Hi Itcouldbepossible! 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 Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you reverted my edit on Zoltron. NIN points to a WP:Disambiguation page and I added a piped link to Nine Inch Nails. What article do you think NIN should point to?— Rod ^talk 17:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, I thought that it was a vandalism. Its good that you reverted it.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Please be more cautious about SD nominations. As best I can tell, all of your SD nominations have been reverted. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain me the reason.

• You did an A7 on Davey Whitney Complex and it was reverted minutes later. Subsequently, an editor added references.
• You did an A1, A3, A7 on Archidemis and it was reverted minutes later. All species are considered notable. Many articles are stubs with only one references, but that is not grounds for SD. Your note to the creating editor was deleted.
• You did an A1 on Wólka Modrzejowa and it was reverted a minute later. All centers of population are considered notable. You note to the creating editor was deleted.

Hope this helps explain. David notMD (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• the simplified ruleset and simplified manual of style
• do you have some questions? it may've been answered in the FAQ
• want more to do? the task center outlines great tasks you can do to improve the encyclopedia.
• need help? feel free to ask at the teahouse!
• want to write an article for something? check out your first article!
• want to learn how to work with wikicode? read the wikicode cheatsheet, then practice at the sandbox!
• you may want to join a wikiproject to collaborate in a specific topic of you choice!
• don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~ to insert your username & date!

as per request from my talk page. happy editing!  melecie  t - 09:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Melecie: Thanks a lot for this help. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors such as Possibly often have enough experience so as to bypass AfC (Possibly has done so MANY times). This does not mean that the articles are necessarily good enough - I agree with your recent AfD nomination - but advise there is no gain in mentioning lack of AfC as a reason. My hope is that Possibly will be activated to improve this stub. David notMD (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itcouldbepossible, as a new editor please read up on these WP guidelines WP:AFD and pay close attention to WP:BEFORE in the future if you want to continue to make deletion noms. You might want to try creating content for a while, it's really enjoyable to contribute to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind and voted KEEP at AfD after finding and adding a useful reference. In general, a good suggestion is to try to improve a flawed article before deciding on AfD. David notMD (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know how to create attractive user pages, but I hope to learn in the future." I recommend checking out Wikipedia:User page design center for some inspiration and its coding. It says it's inactive, but it still works perfectly fine. Panini!^🥪 13:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion @Panini!. I would surely check that out. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this discussion from here from Possibly's talk page, as it seems they are on a WikiBreak.

@Possibly: Hi Mr. Possibly I nominated this for deletion also because it did not go through AfC. ANd I don't think https://mocaga.org/ is a reliable source. It is clearly for promotion as clearly stated here [1]. They specifically want to place their artists in what they call 'a global context'. So that is why I thought that there must be a discussion about this page. You can also give your views in the discussion page. Have a great day and regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Itcouldbepossible, it seems that Possibly may be on a Wiki-break right now. Highly experienced users like Possibly have permissions to bypass AfC. They are well respected for their stubs on artists that are always properly sourced. My suggestion to you is to learn more about the encyclopedia, gain more experience with how things work on WP including deletion guidelines before nominating additional articles so as not to waste the time of volunteer editors. Also, you should not be messing around with other people's templates on their user subpages uninvited as you did here: [2] and here [3]. Netherzone (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Yes, I understand you, but he clearly stated that anyone can edit them, so I don't think there is something wrong in editing the template. And please can you explain me how you can say 'properly sourced' when an article has only 4 references, that too of websites that have been made for promotional purposes? Regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itcouldbepossible thanks for your reply. Their user page states If you have suggestions on how to improve the template, let me know on my talk page, or if you are experienced in such matters, just edit the template!; you are clearly not an experienced editor with only about 90 total edits. The courteous thing to do would have been to make suggestions on this talk page. On the other matter, the four refs substantiate the notable museum collections, and are not promotional. Netherzone (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone Ok, but you see many of the articles created by this user has only 4-5 sentences in them. And each of them has been created without Afc. So is that legal considering that an article must have at least a couple of sentences to qualify for an article. Please correct me if I am saying something wrong. Regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of a short "stub" article (see WP:STUB) is notable, per our guidelines for notability (see WP:N) and the sources are reliable (see WP:RS) and verifiable (see WP:V), it's fine. So yes, even very short articles on notable subjects are permitted. The user Possibly has been here for many years and is well respected. They know what they are doing and are trusted by the community for their expertise. They have made tens of thousands of edits to the encyclopedia. Please consider creating content and making improvements to the encyclopedia before rushing in to delete articles - that's just a suggestion. Netherzone (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone Ok, I take your suggestion. Actually I was a little confused about this article. I had seen many articles, that had little content in it, and got itself deleted. So I thought that a delete discussion must be started on this article. That is why, I did not send it for speedy deletion. I am also confused, about which sources are reliable and which are not. Some articles had many sources, but got deleted because they did not have reliable sources. So that's why I had made an XFD page for this article. Ok, but now I have made this mistake, what is to be done now. Please close the delete discussion, and remove the delete tag from the article. Tell me if I can help in any way. Waiting for your valuable reply. Regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved discussion here)

Why the rush to delete articles? It's fine to want to keep junk or promotional spam articles off of the encyclopedia, but even very short articles are permitted if the subject is notable per our policies and guidelines. I saw from your contributions that immediately after joining you added Twinkle and started marking things for Speedy Deletion, PROD or Deletion. Did you ever edit here before using a different username? I'm curious why, and how you even figured out how to do that - it took me a few years learn how basic things like notability WP:N, verifiability WP:V, reliable sources WP:RS work; and a long time to understand the policies and guidelines for the encyclopedia WP:PG. I'd suggest you study those four links carefully. Then try improving articles and even try creating an article - but I suggest taking the tutorial first.

