I look forward to collaborating with this great community of Wikipedians. Mamani1990 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mamani1990,

You have only had this account for two days and you are already tagging articles for Proposed deletions! That is not a process that an editor as new as yourself would even know about much less provide a cogent edit summary explaining their rationale.

Please disclose your former accounts that you have used in the past on your User page. If this is an alternate account of an existing registered account, please also make that clear on your User page. Otherwise there might be suspicions of sockpuppetry or that you are evading a block on a prevous account. Thank you, in advance, for being forthcoming.

If you have any questions on alternate accounts, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz,

Thank you for your comment. I've been a Wikipedia reader for a few years and wanted to start contributing. I reached out to my mentor as suggested by Wikipedia about my recent proposals for deletion: User talk:Chaotic Enby#Question from Mamani1990 (13:25, 3 January 2025). I carefully read the proposed deletions article you reference along with the notability criteria pages on Wiki and Googled the things I didn't understand in order to make my edit summary. It honestly is not that hard. The articles I selected for the Prod were suggested on my Wiki homepage. I realize now that I went too fast on a few of them and have learned from this mistake and thanked the other contributors. Hope this clears things up. Mamani1990 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're proposing deletions by hand! I applaud this, however, I also want to save you a lot of time: have a look at WP:TWINKLE for a script that will make this much easier on you. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering!

Thank you so much for your comment and tip, I really appreciate it. My mentor Chaotic Enby mentioned this to me yesterday as well. I tried to add it in my gadgets but unfortunately, this tool is only for autoconfirmed users. Hence why I did it manually on those articles. I feel like maybe I ruffled some feathers so I am going to stick to the simple stuff for a while 🙂. Mamani1990 (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, forgot about that. You'll have to wait a couple days more, that's true. As for ruffled feathers, well, I'd say don't worry about it. So long as you're willing to learn and not making the same mistakes again and again after having things pointed out to you, you'll do fine. I started sending articles to AfD on my second day editing, myself, and I think it was pretty good training. If you'll take some advice there: AfD can feel pretty hostile, but you don't have to match that energy, and in my opinion it's both more productive and more pleasant if you approach it like a discussion (as it's supposed to be), rather than an argument. You'd be surprised at how much you can improve things even just by saying something like "does not appear to meet WP:NPROF" or "I can't find evidence the subject meets WP:NPROF" instead of "doesn't meet WP:NPROF".

