User talk:SmolBrane

Hi SmolBrane! 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 GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome SmolBrane!

Hi SmolBrane. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the greeting! -SmolBrane (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Laplorfill were:

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.

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:Lex Fridman 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:Lex Fridman, 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.

Laplorfill (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the discussion at the podcast talk page—and this is a post about process, not inclusion of content:

• Please keep your general arguments to the section you titled "First-ever emergency podcast” is not DUE???". That is a regular talk page section, and you can make whatever comment you want as long as it's on the topic of improving the article.
• The RfC is for community response. Responding to others' objections is totally acceptable, but not responding to your own RfC. You did this at least twice, in the posts that start "Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe" and "I am surprised at the lack of input for this Vital article." That was my point in my last comment. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback; I am not seeing this reflected by WP:RFCBRIEF, which says “If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp.” I can't find a policy that says I can't reply to my own RfC. SmolBrane (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:The Joe Rogan Experience. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 18:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a diff, please. SmolBrane (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement here that "This isn't a 'Vital" argument(sic) in the normal sense of the word, someone simply nominated it at the lowest level of the 50,000 that should have a Feature Article. Frankly I think that there are many more important articles than this one" is not a collaborative one, and it is WP:TENDENTIOUS. We are here to build an encyclopedia. SmolBrane (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re your response above: Not collaborative? WP:TENDENTIOUS? And implying that Doug Weller isn't here to build an encyclopedia? I'm not sure if you're trying for some sort of irony by replying with such super-assumptions of bad faith to an actual warning that you need to assume good faith, or if you're just being clueless. In any case, you have been blocked for 48 hours for egregious and repeated bad-faith assumptions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi SmolBrane! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Someone deleted my comments on a talk page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, you can create a new thread. 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) 19:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you've tagged me on an admins page stating that I'm "doing shenanigans again"? Who even are you?

When you have a problem with an edit, it's not resolved by tattling to your daddy admin on his talk page, especially when Wiki guidelines haven't been violated. Welcome to Wikipedia small brain, the name suits you. Good to know you have at least some self-awareness. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The admin in question reverted you last time you removed this sourced material from this article. Don't edit war, and don't label content editing as minor. (I do regard self-awareness as a virtue so thank you) SmolBrane (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know I went ahead and revised the draft of Lex Fridman and published it anyway. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, thanks for the efforts; how were you able to do that, and is it likely to be reverted? SmolBrane (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my mind - but if you could help improve the article with reliable sources that would help. Right now I'm having a hard time finding other kinds of sourcing because so much of what he does is centred around YouTube. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Endemic phase of COVID-19 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Endemic phase of COVID-19 and Talk:Endemic phase of COVID-19/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Endemic phase of COVID-19 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Endemic phase of COVID-19 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] and pdf, you might be interested in this --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I haven't had time to review this carefully but it doesn't sound good! SmolBrane (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]