User talk:Air on White

I will reply to new posts within 48 hours.

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Air on White! 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:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Roman Building, 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. Dan arndt (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, A History of Western Architecture, 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. Dan arndt (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently made some edits to psychogenic non-epileptic seizures that were reverted. The information I removed was incorrect and did not appear in the citations it was attributed to. I didn't go super in-depth in my edit description because I changed a decent amount and I know the description is meant to be short -- would it be better if I explained my reasoning in the talk page? The page as it stands right now is inconsistent and contains outright false information. 137.22.90.64 (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the talk page is the best place to explain your changes. Air on White (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 137.22.90.64 (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Air on White. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

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

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Fastily 02:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be offline for 48 hours starting now. Air on White (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the CTOPS policy and all topics that fall under it right now. I do not wish to be alerted unless I unknowingly commit repeated errors in these areas. Air on White (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You probably don't need to bother much more with Alexa6ray93. I have reported them at AIV as WP:NOTHERE due to personal attacks and previously deleted sandboxes. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be offline for three days. Air on White (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, everything's good now. Air on White (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Air on White,

Why did you create this page after it had already been deleted? Just so you could tag it for deletion again?

You are a new editor but you have racked up a lot of edits in a short time and you are getting involved in areas that new editors don't generally get into like administrative work. What previous accounts have you used to edit Wikipedia? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also DO NOT TAG USER PAGES for sockpuppets. Leave that to Checkusers and SPI clerks. There are reasons why they are often left untagged. I think you are getting in over your head here for a month old account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As implied by G6, my creation was obviously a mistake on my part. Please assume good faith. Air on White (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Air on White. You seem to be creating a large number of redirects. Some of these appear quite unnecessary. Is there a reason you are doing this? Could you please double check your recent work for errors. For example, Donald Trump (businessman), a redirect that you created, is currently redirecting to the unrelated topic of Jeremy Meeks. Thanks. — Manticore 04:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mass-created redirects for Meeks before I created the Trump one and forgot to change the target. I'll be more careful in the future. Air on White (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I create redirects is obvious. If you believe they are "quite unnecessary," go ahead to RfD instead of continuing our discussion here. Air on White (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Elli (talk | contribs) 03:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the deletion of [my interactions I had with people on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CWagner1), this user insulted me, tried to keep unsourced information online, and then ignored / repeatedly deleted any attempt at contact after an admin removed the incorrect information that I tried to get deleted. In addition, they were extremely uncivil while I only tried to understand what I did wrong.

The original interaction can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:City_of_Silver/Archive_11#Nordic_Resistance_Movement:_Azov_Regiment, take special note of the final message (as everything else was always reverted by them):

"If I review the current version and find it lacking, I'm going to reinsert the claim that Azov is a terrorist organization and reliably source it, something that should take me about ten seconds. Then what?"

while the whole time my issue was that there was no source whatsoever for the statements.

The version was edited by an admin who also said there were no sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nordic_Resistance_Movement&oldid=1164948224

CityOfSilver never did that, instead they insulted and bullied me [within the revert message](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CWagner1&oldid=1166353349) insinuating I’m a Nazi.

All I wanted was getting unsourced information that I saw repeated elsewhere off wikipedia, and the person who wanted that, *again completely unsourced*, information to stay insulted me over that.

If bullying in commit messages is fine, then I prefer to keep a list of users who attack me.

If you are concerned about bullying and have already asked CityOfSilver to stop, the right step is to create a thread at WP:ANI. My talk page is not suitable because most people are unaware of it. Do not create a list of other users to accuse them of bullying because that is divisive, polemical and does not make you look good. Air on White (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I wrote here because that’s where the message referred me to. WP:ANI is indeed useful, I only created the page on my profile because I felt helpless. CWagner1 (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia! From a user that never really gives barnstars :) Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 12:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:AhnafShahriar25/sandbox seems to be a legitimate userspace draft about a chess opening. If appropriate references are added, it may be eligible to be moved to article space. I removed the speedy that you added. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: There are reasons why this is not a viable draft and should be deleted under U5:

1. An article already exists, Caro-Kann Defence.
2. There are no references.
3. It is written like a chess help guide rather than an encyclopedia article.
4. The first paragraph is obviously a barely paraphrased copyright violation of [1].
5. Despite the user having 153 edits, almost all of them have been to userspace drafts.

