User talk:Trillfendi/Archive 2/Archives/ 2#Wikipedia Etiquette

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history at :List of African-American firsts shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SummerPhD^v2.0 22:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Should I request admin close and CSD or take other action? AldezD (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If you spin out an article from another article, as you did at Ludwig Göransson discography, you must provide attribution so that Wikipedia remains compliant with its own copyright policy (WP:C). I've done that for you in this case, but for future reference, please follow the instructions at WP:SPINOUT. Bakazaka (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm Jax 0677. I noticed that you made a comment on the page :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin (2nd nomination) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

File:Information.svg Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is {{#expr:{{formatnum:86,738|R}} / 1000 round 1 }} KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

{{reply|Jax 0677}}

I tried using an archive bot to do it every 90 days but evidently it’s not doing its job. Trillfendi (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - I think I fixed it for you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

{{Talk archive}}

Actually, it's your responsibility to open a thread on the talk page of any article you tag, and there explain precisely what you find objectionable about the article and, preferably, propose specific changes that would address the issue. Simply tagging an article and walking away means that any editor can remove your tags at any time because they aren't valid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

:As Template:POV itself states, {{tq|Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.}} NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

: {{reply|Legacypac}} This “review” to me to me that I can no longer trust the process and simply have to do everything myself. If full fledged profiles in multiple prestigious newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Denver Post, her own regional reliable source and an Emmy nomination isn’t enough then... there must be an impossible standard for screenwriters to meet. Or maybe, just women. Trillfendi (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

::I can assure you my assessment has nothing to do with gender. It's just my assessment. You are welcome to move the page to mainspace yourself. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As you can tell, I expanded the article a bit. I'm thinking of nominating it for DYK (it's within the 7-day mainspace window for a "new article"), and since you went through all the trouble to bring the article into the world, I thought I'd run the idea past you. I'd nominate it so we'd both get credit, but would be happy to handle the actual nominating process, which can be irksome. Do you have any objections to a) nominating it for DYK b) having a dual credit? Bakazaka (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

{{reply|Bakazaka}} No objections. Go right ahead. Trillfendi (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

:After some some kind assistance from reviewer Bennv3771 the nomination passed DYK review (see Template:Did you know nominations/Bekah Brunstetter). Assuming we don't make changes that would trigger a re-review, it should slowly make its way through the DYK acceptance-prep-queue sequence over the next few weeks. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

:The content you just added duplicates material that was already in the article, and adds a lengthy quote similar to the one that was removed at the request of the reviewer. Why did you add duplicate material? Bakazaka (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

:: I simply didn’t notice it was there... I didn’t read new additions to the whole article, since it’s no longer a stub. Whoever wants to remove it, can. Trillfendi (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

::: No worries. Some of your text was an improvement over the existing sentence, so I integrated it with what was already there. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question: in this deletion discussion you placed a "delete" vote, indicating that the subject did not appear to meet NDOCTOR (with no link). However, I wasn't able to find a subject-specific guideline called WP:NDOCTOR anywhere; neither does it appear one ever existed. Could you explain what you were referring to ? Thanks! A loose necktie (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

:{{reply|A loose necktie}} Hmm... such a weird Mandela effect. I literally looked at it before voting but it appears that it was archived and that’s what I may have been looking at.Trillfendi (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

::Double weird: when I checked to see if there was an article called NDOCTOR I not only found none, but found no record that one had ever existed (i.e., there was no deletion discussion). I am pretty sure there are ways to "scrub" some undesirable material from Wikipedia's history, but can't think of why that would have been done in this case. Do you remember creating a link to it in that deletion discussion à la WP:NDOCTOR? If so, then the link was also removed somehow and your text was changed in the process. Like I said, double weird! A loose necktie (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am a Beatles fan, and have taken The Beatles (album) and Abbey Road to GA status; however I think this article is horrible and reads like a Daily Mail gossip piece that has no place on an encyclopedia. If you can come up with a convincing argument to AfD it, I am all ears. I am certain {{u|JG66}}, who's written numerous Beatles and George Harrison related GAs, feels the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

:I've not looked at that article in years, but "horrible and reads like a Daily Mail gossip piece that has no place on an encyclopedia" is precisely how I've always felt about it! I was astounded to see the article survived AfD in July 2014, and even with the scrutiny of a recent GAR, it still exists. Lawdie. (The only minor positive is that at least it's a combined article for Jim and Mary McCartney, whereas I believe they used to have separate pages here.)