It's great that you want to remove junk or promo from the encyclopedia, and fight vandalism, but first learn what is an is not vandalism. See WP:VANDAL. It is also good you are asking questions at the Teahouse, that's the right place to go for help!

As to the AfD for Linda Anderson (artist), if you read about the AfD Process WP:AFD you will see that delete discussions usually are closed 7 days after they are posted by an unconnected administrator. So just let the process play out naturally. It would be wrong to simply remove the tag because that does not comply with the process. Take things slowly, study, learn, and remember, being a Wikipedia editor is not a race or a competition.

Reliable sources WP:RS are things like major newspapers (not blogs or fan sites, or social media); academic journals, reliable websites (like museums; but not personal websites or websites that sell things like AppleMusic or Amazon). Hope that helps. Netherzone (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NetherzoneNo actually you know one thing. I have a friend who has been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years. It is on his request that I am not giving out his username. He told me things like Twinkle and other Gadgets, and inspired me about Wikipedia. Then I created an account. If you still don't believe me, then you can obviously raise a sockpuppet investigation, though I assure you that I am completely new to Wikipedia. And thanks a bunch for giving the links to all the important articles on Wikipedia. You know one thing, I have already requested for all the important Wiki pages. You can see that in my talk page. I am also thinking of creating a Wikipedia article, but am not sure where and how to start, I am especially confused about WP:RS. I had asked @Bonadea about suggestions. You can see the conversation on his talk page. If you can help me out in that matter, then please do so in my talk page. I really thank you a lot for showing your eagerness in helping me. Thanks a lot. Regards. Yours respectfully. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and good luck and happy editing. Netherzone (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am the maintainer of Muninnbot who leaves these "your thread has been archived" notifications. You recently posted on the Teahouse asking how to find the link to the archive. As I replied there, the notifications actually contain wikilinks to the correct archive sections.

Clearly, if you did not see that wikilink to the archive, other people will miss it, too. I would like to improve the template so that it does not happen again. Would you be so kind as to give me some feedback about the notification?

For reference, here is a permanent link to one such notification. If you already know something you would like to see improved, great, tell me! Otherwise here are a few question prompts:

1. What happened when you saw the notification for the first time? (Did you read it entirely, felt angry about it, felt interested, whatever?) What about the second (and third) time?
2. Why do you think you missed the wikilink? For instance it could be that
   1. it is in a part of the notification that you did not read
   2. it is not visible (short link, bad color contrast, etc.)
   3. it is visible, but it is not clear that it is a link and not just a random colored word
   4. you are not aware of what a wikilink is

Just to be entirely clear, the more bad things you can say about the notification, the better it is for me to improve, even if those things look unimportant or impossible to fix to you. I am not looking for an answer of the type "sorry, I was sleepy, I should have seen the link" because even if that is true, good design should not make it easy to miss the link when the reader is sleepy. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan Hi and thank you for worrying yourself so much in such a small matter. It means a lot for me. Your design is really nice, but as you said in option 2, it has a bad contrast, and it is quite easy to overlook it. Yes I know what a wiki link is. It is a clickable link, that redirects to the article page. I just said all these because you said that you want to improve. Actually you see, the notification that your bot left on my talk page, it had many Wiki links. So I overlooked it because you see all the links are blue in colour, so I thought it to be another Wiki page. But now I saw it. Anyway, it was my mistake, but see if you can make the background of the notification more prominent. I would really be delighted if you would take my suggestion, as it would not only help me but also other Wikipedia user. Thank you for bothering yourself so much. Regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the bad contrast is a thing, but from your post I also gather that there are too many links in the notification and this might contribute to the important bit being lost. I will try to improve that.

Thanks a bunch for the feedback! I am not a designer / user experience person at all, so trial and error is really all I can do. It is really hard to get feedback, because on the one hand experienced users have an easy time understanding the notification even if something is wrong with it (they know what archival is etc.) and on the other hand new users would not know where to ask/complain if they fail to understand the notification. That is why I "jumped on you".

In my opinion it is not such a small matter - maybe it is not very important to you personally, but the bot is leaving around 400 notifications per month (when it is working), so the impact of a small improvement is multiplied by a big number of users reading a notification. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: It may be worth looking at Dodger67's point at WP:Teahouse#Wikipedia Teahouse Archive. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Itcouldbepossible (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Blablubbs: Can you please explain me what's going on. I am not related to either socks, and I have no sock account, then why have I been blocked?? And also I see that an unregistered user, has raised the request for investigation, and that too he or she is blocked. What will happen now. I clearly state that I am in no relation with DasSoumik, or with any other sock. Please look into the matter. Waiting your valuable reply, and waiting for your judgement. Regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

