park" was used where there was only one professional team in a given city. The Phillies called their park "National League Park" because the American League also had a team in Philly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's a valid concern, though disambiguations really only exist for navigational purposes, and I couldn't find any additional topics within Wikipedia that seemed likely to be referred to as National League Park that would have brought the DAB to meet WP:ONEOTHER. There may be varying shades of gray, but for the most part it's a kind of black-and-white subject. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the "see also" at the top of National League Park will have to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, I noticed your note about joining the Wikipedia Library. Actually, access is automatic if an editor meets the criteria, account 6 months old and has 500 edits, which you do. If you click on the link above, then click on "The Wikipedia Library" link, it will take you the log in page and just click log in. The three I use the most are ProQuest, which has NYT archives, other newspapers and good for more contemporary topics, like in the past 20 years, Newspapers.com for more historical topics though it does have current LA Times, most of it is newspapers prior to 1985-ish and JSTOR which has various academic journals and find it good for historical topics and book reviews for academics. See WP:NEWSPAPERS.COM for how to make clippings and citations. For JSTOR, you can use the JSTOR link (ex. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25677052) which you can find in the JSTOR cite tool or on the first page when you download a document. ProQuest, as far as I know, you have to do manually but you can link to an article using Template:ProQuest. The ProQuest document id is in the "Details" page toward the bottom when you view a source which also has all the other info you need for a citation. I also add the template to the Id field when I cite an article. S0091 (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the tip. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]