:When I was writing Deep Blue (song) in about 2013, I did consider starting an article on George Harrison's parents, Louise and Harry, simply because of the coverage afforded McCartney's family members. But I couldn't justify its inclusion. And I don't think the likes of Jim and Mary McCartney would have a prayer if someone started them nowadays. On the other hand, I've started articles that (I trust) do merit a place here, and I can see good reasons for expanding Wikipedia's coverage in other areas: the Beatles' 1963–64 and 1964–65 Christmas shows, their US TV debut on The Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964, and (especially) the 1971 High Court suit. JG66 (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

::Spin off articles like those, and More popular than Jesus are fine, because they have sources that are specifically about those events and are the main topic of conversation. I don't think I've ever seen a single source that is actually about McCartney's parents, as opposed to just mentioning them in pieces about Paul (and, to a much lesser extent, Mike). Anyway, at the risk of being pilloried for canvassing, I have sent the article off to AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want to DM my email is {{redacted}}, don't throw my name out for stupid reasons, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealCanadian71 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

:: {{reply|TheRealCanadian71}} No, enough is enough. I’m not going back and forth anymore. Get in line or the administrators will handle you. Trillfendi (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

::: Is this a threat? I am literally trying to help and all I get is you trying to fucking bully me and I wont take it!!

:::: {{reply|TheRealCanadian71}} No, it’s not a “threat”. I’m just telling you what they’ll do if you don’t stop disruptive editing. You have to learn the rules of the website, if you don’t they will block you if they decide to. Trillfendi (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Give me the rules

Administrator here. I take no sides in a dispute, treat people equally (as possible), and so - chill out, the pair of you and stop arguing over a photograph. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

{{reply|Ritchie333}} It’s not one photograph, it’s at least 13 photographs they have changed in just weeks because of they “like” and I decided this was the last straw to keep witnessing this type of vandalism, so I reported it. 🤷‍♀️ It’s not about Rihanna, it’s about all of em. Trillfendi (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to distinguish between former and current Angels in a category. Categories are not meant to be continuously changing like this. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

:: {{reply|Jjj1238}} There’s no reason to include models who haven’t worked for the brand in decades with models who just became Angels within the past few years (or even week). Trillfendi (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

:::That is absurd rationale. Look at any other category --- :Category:American female country singers --- Kacey Musgraves just won a Grammy for her country album, but Taylor Swift has not released a country album since 2012. Yet they're both here because they at one point have both been country singers. It is the same thing for literally every other category. Barack Obama has not been moved to "Former United States Senators from Illinois", he is a part of :Category:United States Senators from Illinois because at one point he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois. I think you are misunderstanding what categories are for and I'd ask you to undo your edits. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

:::: {{reply|Jjj1238}} They don’t work for a brand.... Trillfendi (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

:::::Where is the relevance? If those two examples have not resonated with you then how about this --- :Category:The Voice (TV series) contestants includes both current and former contestants. Like, I don't know what else to say. This has nothing to do with working for a brand. You can go on to do other things in your career but they are still always going to have been Angels. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

:::::: {{reply|Jjj1238}} Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man. When media describes them as "former Victoria's Secret Angels" I do the same. It's an anomaly. It's a specific thing. List of Victoria's Secret models also differentiates between the current and the former by using bold marking. Trillfendi (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