With the consent of the blocking admin, I have lifted your block. I strongly suggest staying away from Articles for Deletion until you have built up a substantial history of contributions. Yamla (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold. --Yamla (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respected @Yamla, can you please tell me why I am blocked. I have no relation with DasSoumik. And before confirming about sockpuppetry, why am I blocked. I see that a checkuser has been requested, then why is no one confirming the same. I see that you are also a checkuser, then please check my account. I don't like being blocked just for nothing. I hope you would look into the matter. Regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover @Yamla, all the things that are being written on the investigation page, is being written by @Amkgp, a sock. He thinks me of being a sock of DasSoumik, and I am not a sock or meatpuppet. He is doing all this, because he was blocked, and this clearly states violence against people, whom he thinks is behind the cause behind his block. So please block that sock indefinitely before he does or says anything wrong. And please also look into my matter. Should I raise an Unblock Request in the UTRS system??? If you say 'yes' then only I will do it. Please guide me in this matter. Regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla @Blablubbs What is happening with me is really unfair. First I get blocked for for being thought to be a sockpuppet, which should not be the case. No one can block me before I am confirmed sockpuppet. Secondly, I cannot defend myself in anyway, except to write here. And its really funny that the sockpuppet investigation request has been raised by another sockpuppet of @Amkgp, and still the administrators are keeping their eyes closed. Though it is wholly a wrong guess of being a sock of @DasSoumik, he is actually showing revenge against another user whom he thinks to be a sock of his enemy, and he is doing all this because his high profile Wiki account got disabled for editing logged out. My question is, on the first hand, why is the administrators or spi clerks accepting a checkuser request from a sockpuppet?? And secondly, even if it has been accepted, then why is no spi clerk bothering to investigate. And in the midst of all this, I am being blocked, just for nothing. Neither can I defend myself on the sockpuppet investigation page, nor can edit in Wikipedia. And I am sure for one thing, that if I say too much revolting things, then my talk page access will be revoked. But this should not be the case. Everyone here should have same value and priority - administrator and new users are thought to be the same. Then why is that not happening in my case. Please, I beg everyone in Wikipedia, and also those who are watching this talk page, and every user with checkuser rights, I am not telling you to unblock me just like that, but I am telling you, please please follow the legal way of checking the user, confirm everything that you can, and please unblock me. Please. I hope that everyone would respond to this pleas of help. Regards to everyone. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Itcouldbepossible!

Hello, I'm 2402:3A80:1A4C:6E8:43C:D3FB:1E1F:28CA. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Piet van der Sluijs have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. It's a ((stub)) and has adequate citations. Same is applicable for Dré Saris. Thanks 2402:3A80:1A4C:6E8:43C:D3FB:1E1F:28CA (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is better that you create an account. Why make ip edits? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I think you are a sock of @Amkgp, wait, I need to confirm. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 15:56, 24 November 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 Peter Alexander (fashion designer). Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 07:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea Ok thanks, I thought that was a vandalism, since it was reverted and added many times. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are new and want to learn and practice. Visit (Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure). Thank you. 2402:3A80:1A4C:6E8:43C:D3FB:1E1F:28CA (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Testing Draft Script, is not suitable 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. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very, very high percentage of your edits are not in the pursuit of improving articles. Rather, much of it is Teahouse, your Talk, other editors Talk pages... Early on, your dove into Speedy deletions and AfDs. I've seen that you have also deleted content from articles wherein adding a Citation needed could better serve. Please consider a bit more focus on improving existing articles. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD What should I do then, how should I improve existing articles??? I don't know have knowledge on most of the content in other articles. I always like maintenance work. Can you please tell me, how I can also add content to other articles?? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your comfort zone is maintenance, stick with that. I would still suggest avoiding deletion (Speedy, or AfD nominations) for a while. If you wish to become more familiar with AfD's you could follow existing AfD's, and then start participating (Keep, Delete, Comment), to see if your thinknig aligns with other AFD participants. David notMD (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD Ok thanks, at the very beginning I thought that I would send things for deletion if I don't like them, but I was wholly wrong. Many corrected my mistake, and said not to send for deletion unnecessarily. But what you are saying is long back. I had sent two articles for deletion, because one was created by a sock (at that time, I did not know that articles created before a user is identified to be a sock does not fall for deletion) and the second I had send for deletion, because there was very little content in that. (I later came to know that size of content does not matter, if it is supported by reliable sources, then it is good to be an article). But which AFDs are you talking about??? All these things happened long back. From then I did not send any other article for CSD or AFD, except some of my test articles which I created to test the movetodraft script by Evad37, and some redirects which automatically got themselves nominated for R2 deletion criteria. So what articles are you talking about??? Could you be a little more clear. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2021 (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 Theroadislong 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 (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:Shreema Bhattacharjee 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:Shreema Bhattacharjee, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft needed more work before submitting. David notMD (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD Ok, I am trying to find sources. Can you help me out, or atleast tell me from where I can seek help. Obviously I will try myself, but I would also like to take some help. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outside my areas of interest and knowledge. This may be a WP:TOOSOON situation if those are all of her acting experienes. David notMD (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD No she has done much than that. Anyway thanks, and happy editing. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian Births has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 06:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, I know that Yamla unblocked you accepting that you're not a sockpuppet, but the kind of edits your doing are clearly not productive and wasting everyone's time and your editing privileges will be revoked if this continues. —SpacemanSpiff 06:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @SpacemanSpiff Why, am I doing something wrong. I am categorizing all the people who are born in India, can you explain what I am doing wrong. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you can't understand the purpose of categories, then you shouldn't be creating them. People have tried to help you out, but you refuse to listen and are just wasting other people's time, finding new ways every time. —SpacemanSpiff 07:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @SpacemanSpiff How am I wasting time? I understand the purpose if categories, but what I am telling is that why will my category not serve a purpose. And how did I refuse to listen to them?? I am following what people are saying, then in which way am I wrong? Please tell me. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • As David notMD said above "A very, very high percentage of your edits are not in the pursuit of improving articles." _{(corrected quote at 12:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC))}. Now if before creating this absurd category, if you had read our policies on categorization, you'd know why this makes zero sense and is an unwanted waste of other editors' time and effort. You can't expect people to tell you at every task what to do and what not to do. This is a collaborative encyclopaedia relying on volunteers, if you can't respect that by going through our policies and guidelines, then this is not the place for you. I don't buy this innocent act right now, you seem to be perfectly capable of learning things here if you want to. —SpacemanSpiff 08:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • SpacemanSpiff is correct. If you see no problem with this category, it's time for you to stop editing Wikipedia until you've had a chance to read our policies and better understand how things work. If you are being intentionally disruptive, it's time for you to stop, immediately. --Yamla (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • At the deletion discussion, there is mention that categorizing people by nationality exists. That connects to where they are when becoming notable. Birth location has no connection to notability. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          @David notMD Ok thanks David. I surrender my mistake. From next time, I will ask everyone out here, before I do something. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          @Yamla I am in no way being intentionally disruptive. I thought that I could categorize people to where they are born but then I got the point that Birth location has no connection to notability. And one more thing, could you possibly tell me what type of edits I should make, as being new here. Or what you call in wiki language "novice". Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        @SpacemanSpiff Ok please forgive me this time. From now on I promise to ask everyone before doing or creating something new. Thanks and Regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Itcouldbepossible,

