User talk:Dantheanimator/Archive 1

Hello, I'm Arthur Rubin. An edit that you recently made to 2019 seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Unimportant event. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, I just received this message. And I appreciate it. I've been on Wikipedia since 2016 and I've never been accused of missing neutrality. I am very clear about the difference between my opinions and the work that needs to be done on this portal. In addition, the topics you mentioned are not particularly in my interest in editing, nor have I worked on them. Don't worry. Greetings and a lot of health. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:11 2 May 2020 (UTC)

An article you recently created, 2010 in Bulgaria, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Celestina007 (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2011 in Bulgaria, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Celestina007 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2012 in Bulgaria, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2010 in Bulgaria, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2013 in Bulgaria, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013 in Bulgaria, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 1990 in Bulgaria, does not have enough content, sources and citations as written to remain published. 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. John B123 (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 1991 in Bulgaria, does not have enough content, sources and citations as written to remain published. 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. John B123 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 1992 in Bulgaria, does not have enough content, sources and citations as written to remain published. 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. John B123 (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 1993 in Bulgaria, does not have enough content, sources and citations as written to remain published. 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. John B123 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article EncroChat, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1985, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rome Airport (check to confirm | 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) 06:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 1981 in Bulgaria requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.timelines.ws/countries/BULGARIA.HTML. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also found copyright problems in these articles:

• 1988 in Bulgaria
• 1990 in Bulgaria
• 1991 in Bulgaria
• 1992 in Bulgaria
• 1994 in Bulgaria
• 1995 in Bulgaria
• 1997 in Bulgaria
• 1998 in Bulgaria
• 2006 in Bulgaria Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia.— Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1965 Bulgarian coup d'état attempt into 1965 in Bulgaria. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dantheanimator, I'm Dominican, the president-elect begins his duties on August 16, 2020, not on July 6, 2020, that's how it has always been in my country, for now Luis Abinader is president-elect, not constitutional president, the current president is still Danilo Medina until August 16, 2020, I ask you kindly don't undo my edits in the article, or I will denounce you for vandalism.--Oli (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm not upset, since you are from another country it is normal that you did not know this information. Thank you very much for your answer. Greetings.--Oli (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article European Exchange Rate Mechanism, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mahmoud Reda, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Anshun bus crash, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see at ITN that you will not be contributing for a while, I hope you get back editing soon. Best wishes from Ireland JW 1961 Talk 19:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Darfur attacks, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 in Bulgaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COVID-19 deaths.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2020 into 2020 in Bulgaria. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agbudu shooting, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Kaizenify (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 1900 in Bulgaria, does not have enough content as written to remain published. 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. John B123 (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1991, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist Party of the Russian SFSR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ben Cross, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dirk Mudge, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Keri Kaa, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Dan the Animator 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was some kind of universal standard we could employ to judge whether an event is notable enough, particularly years after the fact. Was the Falujiah incident notable? I think it very much depends on which political side you're on. It certainly is one of several reasons Hillary Clinton isn't President. The Beltway snipers were certainly notable in their year, but are they still notable? I dunno. How many people have to die before a disaster becomes notable? Serendi^podous 18:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Serendipodous: thanks for messaging me about this and sorry for the very late reply. I somewhat agree with you about notability. When I was removing events I was only considering their death toll/amount of causalities. For the Falujiah incident (I think you meant the 2012 Benghazi attack), you're right, it is definitely notable in the U.S. and to some extent in the world. For the Beltway snipers event though, I still believe it should not be included. Many shootings occur in the U.S. and many of them are not included on this list (both the 2019 Dayton shooting and 2019 El Paso shooting got significant media coverage at the time but aren't on this list). For U.S. shootings, the death toll takes more precedence and in this case (17 dead and 10 wounded), I don't think it's notable enough for the page. I think a general rule for inclusion should be if the event is mentioned on the decades page (in this case the 2010s page). Usually the lede contains a good number of events that are generally considered notable. I'm not that familiar with Timeline in century pages so if my understanding is wrong, please tell me. We all make mistakes. :) Dan the Animator 16:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Just saw your update on WP:ITNRD. I do not know how to give one of those Barnstar templates (despite my time here). But, I wanted to drop a note to let you know that I have been a passive observer of your work at WP:ITNC and you are a great ambassador for the community! Thanks for all that you do! Ktin (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Sudan floods, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen you at WP:ITN/WP:ITNRD for sometime. Hope everything is alright! Regards. Ktin (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ktin for pinging me! :) I am okay, just really busy right now. Really sorry for not replying sooner. Dan the Animator 23:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Meron Benvenisti, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At your Arbcom filing you say, "User Calmecac5 has repeatedly ignored the formatting rules of Year in Country pages". I'm unaware of any such rules. Could you link me to them? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan, the formatting rules of Year in Country pages are the same as the Year pages (albeit with some very minor differences per WP:MOS (scroll down to the “Strong national ties to a topic” subsection)). Year in Country pages are technically forked content from the normal Year page, so they should retain the majority of the same formatting as the parent article (the Year page). Examples of Year in Country pages (for this year) with correct formatting include 2020 in the United States, 2020 in the United Kingdom, and 2020 in Ireland. Hope this helps and really sorry for the late reply, Dan the Animator 22:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding Calmecac5's editing, they have added multiple deaths to the Year in Country pages in the RD format while they should be in the Year format (see the "Deaths section" section). Dan the Animator 22:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the date formatting delineated in MOS is a "rule", but you need to be aware that standards established by a wikiproject such as WikiProject_Years are by policy not "rules" in any sense. They only have the same status as an essay saying how a group of people think that something should be done, and do not have the status of a policy or guideline. See, first, from the consensus policy:

> Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay.

And then from the WikiProject Council guide (which though itself is a wikiproject, the guide has been adopted as a formal guideline):

> However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay. Contents of WikiProject advice pages that contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace.

Thus, the standards given on the WikiProject Years page are not rules. And since they're not rules, it would be improper page ownership to revert changes on a page because the "rules" have not been followed or to accuse someone (particularly, but not only, a newcomer) of violating those rules.

I don't know if that's happened in your dealings with Calmecac5, your accusations of him violating the rules may only be in reference to the date formatting set by MOS. But since it was mentioned several times that you needed, procedurally, to file a complaint at ANI before going to ARBCOM, I thought that you might want to know about that and take self-inventory before going to ANI since they're quick to hit you with a boomerang sanction there if you've stepped over a line. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TransporterMan, thank you for messaging me this. I was completely unaware that Wikiproject rule pages were considered essays so please forgive me on that. Regarding my "dealings" with Calmecac5, I've only reverted roughly 3 of their edits all of which dealt with the inclusion of material that in my previous understanding I thought was not notable enough for the page as the material is also considered not notable enough for the 2020 page. I know now that this is incorrect and that there are no official notability guidelines for year articles. All other edits by Calmecac5 that I've brought up I have not reverted. I do have a question though regarding ownership. Would this be considered page ownership and other similar actions like it? Also, would it be considered page ownership if I brought these issues up on the respective talk pages? Many thanks for informing of this and sorry for any troubles. Best regards, Dan the Animator 20:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't dig deeply into that, but it doesn't seem to me to be ownership on first blush. Proposing stuff on an article talk page in an attempt to achieve consensus about it is the antithesis of ownership. Deb might have been a bit quick on the trigger to assume consensus by silence, but she's a very experienced editor and administrator (as is Black Kite} and on a frequently-edited page like that waiting almost 24 hours, as she did, is arguably enough if no objections are heard. Ownership generally turns on attempts to repress other editors unfairly, either by domination or by misrepresentation. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what you mean. So if I just open a talk page discussion for each individual issue and wait a few days and if no one opposes I can go forward with my edits. This is what I think your saying but I can be completely wrong. If this isn't, please let me know. Thank you again TransporterMan for taking the time to explain this to me, I appreciate it. Dan the Animator 00:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would just add that I've tried many, many times to get the conventions for Year pages agreed and have always failed to achieve consensus - usually not because people don't want to prune the long lists of Births and Deaths or don't agree that they make the Year and Day articles unmanageably long, but because they can't agree how to do so. So I've ended up having to work on individual pages. User:Toddst1 introduced a new guideline for DOTY pages to make referencing mandatory, which at first I disagreed with, but I think this is probably the way forward for these articles. Deb (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan when there are no "rules" that determine how something must or must not be done in an article, then everything is decided by consensus. And when that's the case, consensus is determined as Deb suggests on an article-by-article basis, not a class of articles by class of articles basis. What's decided by consensus at one article has no precedential value for what happens at any other article. For how consensus is to be determined, a careful read-through of the BURDEN section of the verifiability policy (actually all of that policy, but that's the most important chunk for right now) followed by a careful reading of the consensus policy would probably be of great value to you. Consensus can be determined by editing, by silence, by discussion, or by a combination of the three. (Policies and guidelines determining article content are recorded consensus or, if you will, consensus in advance.) See the policy for a discussion of all of them in detail. Bold, revert, discuss is the best-practice means of determining consensus, but is not a policy or guideline. If an editor will not discuss, see the DISCFAIL essay for a recommendation on how to address that issue. If consensus cannot be achieved on a proposal remember, first, that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result here (and take note of the NOCONSENSUS section of the consensus policy to see what happens in that situation), but if you think that a third party help might move the discussion along, consider the use of dispute resolution. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot express my gratitude and gratefulness for all the effort you put into explaining my error to me. Thank you TransporterMan! Many thanks to you too Deb for your helpful comment. I know I am writing this message nearly two months after you both replied back to me, and a lot has changed since then. Considering that, I will not be able to contribute to Wikipedia anymore for a long while. Maybe we'll both pass each other in the distant future on some page when times are better? Regardless, thank you TransporterMan for your extraordinary help, and thank you Deb for your comment. Hope you both are doing well, Dan the Animator 01:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I hope your pause in editing is not caused by something bad but instead by something that gives you benefit or joy. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dantheanimator, I agree with this comment, Dan. I hope whatever is keeping you away is something that gives you benefit and joy. Sending across the best of wishes. We have missed you at WP:ITN. Ktin (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TransporterMan and Ktin for the support. This school year has been much more difficult (and less joyful) than the last one so it has been difficult to find time to edit. Regardless, I hope that all is well with you both. Also, happy new year! Warmly, Dan the Animator 19:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also hope everything is going well at ITN Ktin. Don't hold me on this but I will probably be able to come back around July. Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events format is currently being updated. However, one new change is a section for "Current discussions". The Portal:Current events has debates all the time to determine if things are notable for the portal (international news) or if they are better suited for a place like 2020 in the United States. In the past, small 'edit wars' have taken place between editors over topics. This new section on the WikiProject is a new place where editors can discuss between each other and have an easy access to 'outside opinion' from other participates. Members in the Current Event WikiProject are welcome to invite other editors that have disagreements to start the discussion on the WikiProject. (Unlike RFC's, discussions about topics would be about 1 week or whenever the topic is no longer relevant from the WikiProject).