::::::: Yeah, the media also refers to Obama as a former President, and this list you're referring to also refers to them all as Victoria's Secret Angels. It all goes both ways, which is why I set up a discussion for others to discuss this. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: {{reply|Jjj1238}} and someone who felt inclined could create a former presidents category... already 44 people who would go in there. 🙄 Trillfendi (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tpw}} :Category:Foo isn't for people who are currently Foo, but for people who are known for Foo. Presidents are known for being presidents, and Angels are known for being Angels, regardless of whether they're current or former. The list of current Angels is at List of Victoria's Secret models; I don't think it's a good idea if we split up every category into "current" and "former" sub-categories. That would create a lot of maintenance. Leviv ich 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::"and someone who felt inclined could create a former presidents category" this is just proving that you're not understanding what the categories are for. As {{Ping|Levivich}} pointed out, categories are not for people who currently are x, they're for people who are known for being x; this clearly demonstrates there is no need for a formers category. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Trillfendi. I noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adele&curid=13041163&diff=889181639&oldid=888928002 this edit] you made on Adele, and I'm not sure that is notable enough. Many women who become mothers take a break from their careers to take care of their children, and it's rarely, if ever, mentioned on their article that they're stay-at-home parents. I didn't want to revert your edit just like that, so I'm asking you for your opinion first. Thank you. Shuipzv3 (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

:: {{reply|Shuipzv3}} I said in the edit summary it’s trivial to me, but reliable sources ran with it and that’s obviously what she’s been doing for years now. It’s only as notable as when Lennon did it. Trillfendi (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = On 25 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bekah Brunstetter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bekah Brunstetter{{`s}} play The Cake, about a baker refusing to serve gay customers, was partly inspired by her father Peter S. Brunstetter's opposition to same-sex marriage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bekah Brunstetter. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-03-15&end=2019-04-04&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Bekah_Brunstetter Bekah Brunstetter]), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

}} Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

{{tb|Talk:Marisa_Miller#Advertisement}} I thought you would have removed your tag already. Do you still have issues with the article? Please reply on article talk page. -- 109.76.241.1 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Trillfendi, I have noticed that you are nominating some pages for deletion under A7 when a credible claim of significance is clearly and credibly asserted on them— including Sabine Ehrenfeld and Juliana Martins. Please understand that significance is a lower standard than notability — if you feel that the subject fails notability guidelines, the appropriate venue is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks. Zingarese talk · contribs 05:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

:: {{reply|Zingarese}} Anybody can say anything. They can say she modeled on the moon. One job doesn’t automatically create notability. As far as I’m concerned, credible claims of significance require actual sources and these have none! Trillfendi (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

:::: Dear Trillfendi, According to Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, claims don’t need to be supported by reliable sources; the fact that any claim of importance exists on an article disqualifies it from speedy deletion under A7, so long as it is a credible claim. You are correct that one job doesn’t automatically create notability — but we are talking about significance, not notability. Obviously, claims that are unsourced and seem so outrageous there’s no way they could be true are tagged with {{tl|Db-hoax}}. (The external links in both articles verify the claims of significance made.) If, to you, the Juliana Martins article doesn’t meet our notability guidelines — it may or may not be possible that it doesn’t — please start a debate at WP:AFD. Thank You, Zingarese talk · contribs 14:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

{{tps}} Hi Trill, I'm not sure if you're aware of this essay page WP:CCSI, but you might want to check it out and possibly join the discussions on the talk page WT:CCSI, where I recently started a discussion WT:CCSI##Athlete. I think the concerns for athletes and actors are similar. It seems like we have very little written on WP:CSD#A7 CCSI criteria, and I'm thinking it would be helpful for the community to flesh that out. Similarly, since unsourced BLPs can be WP:BLPPRODed, I've been wondering whether, for soccer players, a single external link to a statistics website like Soccerway should "count" as a source for BLPPROD. Similarly, I've been wondering whether, for actors/filmmakers, a single external link to the user-generated not-a-reliable-source IMDB should "count" as a source for BLPPROD. A related question is whether a BLP that plainly won't meet the applicable WP:SNG like WP:NACTOR or WP:NFOOTY should be considered an A7 candidate if the article is otherwise unsourced (e.g., no indication that it would meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG). I think it would be great to get more editors' input on those subjects at the CCSI page. Cheers! Leviv ich 15:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