I saw your response to your category being nominated for deletion and there is one thing I wanted to explain to you. Wikipedia has existed for 20 years. I believe there are around 2 million categories. If you think of a category, it probably already exists or it doesn't fit into the existing Wikipedia category structure. For example, Wikipedia doesn't classify people by where they are born but by what their nationality is.

Most newly created categories have to do with new events, like elections or the Olympic games, things that didn't exist before this year. If you are creating an article and want to add categories, look for existing ones that would be appropriate. One tool that can help is Wikipedia:HotCat which will suggest existing categories. Please do not go overboard with it, like any tool, it requires judicious use.

Your enthusiasm is great but, again, Wikipedia has been around for 20 years and over that long time, it has created policies and processes that have helped it become one of the biggest websites. While we always need new articles on notable subjects, do not try to do things in a way that conflicts with the way things work here. That takes a while to learn (sometimes years!) so go slow and be patient. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Liz. Thanks for your suggestion. Actually I did not know that such a category existed, and also I did not know that people are sorted according to where they become notable and not where they are born. So it was my mistake to create such a category. You may delete the category. Thanks and Regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Yes I sorted using HotCat, but I just copy pasted my category name to the search bar of the HotCat category search and then pressed enter, and then it automatically inserted the category to the page. Anyway thanks for guiding me. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itcouldbepossible! 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

-- 09:15, Monday, November 29, 2021 (UTC)

No worries! Now let me be the first to give you a cookie too. I love to give out cookies and other goodies to non-troll, non-vandals that are helping to make the encyclopedia a better place! ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 14:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue Thanks for the cookie. You are too good. Support me like this forever. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 14:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Marcus Satterfield, you may be blocked from editing. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at your contributions, and I don't believe that you intended to vandalize the article. But please take a look at the diff you restored. You reverted an IP editor who was removing vandalism from a BLP. Please be more aware of the content you're restoring when you revert another editor. Schazjmd (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd Oh, I am really sorry. I revert a huge amount of vandalism, that is why I sometimes tend to make mistakes. Yes thanks for telling me. It was indeed a mistake from my side, but I did not really want to vandalize the article. But please don't select the auto warning while warning people. Because see I had already got 2 warnings and this is my third warning, and all the warnings were merely because I reverted a wrong edition of an article. Please give me a general note, as people will think me to be a criminal and soon an administrator will block me for my disruptive editing. I hope you understand my position. Regards. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this edit since it was not an error/vandalism but is used to bold headers. Be careful next time. Happy editing. 2402:3A80:6EA:A3C2:8C2A:C25B:359E:B54 (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you get trained in vandalism if you love to do it. Visit WP:CVUA. I also corrected at one of your files File:Kudumbavilakku TV show poster.jpg. Never use " I will use", "My article" for files description etc. because in Wikipedia you are never an owner as per WP:OWNERSHIP policy. Please note, I am a random IP editor who came by your edits while updating some articles. 2402:3A80:6EA:A3C2:8C2A:C25B:359E:B54 (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hey anyway thanks, but I already know WP:CVUA. And thanks for correcting my edit in Shree Krishna Bhakto Meera. I thought that a ';' was a vandalism, I never knew it was used for bolding headers. Also thanks for correcting my description in Kudumbavilakku poster.

But two things you said here are not true. First of all you are not a random IP editor who came by my edits while updating some articles. I am noticing from a few days that you are following me or seeing what I am doing, or in simple terms, you are keeping an eye on me, my talk page, and my contributions, obviously which is not an offense. I saw that you had also written your review in the category deletion of the category which I had created. I am just rectifying what you are saying, so that when other editors come to my talk page, they don't get confused. So what you said was not correct.

