User talk:MollyPollyRolly

Welcome!

Hello, MollyPollyRolly, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! – NJD-DE (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

damn Damnty (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MollyPollyRolly, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MollyPollyRolly! 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 Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

fireste sau na Damnty (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quiestion and Ask for Help from a New User

Dear MollyPollyRolly,

When you welcomed me you said I could contact you with any question. An editor inserts references to his self-published advertising websites in numerous articles. No reference to the self-published advertising websites existed before this editor began and he is the only one, as well as I can find, who has ever inserted the references into any article.

I don't think the references should be allowed. He is not an expert in the field, as suggested by TransporterMan on the talk page of Hole carding. TransporterMan wrote that the references would fail under WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES.

I was told to start documenting the activity on a relevant article talk page, and I did so. I resolved the main problem, whether the user name corresponds to the owner of the self-published advertising websites and to the developer of the software advertised on those websites. It was easy. The user on his own user talk page states he is the author of the software and the self-published webpages provide his name as owner. That the website is commercial, with banner ads for his software, led one editor on the talk page to suggest another problem, a conflict of interest and that WP:COIN is being violated. Another said the insertion of references could be a violation of yet another, WP:PROMO. So, after having the issue discussed on the article talk page as I was advised, where do I go next? Or, can you refer me to someone who can so advise?

Thank you, MollyPollyRolly. Aabcxyz (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz[reply]

Removal of content and corrections edit warring

Hi, there are three editors at the Anti-Hindu Sentiment page who are removing my new content and corrections without any explanation or a wrong reason. Factually incorrect information is on the page and it is partly locked which means there is no access. The gatekeeping being done on that page is not as per the wikipedia policy. none of the editors appear to have any expertise or knowledge of the topic and I am an expert on this subject and have written fresh content that disproves the existing content and its sources Jnanashuddhi (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnanashuddhi: I don't see your edits, only theirs. Are you using 2 accounts?--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now, it was on the talkpage.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MollyPollyRolly. There is no other way to edit than go through the talk page.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Discuss it there please.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They won't discuss it. They just keep deleting my corrections and proposed content.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnanashuddhi: You need to discuss it first.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it where? Every time I raise the topic on the talk, it is removed entirely. There is no scope to discuss it on the talk page if they delete every comment. I am ready to make a report. Please tell me who I can report this to.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnanashuddhi: Seems odd. Maybe they view your comments as irrelevant? You can try dispute resolution.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not only odd, they are now making highly offensive remarks. Jnanashuddhi (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome wagon

Greetings! I see you like welcoming newly-registered editors; I think you'll find these templates helpful. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits?

@MollyPollyRolly I don't understand why you reverted my new listing. It is value-adding and objective. Can you clarify how it should be improved? I put a lot of time into it and it's my first listing, only for it to be deleted without explanation. Thank you. Jebr1976a (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Jebr1976a[reply]

I answered on your talkpage. Feel free to post there, I will watch it.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA reports on users with no edits

Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations such as names of organizations or products need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. I'd also suggest carefully reviewing the username policy and reporting instructions as a nuber of your reports are being declined. There's a good amount of nuance as to when to report a username, we don't actually want to block users without a valid reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MollyPollyRolly. Hope you are doing great. My new user name is Bifocalmind. In my user page there is field name Signature. Will I write Bifocalmind in there and will it be treated as my Signature? --Bifocalmind (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bifocalmind: Yes. Just sign all your posts with four tildes and everything will be fine.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hey! Good Day Sir! MollyPollyRolly I just created this page Draft:Adesegun Adeosun Jr on AFC, help me to check it before I submit, thanks.Scotthonest (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Longest Living Dogs Post Removed

Hi Molly,

I checked my Talk page and didn't see any comments about why my post adding Cocoa was removed. Can you let me know?

Thanks,

John

@JohnG17: What I see is that you incorrectly added notes. Try to talk to Justiyaya, she might be able to let you edit.

--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Nice to meet u. June2912 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you MollyPollyRolly! Jose Ariel Contreras (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit an article without being blocked and deleted by a single user

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi, I would like to submit an article for a larger consensus without being stopped by a single user. Can you please help?Thanks--Sansartosi (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If an article meets the speedy deletion criteria, it may be deleted without delay or discussion. If you wish to challenge a speedy deletion, you may do so at deletion review. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming users

You may like to enable Twinkle in your settings. It makes welcoming users a lot easier and cleaner. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Did that. Thanks.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carsongallas (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

thank you for your message Asd3131 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting

Thank you appreciate the help Waseem johnson (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Sameer PatelBGG (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Ruíz Martínez

The edits that you reverted at this article were not vandalism. Please be very careful about making incorrect accusations of vandalism, which has a very narrow definition here on Wikipedia. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Did I indicated in my edit summary that it was? No. I did warned her the same way as Equine-man did. Her removal of sourced content was viewed by many (not only by me) as a form of vandalism. It only occurred later on that she wasn't vandalizing anything.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MollyPollyRolly,

I wouldn't have written this if you had acknowledged the problem; I assumed Cullen's information was sufficient. Sadly, it wasn't.