Of course, sometimes things are spam created by editors with a clear conflict of interest and an addiction to ChatGPT. It's fine to call a spade a spade. Special:Diff/1267208797 is a really helpful and clear !vote, by the way. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Editor's Barnstar
		For taking the initiative to learn complicated procedures like deletion on your first day. Thanks for your contributions, and welcome! -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed prod: arguably notable as a songwriter and session musician. Please take to WP:AfD for discussion. Proposed deletion and speedy deletion are only for non-controversial purposes, where there is no likelihood that any reasonable and experienced editor would keep the article. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a mess, but that's not a reason for proposed deletion. Please go to WP:AfD for discussion. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully check edits when patrolling recent changes. This revert you did was incorrect because you revert it to a bad version, this was a misuse of the revert thinking it was vandalism. Recent changes sometimes shows constructive edits because it sometimes doesn't predict bad faith edits correctly. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you so much for the tip and the diff. I understand now. Regards. Mamani1990 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing the same warning for Vinai Kumar Saxena just now. The IP you reverted was attempting to remove blatantly unconstructive changes and simply accidentally deleted more than they presumably intended. Taffer😊 💬_(they/she) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good here! Kudos! 2A02:A310:E2A8:7F00:2D2D:7D9F:59BC:4240 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I think if the Noel Jeddore edits were the only ones that 74.103.207.121 had made, it might have been OK. But in combination with the Bigmouth buffalo edits — removing the infobox, changing the name to "Golden Marblehead" (which does not exist), and adding an incorrect IUCN conservation status — I'm inclined to believe that it's false/vandalism, especially since it's unsourced and unsupported by the existing references (from a quick skim). Iiii I I I (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I did give a reason for why I removed content, it was because the article was about the statue, and there was an entire section dedicated to the achievements of Amina herself, which had nothing to do with the statue. Protobowladdictuwu (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This unexplained use of tools for an inappropriate mass deletion was improper. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Witkoff&diff=prev&oldid=1268699745 184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous IP. As I stated, it appears to me that you're removing sourced information. You could've added to it instead. I gave a level 1 warning. If you feel this was improper and wish to add your material to this article, please do so on the talk page. If you feel that I am being improper by using Twinkle to mass revert your edits, then you can try to report me to an admin but I doubt it will pass. Good luck. Mamani1990 (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, anonymous Mamani. You made a mass revert. −3,895 Reverted 11 edits. Without any valid reason. Or edit summary. Using tools. A big no-no; it can lead to being stripped of tools. I'm happy for an admin to review what you did and explain it to you - but you can I expect look at what you did yourself. Mass deletion. No of properly added, RS-supported material, zero edit summary, using tools. It's not a question of it "passing" - it's facially improper. Tools 101. If you have a problem with any of those 11 edits -- and I see on your note to me you later indicated that I failed to leave edit summaries, which is obviously untrue - then explain yourself here. It's a good place to discuss it, as I see from the above comments that you are making similar errors on other articles. If you cannot understand my point, and prefer as you suggest that I involve an admin, perhaps User:Bearian (who I see left you a note above) can chime in. I understand that you are well-intentioned, but think that perhaps you need more seasoning before engaging in the use of tools if this is a pattern. Thank you. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please declare if your have a WP:COI , as this edit, appears problematic and what triggered my classifying as vandalism and reverting. I hit vandalism and then warning 1. I see you have reverted it yourself anyway. I would say your talk page reads more problematically than mine, but I digress good sir. I bid you goodnight. Mamani1990 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamani1990, that's just one edit. You also reverted Special:Diff/1268687882, which wasn't removing any unsourced info. I'm not sure why you think there's a COI involved here either. -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I clearly am in the wrong here, sorry @184.153.21.19 and @Asilvering. To clarify what happened, that one edit we are both referring to is what appeared on the "Recent changes" as likely problematic. Since I perceived it as removing a sourced article, I hit "vandalism" in the diff which reverted everything, not just this edit I perceived as improper. And removing a sourced article from Bloomberg about negative press regarding the casino the subject was involved in developing, could appear as a COI. The user in question has been repeatedly asked to create an account and chooses not to. This obviously triggers alarm bells. Mamani1990 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yep, watch out for that button. And be careful with "vandalism" - that doesn't include edits that might be questionable, or that trigger alarm bells. When we say something is vandalism, we mean pure vandalism, no chance whatsoever of a genuine attempt to improve an article. Something like replacing a whole article with "pee pee poo poo" or changing all the numbers in an article to "OVER 9000" or whatever. -- asilvering (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. Thank you. Mamani1990 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Asilvering. Mamani - to clarify for you, as I wrote in my edit summary "ce, should likely be trimmed further .. his involvement declined." I was simply trimming what remains an over-long paragraph about a project that he sold off, after the Covid epidemic delays. It was consequently cruft (even though accurate; and it wasn't negative press about the casino per se .. projects were stalled all over the country by Covid, which is mentioned .. still .. later) to include text about interim delays, and related information. No - I have no COI at all. Am just interested in the fellow as he's suddenly in the news. And as far as your suggestion that my "talk page reads more problematically than" yours, it does .. if you read through it .. appear that other well-intentioned editors presume that IPs are bad actors .. even though that's not really appropriate, and seems to blur their understanding of AGF, etc. If you read the entryimmediately prior to yours, you will see a fine such example. Anyway, this is cleared up, no offense taken, and now with ASilverang's assistance, you are well on your way to becoming a stellar editor. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this message. I appreciate it, and your encouragement. "You learn something new every day". Mamani1990 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As your mentor, seconding the fact that when reverting, it's also always good to check if the same user made other edits immediately before, as most anti-vandalism tools will revert them in bulk. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide a description for my change - it was that the passage is irrelevant. A random documentary arguing that he should have taken a plea deal isn't germane to his case or appeals 23.113.222.115 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's not whether you think it's irrelevant or not, it's the fact that it happened and is notable. It's not a random documentary, it's cited information. It's not about whether or not it's "germane to his case" - it's about what other contributors are adding to articles with sources. You can't just erase it. If you don't like it, I recommend you take this issue to the article's talk page, and find out who added it in the first place and have a conversation with them about it there. Regards. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]