And secondly, you are also not a random IP editor, you are actually an extremely experienced user, or rather @Amkgp in disguise. You have been blocked for being a sockpuppet, so you editing anonymously. I know by the first 16 bits of your IPV6 address (2402:3A80). Anyway, that is not my problem, whoever you are. You are helping me and guiding me, and I like that. If you disturb me, disrupt my editing, or do anything that I don't like, then I am surely going to take steps against you and report you to WP:ANI. But if you are doing good to me, and helping me, then you don't have anything to worry, I will regard you as my friend then. So you are good to go then. Happy anonymous editing then. Thanks and Regards. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 12:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Kani Shawl, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Begona Maestre, is not suitable 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. bonadea contributions talk 08:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add machine translated text to mainspace. If you want to base an article on a machine translation of another text, you must revise it thoroughly before moving it to article space. It is almost always much more difficult to create an idiomatic English text by using a machine translation, but that is up to you; just be aware that you are creating extra difficulties for yourself! And finally, a translation of a Wikipedia article in another language has to be attributed. Help:Translation has more information. --bonadea contributions talk 08:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea Why do you say that is machine translated? I know and understand almost 7 international language other than Bengali, Hindi and English. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 08:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea And ok, I forgot to attribute it. Thanks for saying. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 08:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bonadea. I did not create this article. I just translated it from the Spanish Wikipedia. So then how can I find references on that article?? Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 08:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: The actor needs to meet English Wikipedia's notability guidelines to be included here. You will need to cite reliable sources to support her inclusion, though they don't all have to be in English. I see that her article in Spanish Wikipedia also has a warning about needing more reliable sources. If you can't find reliable sources, then I'm afraid she may not get an article here. The English translation in your draft does also need quite a bit of polishing and tidying up. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 08:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Thanks for your suggestions. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 08:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You know what, I'm done putting up with this. This was nothing more than a dump of machine translated text. As I said before, you're just making everyone waste their volunteer hours on here by having to clean up your messes. Any further disruption and you will be blocked. Although, if someone else thinks enough is enough and you should be blocked now, that's fine by me too. —SpacemanSpiff 08:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @SpacemanSpiff Ok, so what type of edits do you want me to make. When I created a category, you proved that what I have done was wrong. I accepted that. Now when I translated an article, you are saying that is machine translated, and you are telling me I am disrupting. Even if I accept that, could you possibly tell me, what kind of edits, you want me to make?? See I am not insulting you, I am just telling you to tell me more clearly, what you want to say, as what you are saying is not clear to me. Why will I waste editors volunteer hours and what do you mean by 'mess'. Many articles, are sent to draft, and my case was also the same. So why do you think that I would be wasting hours. I just pressed publish in the Content Translation tool, and it created a page. I did not create it on my own. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 09:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I just pressed publish in the Content Translation tool, and it created a page. That means that you did not translate the article, and that you did create it. You are responsible for the content and the text you add in article space. The Content Translation tool is a tool. It does not create a text that is acceptable for article space, and it doesn't create articles. The actual translation and article creation is the responsibility of the editor who presses "Publish". --bonadea contributions talk 09:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bonadea I first translated the article, then pressed publish. I just did not press "Publish" just like that. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 09:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You pressed publish, you created the page, and you have to take responsibility for it. Slow down, really slow down, and learn what the community expects from a mainspace article. Read Content assessment and read lots of Stub- and Start-class articles as examples of new articles that can stay. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 09:08, 3 December 2021 (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 Bonadea was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Minimally rephrased machine translation of the es.wiki article, without attribution.

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:Begona Maestre 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:Begona Maestre, 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.

bonadea contributions talk 09:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They illegally kept money of their customers. Its basically a fraud company, as stated by their many customers. Add these lines in paytm wiki pages 122.168.35.147 (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing those, because it does not cite any source. You add a source, and then know one can remove it. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 09:29, 3 December 2021 (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 Bonadea was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Most of it is unsourced, and the text has not yet been fully translated from the Spanish WP article. The sentences that are in English are difficult to understand, and do not read like an attempt to create coherent paragraphs. There is still no attribution.

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:Begona Maestre 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:Begona Maestre, 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.

bonadea contributions talk 14:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itcouldbepossible! 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

-- 15:52, Saturday, December 4, 2021 (UTC)

Hi Itcouldbepossible! 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

-- 15:54, Saturday, December 4, 2021 (UTC)

Hi Itcouldbepossible! 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

-- 06:48, Monday, December 6, 2021 (UTC)

Hi Itcouldbepossible, thank you for wanting to help out with the many poorly written articles in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, even though you are clearly trying to copyedit in order to improve articles, the copyedits you have made don't always make the articles any better.