With your recent edits, I would like to note your edit summaries have shown what can be perceived as incivility (specifically "Edit summary do's and don'ts") to not just newcomers but also regulars. I do not want to make this seem like a personal attack on you but a reminder to please be mindful of your edit summaries. I think you provide some amazing edits and articles within the subjects you frequent (I wouldn't survive trying to edit gossip content). – The Grid (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Trillfendi,

Thanks for creating Shanelle Nyasiase! I edit here too, under the username Citrivescence and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

{{Bq|please add notability info to lead}}

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Citrivescence}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Citrivescence (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Adonis Bosso".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Adonis Bosso|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Adonis Bosso".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Adonis Bosso|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you just hold back firing both barrels off about the McCartney parents article? I basically agree with pretty much everything you say, but calling it an "abysmal sack of bullshit" isn't particularly helpful. Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:: {{Reply|Ritchie333}} I said what I said. But really, at point I’ve been dealing with that situation for 5 months and no more holds are barred so it is what it is; I’m just gonna be blunt about it. It seems to be only way to get throught to people. That’s what that article is. A monstrosity. For anybody to be "fascinated" by it is beyond sense. Trillfendi (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Adonis Bosso.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

{{Bq|Thanks for your new article on Adonis Bosso.}}

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Just to let you know that your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aira_Ferreira&type=revision&diff=894251604&oldid=786395471 request for speedy deletion] was declined, as credible notability was asserted. If you still think it should be deleted, then I would suggest PROD or AFD. Please note that the article had already been declined for speedy deletion before, so the usual approach is to request by another approach (such as PROD or AFD).

One thing you should be aware of: when you do nominate an article for deletion by any method, you MUST state that the article is being nominated in the edit summary - please do NOT leave the edit summary blank. For more information about how to nominate an article for speedy deletion, please see WP:CSD. Stephen! ^Coming...

Hello,

I noticed some of your recent edits on the article Avengers: Endgame, and while I'm sure you didn't mean for it, some of them came off as impolite. This film is obviously a very contentious topic, however I encourage you to keep in mind Wikipedia Etiquette, specifically the core values of assuming good faith and the Wikipedia three-revert rule.

Thanks!

Bugfroggy (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Natalie Ogg.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

{{Bq|Thanks for your new article on Natalie Ogg.}}

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)&diff=prev&oldid=894909638 This] type of thing is liable to cause more trouble than it's worth, especially on a page that has almost 800 watchers. GMG^talk 19:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

: {{reply|GreenMeansGo}} It’s not in my nature to take kindly to false witness and intellectually dishonest misconstructions, so file this one under Sorry, Not Sorry, good sir. (For what it’s worth, I was gonna say daft, but it didn’t have enough potency). Trillfendi (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Trillfendi, I feel like you're almost trying to get yourself blocked for incivility. If you want to rant, come do it on my talk page, I'm always happy to listen! I'm worried that you're going to end up with a block, and I can see you're well-intentioned so I don't want to see that happen. --valereee (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

: {{reply|valereee}} Nothing to lose, nothing to gain. The same advice should be given to the math problem. Trillfendi (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

::{{u|Trillfendi}}, the math problem (hahaha) is skating the right side of incivility. You're way over on the other side. Log out and go do something else for a couple of days. You're a good contributor, don't lose your shit over this. It's not important enough. --valereee (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