As you may see on their talk page, Equine-man has received similar advice. Contrary to HMSLavender and the not-infallible ClueBot NG, you are the two editors who have taken this approach after "privacy" was explicitly voiced as a concern for repeated selective removal of material.

After the summary-less revert, you explicitly wrote in Special:Diff/1041195213: "If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dorothy Ruíz Martínez, you may be blocked from editing."

So yes, you treated the edit as vandalism, and you did make an incorrect accusation of vandalism towards the editor. The whole situation was inappropriate on multiple levels:

Summary-less reverts are sometimes restricted to vandalism reverts and generally recommended against by the editing policy.
Vandalism is intentional damage to the encyclopedia; the selective removal of personal details from a biography is rarely an attempt to damage the encyclopedia. It is more likely an attempt to improve the encyclopedia; the relevant guideline is WP:AGF.
When someone explicitly voices "privacy" concerns while selectively removing material from an article, any assumption of "vandalism" without careful examination of the removed material is dangerous; a revert might re-instate oversightable libel, revision-deletable material or other violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.
The BLP policy notes: "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material." The WP:BLPEDIT section contains advice, in bold text, about dealing with such concerns in kindness and with understanding; it explicitly names "vandalism" as something this should not be treated as.
When someone explicitly voices "accuracy" or similar concerns, the verifiability policy comes into play. It contains two sections with requirements for re-instating the material: WP:ONUS requires consensus for restoring disputed verifiable material, and WP:BURDEN requires reliable inline citations directly supporting the material. Even if you have actually taken the time to verify the content with the given citations within 6 minutes, you have not sought consensus on the article's talk page before re-instating material that had been removed twice before and was clearly under dispute.

Perhaps the word you've been looking for is "disruptive editing". Arguably, edit warring is disruptive – that is, unless WP:3RRNO #7 applies. Simply assuming that it doesn't, without a close look at the material, would be a mistake that I hope hasn't been made here.

Wherever you look, whichever policy or guideline you consult, there will almost always be a section about biographies of living persons, and it will almost always explicitly discourage what you have done there.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Thank you kindly for explanation. Couple of questions still persist. 1. If, as you say, "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material", then why an I seeing mostly socks and vandals adding some unsourced content or removing sourced content, most of which isn't done kindly? Here is one of those examples. As for this: "If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dorothy Ruíz Martínez, you may be blocked from editing." I didn't wrote. This is what came with the template. Did I used the wrong template, yes, and am sorry for it.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Regarding question 1: I guess you're filtering the list of recent changes, either automatically using ORES scores or simply by manually choosing which diffs to look at, by whichever criteria. There are about 1-2 edits per second on the English Wikipedia, and it is perfectly fine to filter them for potential disruption. This skews the picture, though, and we should be aware that most contributors do want to constructively build an encyclopedia. The specific example adds material, and it seems to have been correctly reverted due to a lack of a citation. However, of course, there are examples for malicious selective removal of content; such edits exist as well. When someone voices privacy concerns and actually removes a few specific details from a biography, it's usually a good-faith edit that shouldn't be repeatedly reverted without discussion. Regarding point 2, no worries; such is life. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: "However, of course, there are examples for malicious selective removal of content; such edits exist as well". Yes, and that's why I reverted it. I have nothing against the subject though, neither did I wanted to disrespect a living person. I assumed the edit to be a malicious intent. In theory, I mostly greet newbies here, but sometimes I do revert when I either see infobox being screwed up or somebody is removing sourced content. I saved WikiProject Spain here once. Somebody decided to blank the page of the project itself, I was first in line to restore to it's original glory.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MollyPollyRolly, I am a bit concerned about your comments about the use of templates, specifically As for this: "If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dorothy Ruíz Martínez, you may be blocked from editing." I didn't wrote. This is what came with the template. Let me be very clear. When you leave a template on a user talk page, you are 100% responsible for every word in that message generated by that template, just as if you were the author of the template language. If the template language is inaccurate, then you have two choices. You can either copyedit the language displayed on the user talk page so it accurately describes the situation, or you can delete the template message and leave another message using another more appropriate template, or writing a personalized message in your own words. Templates are not required. They are optional tools that must be used properly. As an administrator, I block disruptive editors all the time. I use templates, but quite frequently, I go back within seconds and edit the template language so that it more accurately describes the specific circumstances. Please always remember that there is another human being with feelings that is receiving your warning. It needs to be accurate. I hope that this will be a learning experience for you, and that you will be a better editor as a result. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: No need to be concerned. A clear explanation is good enough for me. Should I go and delete that template and instead apologize for misunderstanding? I can.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is the subject of extensive discussion, my suggestion is that you do not delete it, but instead add a followup edit saying something like, after further study and consultation with other editors, that you now realize that the edits were not vandalism. Say that in your own words. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MollyPollyRolly,