1. Here, you made several changes: you changed "oligarch" to "Oligarch" which is against the manual of style (common nouns should not have capital letters), "31 March 2014" to "the 31 of March 2014" which is also against the MOS (and the date style "31 March 2014" is correct and does not need to be changed), and you also added a grammar error to a correctly written sentence ("Russian oligarch Evgeny Lebedev" is correct, "Russian oligarch and Evgeny Lebedev" is incorrect – it is one person, Evgeny Lebedev, who is an oligarch from Russia).
2. Here, you copyedited an article that had a lot of incorrect grammar. It was almost certainly a machine translation from Russian, which should not have been accepted as an article back when it was created, since it was almost impossible to understand. Copyediting such an article can be difficult because it is not enough to make minor changes to individual words or sentences. You tried your best, but the change from "on the territory of Buchenwald (the largest concentration camp) flashes armed insurrection organized by international forces prisoners themselves" to "on the territory of Buchenwald (the largest concentration camp) flashed armed insurrection organized by international forces prisoners themselves" did not improve the text at all, because the original machine translation was so very poor. You cleaned up some of the phrasing in the sentences about torture and starvation in the camps, but changing "forced to work at the same time to exhaustion" into "forced to work at the same time until they were exhausted" changed one correct phrasing (work to exhaustion) to another grammatically correct but less idiomatic phrasing, while leaving the actual problem in place; another edit in the same sentence, "was performed over them the terrible medical experiments" which you changed to "terrible medical tests were performed on them", fixed a grammar problem (good!) but the tone is not ideal, and "terrible medical tests" is not quite idiomatic.
3. This edit is more mixed; the "Early life and education" section, which was basically just a list of schools and degrees, is better presented as prose, so I agree with your intentions there. In some ways the section is improved – but you need to proof-read it again, to remove stray words, fix missing spaces, and other minor issues. A slightly less minor issue: avoid over-using the expression "the year X". For instance, "from the year 1932 to 1936" is slightly awkward, and "in 1950" is just as correct as "in the year 1950". Not saying that "in the year X" is wrong, but it comes across as repetitive. To say that he "went forward to continue his education" is not idiomatic English – the previous phrasing, "continued his education", is absolutely fine. Further down, the previous text had "Also, he directed Plays for the Kumasi cultural center", which you changed to "He directed many plays for the Kumasi Cultural Center". Were you able to verify that in the source? I can't see that that source has any information about him, or about the Kumasi center, but I only see a limited preview of the book. Still, I wonder if the original "he directed" didn't actually refer to the fact that he was the Director of the center, since he was a politician and not a theatre director. He might also have directed individual plays, but I can't find any sources supporting that. The next sentence, which included the text "...acquisition of land [...] for the construction of the center and allowances to finance projects", you changed to "...and allowances required to finance projects", and I have to admit that I don't understand the original nor the new phrasing. The source says "and their sitting allowances on that same day for the cultural centre project to kick-start", which is also pretty hard to understand.

These are some of the things I noticed. Apologies for the wall of text, but I wanted to be as clear and specific as possible. The thing is, when someone copyedits a text, the edit is not all that helpful if other editors have to make new copyedits to fix errors introduced by the first copyediting! We all make minor errors from time to time, even when copyediting, but when every edit that tries to fix language errors actually adds new errors, it is a bit problematic. --bonadea contributions talk 13:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea I am really mesmerized by you. What talent! You took so much time to see and analyze my mistakes, and thanks for telling me all those. And I don't care about "a wall of text". You may write as much as you want, if I make mistakes, and you wanna correct them. Really I am spellbound. A huge amount of text, correcting my mistakes! You also cited each and every sentence that I changed. And, for one reason I like you among any other reasons is that, you don't 'bite the newcomers'. Any other who could have come across my edits, could have said, its too much, or you must be blocked or learn how to copy edit before you make another of your useless edits, or you are disrupting Wikipedia. But you also thanked me for trying to copyedit.

Now to get to the errors I made. I will address my errors according to the numbering you used.

1.I admit my mistake here. I sometime when come across text like "12 March 1985", it triggers my brain. Because normally I am not acquainted with such text. So, I automatically change to "12 of March, 1985". But, I will keep in mind these points, and remember that there is a manual of style to edit Wikipedia.

2. I got sort of crazy, when I saw such a page full of grammatical errors. So, I tried to change the grammar, but it was hard for me to understand also. I never knew it would be a machine translation. Anyway thanks for telling me. It was terrible correcting such a page.

3. I also got a little puzzled with this page. Like you said, it was also like a prose to me. So, I tried to change things. I had no other way than be repetitive with the phrase "in the year Y". I had to be repetitive, but I admit my mistake. I also admit my idiomatic mistakes. And the thing about source is that, I was "copy editing", I did not bother about verifying the sources. And the phrase " acquisition of land for the construction of the center and allowances to finance projects", I also did not understand it very much. So, I changed it to "allowances required to finance projects", which is again wrong. As I see it now, it should be written as "allowances required to fund the project".

And I also apologize for taking so much time, to reply to such an important and valuable message by such an important Wikipedia, who spent so much time to correct me. Yes, I admit the very fact, that copyediting is useless, if someone else has to correct the changes that I made. So that is why I always kept the edit summary as "tried copyediting".

Overall, thanks again for analyzing the mistakes, and telling me. And I again clarify "a wall of text" is no issue - you can write as much text as you want, everything is allowed if you want to help me and guide me.