Air on White (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not an admin, your removal of the template cannot be considered a valid declination of it, and I will readd it. Please do note that you are not an admin when you perform such quasi-administrative actions just as you would with closing deletion discussions. Air on White (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only the copyvio issue could justify speedy deletion. Apart from that, leaving the editor a note saying "Caro–Kann Defence already exists. Perhaps you can improve the existing article." (or perhaps an {{AfC comment}}) would have been appropriate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor in good standing can challenge a speedy deletion by simply removing teh speedy deletion tag. The fact that we already have an article on that particular chess opening is not a reason for speedy deletion and certainly not a web host violation. Editors have quite a bit of leeway in the use of their user space and trying out editing in a sandbox, which is what appears to be happening here is a legitimate use of the sandbox to practice editing. I see that there is an implication that the sandbox is a copyvio. If so, then you can tag it G12 but it does not meet U5. -- Whpq (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HI, regarding your recent revert at hourglass figure: while the source may mention a "slender waist"; that in of itself is not an "hourglass figure". We can use our imagination to wonder what this fictional woman might have looked like; that is beyond the responsibility of a Wikipedia editor. I mean, for all we know, this hypothetical woman had a narrow pelvis. If the source doesn't mention an hourglass figure specifically, I think it's just more clutter in the article that is specifically about hourglass figures, and WP:NPOV. Your thoughts? 199.102.118.90 (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the whole section seems to be OR and SYNTH from sources that don't use the term "hourglass." Probably best to just delete everything that can't be reliably sourced? Air on White (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edits because you claimed I didn’t leave an edit summary.

I did leave one.

Please don’t abuse your power. 24.153.50.101 (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that your edit lacked an edit summary is automatically included with the warning template Template:uw-delete1. There appears to be nothing wrong with the section you deleted within the swath of random "in popular culture"-style trivia. Air on White (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that Jocer sock - he's been a major thorn in my side the past few weeks. Have a good week!

Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today, User:Bernardo.Malfitano has shared a little about his first experiences with Wikipedia, and why he's disinclined to keep contributing. I do hope you'll read it.

Elsewhere, you have asked me to explain what you did "wrong" in this incident, and although I don't see this in terms of right/wrong absolutes, I am happy to explain why I think your actions were unkind, unwelcoming, and unhelpful both to the user and to Wikipedia:

1. Your tagging of User:Bernardo.Malfitano's user page with CSD:U5[2] was incorrect and unjustified under the CSD and NOT policies, and inconsistent with the documentation of the template you used.
2. Your giving BM a COI notice[3] was grossly disproportionate under the COI behavioural guideline, especially given some of the language baked into the template that you used.
3. Carrying out the above two actions as a brand-new user's first interactions with the editing community, without explanation or assistance, was hostile and confusing and not kind or patient under the BITE behavioural guideline.
4. Nominating the VanGrunsven RV-2 article for deletion[4] as a first recourse was inconsistent with the EDITING and DELETE policies, especially when it appears that you did not even view the sources provided before dismissing them, and when you do not hold yourself to the same standards of demonstrating notability.
5. Making that nomination, again without any other communication or discussion, and in under 24 hours since the article's creation, was also not kind or patient under the BITE behavioural guideline. Given the improbability that you stumbled across the article by chance and not because you were following Bernardo around verges on "hounding" under the HARASS policy.

I also note that at no point have you seemed to question the appropriateness of the approach you chose (much less apologised to Bernardo, or indeed attempted to communicate with him in any way other than automated templates...) Objectively, it appears to me that you have been unable to tell the difference between a "spammer or COI" and "behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules", even after repeated interactions with him.

If you do intend to continue as a patroller, I urge you to be more careful in future, more patient with newcomers, and more open to the possibility that you might have made a bad call instead of doubling down. None of us are infallible, and as I've said elsewhere, I have no question whatsoever that your intentions have been good. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for calling out this behavior. 24.153.50.101 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]