Thank you for reading and thank you for participating in the Current Event WikiProject! (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dantheanimator. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "1900 in Bulgaria".

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 the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's deletion processes before mass tagging articles for deletion. What makes you think Federico Gozi et al. are eligible for deletion per CSD G6? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lord Bolingbroke: I wrote a message about this on your talk page. Do you want me to reply here or there? (I'm fine with replying here if you don't want it on your talk page). Dan the Animator 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dan! Just a quick friendly note: when creating a lot of stubs, it's helpful to use a specific stub template rather than the generic {{Stub}} template, which just leaves it for someone else to fix later on. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting for some more info on that – thanks! Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bsoyka for fixing the templates on the Gabon pages! I don't really know the different stub types too well so it's difficult to know which ones exist and what they're called. Thanks for the link though: I found this page which has a list of most stub types which I think I'll use for future pages. Sorry again for the mistake. Dan the Animator 20:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all! And I might suggest User:SD0001/StubSorter, it's a neat tool for searching for stub types and it's pretty easy to use. Have a great day! Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 00:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Bsoyka for the tool! Dan the Animator 19:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, we used to bump into each other on ITN a few months back, hope you are keeping well. I was going through new pages feed and saw some of your articles - most were fine but 2014 and 2010 both have refereneces to The Namibian that bring me to the main landing page of the news outlet rather than the story they are being used to reference, can you check this out please - I'll go back over them and mark as reviewed in a while if they are not already done by another reviewer. Keep up the good work and have a great Sunday JW 1961 ^Talk 17:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JW 1961, it's nice to hear from you again! I think I fixed the mistakes with both pages but for the 2014 page I didn't see any The Namibian source, so I took out the Business Day source which was also giving a link problem. If there's any other issues with my new or old pages, just give me a heads-up and I'll be happy to fix them. Also hope everything's going well at ITN. Dan the Animator 17:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dantheanimator, I just go to ITN about once a week nowadays, spending time creating a few stubs and reviewing new pages (not as much negativity there) I'll go back and check mark those articles you fixed and thanks again JW 1961 ^Talk 17:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JW 1961! I've been going to school up until about a week ago so it's been difficult to find any time for editing. Probably I'll have to stop editing again soon too to catch up with school work and life. Anyways, stay well, Dan the Animator 18:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: RATTATA met: troute 1. SpiralSource (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the trout! ;)

Hi Dan the Animator, you've done a great job of creating citations for (almost) all deaths on March 24. But can you please look at the citation you've put in for Harun al-Rashid? It just shows up in the References section as "Bosworth 1995, pp. 385-386." with no link to this book. Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I actually meant to put the Britannica source instead of that ref but forgot to remove it. Many thanks for messaging me about it. Dan the Animator 01:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if there's any other refs with issues, please feel free to send me a message and I'll fix them. Dan the Animator 01:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]