I would also be highly obliged if you give me some suggestions regarding copyediting, so that next time I make a copyedit, it is not full of errors. Regards. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 06:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: In addition to Bonadea's detailed advice, I'll make a suggestion that expands on one I've given you before: Slow down. If you are not sure how to copy-edit certain passages, leave them until you have familiarised yourself with those particular style issues, or leave them for another editor to look at. In addition, to become a great Wikipedia copy-editor, you will need to get to know the Manual of Style very well – don't try to read it all in one sitting, but think of it as the essential reference and resource when copy-editing Wikipedia articles. Finally, our writing and editing can always be improved by deeper and wider reading. Read as much as you can across a wide range of genres and different styles of English, and where Wikipedia is concerned, read a wide selection of Featured and Good articles to get a better sense of the standard that we would (in a perfect world) want every article to reach. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 09:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh But, I cannot "slow down". Some say "don't go into deleting articles", some say "do and learn how to do maintenance work before trying anything else". Some people say, that my anti - vandalism work is not good. Then what am I gonna do? Yes, I know that I am going to fast, but then what to do. I don't remember who, but someone told me to do some thing to improve wikipedia, and not disrupt. But anyway, I admit that I am going to fast, and am making mistakes, but I am equally helpless. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 14:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: We give you all this advice because we want to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and help you become the best Wikipedia editor you can be. And becoming a better editor will take years. What can you do? Do less. Spend more time reading and observing and less time doing. (This may be good advice for life in general, not just Wikipedia.) Spend more time on your other hobbies and interests, because a wide range of interests is healthy. If you continue to rush headlong into editing, keep making mistakes, and ignore the advice you have been given, other editors will run out of patience and goodwill and you could be blocked again. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Claudine, I am not telling you stop giving me advices, and I also never said that I would not listen to you. Because that is not possible for me, not listening to experienced editors like you is obviously like killing myself. I know that you are helping me to become the best Wikipedia editor, and I know that can take years. And, I am not ignoring any advice that is being given. I always try to follow every advice that is being given to me. For example, you will see from my contributions, that there were three articles that had problems, if I had not listened to the advice, then I would have sent them for CSD, but instead I started a discussion in the article's talk page. Nick Moyes once said to give credit whenever I copy something from somewhere. And from then on, I give credit and also cite the page from where I copied the text, in the edit summary. So these instances suggest that I listen to the advices that are being given. ― Itcouldbepossible ^{Talk Log}_Contribs 05:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've reverted your requests to editors asking about the deaths of other editors. I suggest you focus on something more productive. Worm^TT(talk) 14:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned Why? Is it wrong to ask how those good editors died, I was just asking the cause. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 02:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok itcouldbepossible, I'll answer "why", if you can answer me these questions first.

1. How did you come to find, and select, these two specific deceased wikipedians out of all the recent deaths?
2. How did you come to choose those two individuals to ask about the deceased wikipedians?

Worm^TT(talk) 09:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the WP:DECEASED obituary. It has as much detail as Flyer's family were comfortable with including.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please change your current signature, as the current signature hides your identity and it fails the Wikipedia signature policy described at WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Thanks 2402:3A80:6CA:8D9A:D0DF:C98B:144C:E23E (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting the thing, I have changed my signature. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 02:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further, on this, per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P - You may not have "Complicated signatures contain a lot of code ("markup") that is revealed in the edit window, and can take up unnecessary amounts of narrative space, which can make both reading and editing harder." As a rule of thumb, if it does not fit into your preferences box, then it is too long - you should not be substituting you signature. Your new signature takes up 3 lines of wikicode, and is far too long. Worm^TT(talk) 09:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned See I did not make it on my own, and I also did not know about substituting. I learnt it from @Levi Op. ― Itcouldbepossible ^{Talk Log}_Contribs 09:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already messaged him there, too. The limit is there for a good reason, you are now adding half a kilobyte every time you sign, and making pages longer, and making people scroll further. Worm^TT(talk) 09:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned Yes, I understand. So what is to be done. Should I change my signature to as it was? ― Itcouldbepossible ^{Talk Log}_Contribs 09:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: Continuing the discussion from Helmut Leherb here as it's off-topic for that article ... It's partly a personal preference, but I'm not a fan of busy and colourful signatures as I find them distracting. (That's what the advice about "complicated signatures" is trying to say.) I also (speaking just for myself) think it's not a great idea to just copy someone else's code or ask someone else to make a signature for you. You will learn so much more by figuring out how to do it yourself. Don't forget that you have a sandbox where you can experiment with wiki syntax. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 09:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Yes, I know that, but I heard that @Levi OP creates signatures, that is why I asked him. ― Itcouldbepossible ^{Talk Log}_Contribs 09:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Worm has brought up the issue with Levi. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 09:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionhok lets see what the solution turns up as ― Itcouldbepossible ^{Talk Log}_Contribs 09:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a signature should be a small part of what happens here, it should be something that is useful to help you spot your username on a page and is unique enough to help people remember you, whilst also not being distracting. I've had long discussions with new users about this in the past, but put simply, it should certainly stay below the 255 characters. Worm^TT(talk) 10:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick question, why do you want so much stuff in your sig? Why do you want a link to your contributions or log, for example? Do you need a gradient colours? Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

with a minimal bit of tweaking, I've taken your sig to ― [[User:Itcouldbepossible|<b style="background:linear-gradient(45deg,#f05,#b49);border:2px solid #000;padding:2px;color:#ef4;">Itcouldbepossible</b>]]^{[[User talk:Itcouldbepossible|Talk]] [[Special:Log/Itcouldbepossible|Log]]}[[Special:Contributions/Itcouldbepossible|<sub style="position:relative;right:42px;margin-right:-40px;">Contribs</sub>]], which would render as ― Itcouldbepossible^{Talk Log}_Contribs, that's a lot closer to reasonable! Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned Well, the signature that you made is really nice. Ok, I think I don't need logs and contributions, so I am removing them. ― Itcouldbepossible ^{Talk Log}_Contribs 14:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned How about this new one. It has only the talk page link. ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 14:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned And this the signature that you made, though I have to substitute it still. ― Itcouldbepossible^{Talk Log}_Contribs 14:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned But, I like the gradient colour one without the log and contribs ― Itcouldbepossible^{Talk Log}_Contribs 14:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came to your talk page and saw someone else already comment on your signature, so I will add my two cents here rather than make a new section. The current colors in your signature give me a headache, are hard to read (especially "could"), and are immensely distracting. Please stick to 3 colors at most and try and make the foreground and background colors different in brightness to each other so as to improve clarity. Just because you like the gradient or whatnot doesn't mean you should have an annoying signature. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A. C. Santacruz Please tell those to @Levi OP, it is he who has made my signature. ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible, can I remind you that you are responsible for every edit you make, you are responsible for your signature. You are responsible for your decisions. It is down to you to make sure you adhere to the community norms. Whilst Levi OP can help you with making a signature, you are the one responsible for it, and if someone is raising good faith concerns (such as accessibility, you need to deal with them, not just point them elsewhere. Worm^TT(talk) 10:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned Ok, but I told him to tell the concern to him, since I am not acquainted in making signatures, or even changing its appearance. I am not blaming him for anything. Ok, I think your signature would make my username clear. Ok, and I must also deal with problems like accessibility myself, without involving anyone else. Thanks for letting me know this fact. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, users are allowed to remove messages, including warnings, from their own talk page. Moreover, it is inappropriate to falsely accuse someone of vandalism, and especially with a level 4 warning. Even if vandalism occurs, don't begin with a level 4. Wikipedia has a system of graduated warning levels. Please read WP:VAND for information about what is not considered vandalism, and please read WP:WARNVAND for appropriate ways to issue warnings.