::: {{reply|Valereee}} Don’t worry, I’ve got much more important things to worry about in this world than whether people disagree with me about an AfD, article, model, etc. I’m also more concerned about the ~100 article drafts I’m sitting on than what articles get deleted or not. But I have noticed a few people stalking me around here just to start fights because they don’t like me now. How pathetic. I’m not here to be liked. Every once in a while people take the smallest thing and blow it up into something it’s really not about and try to make it a personal indictment. This doesn’t raise my blood pressure by one number. But the hypocrisy of “we should make exceptions to the rules because some people did something” will never stand with me. Now after this bs, a Wikivacation sounds delightful. Trillfendi (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Trill. I came here to say that even though I disagree with you on the underlying matter, I thought your direct honesty here was rare and refreshing. And I'm going to leave here saying that the best attacks leave your opponents with no ammunition for a counterattack, and: "Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." – Winston Churchill [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/04/03/diplomat/ anonymous, 1937] Leviv ich 20:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Your adding info was well-intended but at the wrong place; I recommended adding that bit to the article of Kadish rather than the song because the Act is a remotely related topic and doesn't even concern the song itself. And you really don't have to label someone bitter, please refrain from personal attack :) Everyone is well-intended here. HĐ (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

25px Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Keith Richards at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{tl|db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

25px Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/All About That Bass at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{tl|db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from disparaging other editors in discussions or edit summaries as occurred [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caroline_Bittencourt&diff=895971370&oldid=895970075 here]. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and such comments can cause ill feelings which in turn damage the project's collegiality. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:: {{Reply|Ad Orientem}} and I recommend you give the same advice to user gidonb who likes to stalk around the AfD just to continuously look for irrelevant reasons to disparage me as an editor or have bones to pick just because we have different views. See the comment at the bottom of the AfD for Caroline Bittencourt for prime example. Take care. Trillfendi (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Cara Taylor.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Cailin Russo.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

{{Bq|Good job, although the career section could maybe do with a little less name dropping.}}

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Trillfendi, and welcome to Women in Red. I'm impressed by all the informative biographies of models you've added over the past three or four years. Keep up the good work and let me know if ever you run into difficulties. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Hiandra Martinez.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

25px Hello! Your submission of Keith Richards at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:Please see new note on your DYK nom. Yoninah (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, Trillfendi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Diana Veras.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the barnstar. I've always noticed that the WP editors you describe are common in biographies of actors and (especially) pop singers. Lots of fans among these people, and many of them get hung up even with "commonsense" cleanup. Fan worship is the flaw, as I've seen in bios like "Mariah Carey". If you explain the edit politely, though, they can often be convinced. Thanks again. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I have some concerns about the edit summary you left on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rihanna&diff=897242817&oldid=897131642 this edit]. I hope you realise that, when you submit edits to Wikipedia, you release them under a CC BY-SA 3.0 License, as well as the GNU Free Documentation License. By extension of this, the edits are no longer "yours" and can be replicated between Wikipedia articles. Therefore, to suggest that a contribution you made previously had been "plagiarised" is somewhat nonsensical. I'm no expert on the subject, so I won't comment on whether the "Before" or the "After" version of that article is correct, but I thought you ought to be made aware of the copyright status of the edits you make to the encyclopaedia. FWIW, if you're not editing on a mobile device, what I've just told you is clearly visible above the "Publish changes" button. – PeeJay 21:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

:: {{reply|PeeJay2K3}} I know that. I’m just saying, if someone wants to copy and paste something, think changing 2 words makes a difference, then take credit for that edit as if it came from their own mind, and without even proper context, the least they could do is drop by. But what do I know, I just make edits. Trillfendi (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I don't know the context here, but Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is the houserule. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: {{reply|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} If you people don’t even know what I was talking about then stop coming to my talk page about it. Copying within Wikipedia says right there: {{xt|When copying content from one article to another, at a minimum provide a link back to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page and state that content was copied from that source. If substantial, consider posting a note on both talk pages.}} But given that a now-banned sock puppet was the one who made the edit, why would anybody expect that to happen. Trillfendi (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi - when I was reviewing the page, I searched for psychobiology and drew a blank. I've checked again more thoroughly, and find that the Bustle source says the degree was in psychology, rather than psychobiology. I don't want to edit war - would you be willing to change it, or explain the discrepancy? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

:I'm going to bed, so have gone ahead and made the change. If there's something I've missed, and psychobiology is correct, please go ahead and revert. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 22:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

:: {{reply|Girth Summit}} Battery had died before I could reply at first. Basically Bustle conflated information from her LinkedIn page, which said Psychobiology. I guess it’s one in the same in the end. Each college is different. Some include that in the humanities schools while others include it in the science department. Trillfendi (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit! When one of the users insisted that despite French Civil Code and “my two passports” from the French interview, there was no evidence of his dual citizenship, I really didn’t know what to do.