Additionally, don't carpet bomb someone, even a vandal, with numerous warnings, as you did here. Leave one warning for a particular type of infraction (such as vandalism), but don't leave additional warnings unless the infractions continue after the first warning. Sundayclose (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose I knew the fact that users can remove messages from talk page, but did not know that warnings could be removed. I thought if warnings are removed, then how will users know if he or she is has vandalized during the past. And the idea of removing warning templates from the talk page is beyond imagination for me. That is why I gave a last level warning.

For the second case, I had to warn the user for each edit they made. At a point of time came, when I had to issue a level 4 warnings only, since he was still vandalizing even after level 4 warning. "don't leave additional warnings unless the infractions continue after the first warning" - I did not leave unnecessarily. First Tyler Burden issued the level 2 and level 3 warning. Then I had to issue level 4 warning because he continued his activities. I don't see I did that intentionally. He vandalized Ethiad Airways so I issues a level 4 warning, but he also vandalized Oxford Properties, and further. So I had to issue level 4 warnings.

Can you clarify my mistake here. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 08:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my message. Regarding the second case, I accept your good faith, but it's pointless and often counterproductive to issue numerous final warnings. Issue one warning, and then if it continues report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Regarding the first case, there was no vandalism, thus no warning was merited. As for jumping immediately to a level 4, even if there was vandalism, you start with level one even if something is beyond your imagination. The escalating system of warnings is widely approved by the Wikipedia community and shouldn't be circumvented because of our personal preferences. There are a few exceptions (such as serious WP:BLP violations), but it's best not to even give those kinds of warnings until you get more experience. I hope you don't mind my making a friendly suggestion: Slow down. You've edited a couple of months. For most of us, that's not enough experience to be so bold as some of your edits and warnings. You've received several comments about problems, and although some of those may have been unwarranted (I'm really not sure), it does indicate that your edits are attracting a lot of attention, and not always in a good way. Wikipedia will be here for a very long time. You have plenty of time to look around and learn how this place functions. There's no rush for you to make bold edits or hunt down vandals. I'm not saying you're acting in bad faith. But I think you and most other editors will enjoy being here if you start slowly and gradually become more bold with more experience. Just a suggestion. Have a great day! Sundayclose (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose Yes, I accept my mistake in case 1, but somewhere (I cannot link the diff), someone said to issue level 4 vandalism, when I seeked a block for someone, and the reason for not accepting the block was, "inappropriate warning issued". But ok, I accept what you say. And I reported the user to WP:ANI here.

I won't mind your friendly suggestions. Yes I know that I am going fast. Ok, I am trying to slow done. Trying to slow done. Really slow...slow. ― Itcouldbepossible ^{Talk Log}_Contribs 06:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea@ClaudineChionh This account was automatically created, so would it be ok, to report it. I mean what are automatically created accounts? ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 08:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[removing post which was copypasted from another user talk page, signature and all]

@Bonadea Ok thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: A wiki is a category of software that predates Wikipedia, though Wikipedia is probably the most famous wiki. Wikimedia doesn't "own" the word wiki, so I'm not inclined to worry about this username at this stage. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 11:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Thanks for clearing my doubt. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh But, the username contains the word 'wiki' which is prohibited here, I suppose. Please correct me, if I saying something wrong. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: Do you mean this? Usernames including phrases such as "wikipedia", "wikimedia", "wiktionary", "(WMF)", or similar if they give the incorrect impression that the account may be officially affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects.

As I said above, "wiki" (just those four letters) is a broad category and the Wikimedia Foundation does not own this word.

Or did you mean something else? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh No, I meant the statement, that you quoted above. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh And one more thing is that, can you please tell me, why I cannot add the reason with the ((subst:uw-username)) template. When I try to attach the reason, it comes out like this. Can you please explain me what is going wrong. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What went wrong was that you had invalid syntax. You had an opening pair of brackets [[, but not the corresponding closing brackets ]]. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. Thanks, it looks like this now. It will be like

((subst:Uw-username|Your username contains the word, 'Wiki' and it is misleading according to [[WP:MISLEADNAME|the username policy]]))

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Itcouldbepossible", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Your username contains the word, 'Wiki' and it is misleading according to the username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you.

PS. This is not a real warning. It is just a test warning, generated by the owner of the talk page. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S:- Moved discussion from Test Wiki's talk page. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itcouldbepossible! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, AFC, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]