And I apologize for causing a mess. That was not my intention.Grace PatriciaC (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC

Hi {{ping|Trillfendi}}, I got your comment. That article so essentially anybody in the Afc/Npp group review. I dont think she is notable. I think she worked for a whole lot of different agencies but I cant see what makes here specifically notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

::{{reply|Scope_creep}} I'm thisclose... I'm this fucking close to start getting uncivil and cussing y'all out from now on. The draft was already pending approval before your ineffective ass decided to try to ruin progress and send it back to square one for 3 more months of sitting in the purgatory of approval waiting. I am sick and tired of people who don't know fuck-shit about fashion trying to review models articles. She hasn't worked for different "agencies" (she's been with the same agency for 10 years) and that makes no difference in her career or notability if she did. All her notable work has been spelled out to the letter so even the most illiterate of people can see it clear as day. Did you NOT see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Cora_Emmanuel&oldid=897557304this edit]?! Oh you did.... Leave well enough alone! Trillfendi (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

::: {{reply|Trillfendi}} That c±ool. I'm Scottish and your comments have gave me of bit of laugh, a proper belly laugh, even now, the first today. If you need a hand getting it moved to mainspace, give me a shout please. scope_creep^Talk 18:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

::: {{reply|Trillfendi}} Sorry. scope_creep^Talk 18:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faretta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cindy Bruna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balmain ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cindy_Bruna check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cindy_Bruna?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sure you're on vandal alert, but you just rolled back an edit I made to the Kat Hessen article based on an articles for deletion discussion: discussion here. I was concerned about a BLP violation, so I removed the concerning information, then found that it was well-documented in a Vogue article that had been cited in the paragraph, so I returned to undo my redaction. It looks like everything is back the way it should be (since you reverted both my redaction and re-addition of the material).
Thank you for being vigilant, and happy editing! Orville1974 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't insult other editors, as you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kat_Hessen here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faretta&diff=prev&oldid=898466355 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faretta&diff=prev&oldid=898413486 here]. It looks like this has been a problem for you for a while, and I would strongly recommend that you moderate your tone.—Chowbok ☠ 14:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

:: {{reply|Chowbok}} How about you leave me the hell alone and stop stalking me and my "contributions"? Get a life. Trillfendi (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ambox notice.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --—Chowbok ☠ 14:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I realize things get heated, but this is probably the last warning you will get for lapses in civility (I see another one from earlier this month) before sanctions are applied. For your own best interest, you need to start conducting yourself with greater moderation. Hopefully, this is something you will take to heart. Thank you. El_C 15:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that I've also requested Chowbok to give you some space. So hopefully, the dispute between you two, at least, can calm. El_C 15:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

:: {{reply|El_C}} As long as the stalker leaves me be and minds his own damn business I’ll have no further reason to get ticked off, and I will agree to stop calling people dumbasses. Though in my defense, when he decided to start harassing me all I did was say in response to a page reviewer that they were clearly uneducated on the subject of which they proposed deletion on my page creation. I didn’t call names in that comment but "all of a sudden" Chowbok decided he wanted become some directionless avenger for no reason besides the fact that he "doesn’t like me." (As if I GAF). So other than that I’ll continue my previously uninterrupted page creating pursuits. Take care! Trillfendi (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

{{tmbox

|type = notice

|image = Image:Updated DYK query.svg

|text = On 28 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Keith Richards, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the riff for "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction", the Rolling Stones' first number-one hit, came to Keith Richards (pictured) in his sleep? {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at .|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Keith Richards|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Keith Richards.|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Keith Richards|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/Keith Richards.}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-05-18&end=2019-06-07&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Keith_Richards daily totals]), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

}}  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bekah Brunstetter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 20px This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)