Happy to see your  welcome message. Thank you.

Babitha Shetty (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind message!

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I'm wondering how long it takes for an article I wrote regarding a war hero as well as a famous photographer? WikiKnowledge7777 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiKnowledge7777: For one, if he is a war hero, he should have Medal of Honor or Legion of Merit award in order for him to be notable. Second, a significant coverage in the press is a must.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well Know offense if you looked up Tom Vano you would see a great deal about his being a Silver Star recipient as well as numerous other War HERO awards. And secondly he has not only been a Photographer for people such as the Emperor of Japan as well as notable black people namely Willie Mays for one who made huge strides for the black community. He is a very well known man who deserves to be read about on Wikipedia or at least I thought he was. Because you said he is not considered a war hero without so much as you looking up his achievements in both WWII as well as the world class Photographer he once was and having worked until he was 85, when he retired, his archive of images was so impressive that almost one million images were purchased by the California State Library and are archived in the Tom Vano collection. WikiKnowledge7777 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiKnowledge7777: For him to be notable as a photographer, sources must be provided. As of 2010, it is required to provide a reliable source in order for an article to be included. You can try off this, but keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a memorial.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off you have been nothing but subjective with me as well as other people on here that are also currently unhappy with the way you degrade their articles too! Criticism is fine but only if used to help someone rather than try and sound superior too them! Dearly wikipedia I will no longer be donating to your valiant cause. Not because I can't have an article suggested and then "bombastic" by whoever critiques these articles. That being--MollyPollyRolly in this case. She has even been so rude as to suggest this as being a memorial, he passed away six years ago. I will be closing my wikipedia account as well due to the unwelcome feelings that not just I, but others that have had to answer to her as well have expressed the same sentiments. Good day to all. And to a, in my mind and others, who has a book written about him (Tom Vano). WikiKnowledge7777 (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Klux Klan

Did you really extend a welcome to the Ku Klux Klan? Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is where they should be welcomed. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be really surprised if this editor got blocked without discussion. I have never heard of a Malaysian Klan. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their edits seem to about Malaysian political parties Toddst1. Do any of them advance an American KKK agenda? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None. I'm expecting an apology from Todd who accused me of being a Klan welcomer here. Do any one of you know a single Asian name? How about Kim Kwang-kyu? Spells KKK if you shorten it to a bare minimum.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to say this but, usually KKK is seen as an abbreviation of Ku Klux Klan. However this isn't always the case and sometimes a name can just happen to be abbreviated to KKK. However, I do think welcoming and then advising them about the possible implications of their username would be better than just welcoming them or simply sending them straight to WP:Usernames for administrator attention so that they can fix it if they didn't mean to appear like they're part of the KKK. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze The Wolf: Do I look to you as a person who don't know what KKK stands for? Really, you assuming low of me. If you go to WP:AN/I, find a discussion about it in Usernames. There, I explained in detail why I welcomed him. In reality, (this goes for the rest of participants), a Japanese pagoda have swastikas, but that doesn't mean that every Japanese priest (or whatever they are called there) is royal to Hitler. I still think that Todd and his buddies here who had a kick out of it, such as Usedtobecool and Cullen328, should apologize for their accusations and taunting.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never said you didn't know what KKK stood for. If I saw that username I would WP:AGF that they aren't part of the KKK and they're initials just happened to unfortunately be KKK. Now if they were making edits that appeared to be related to the KKK then I would report them to WP:UAA. I also came up with a compromise that was a balance between immediately reporting them to WP:UAA and welcoming them. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 20:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MollyPollyRolly, you have misunderstood my comment. I was disagreeing with Toddst1's analysis and implicitly defending your action. As for knowing Asian names, I have lived and worked in and around San Francisco for the last 49 years. My current home town has a population that is 45% Asian/Pacific Islanders. My next door neighbors are Vietnamese and the family across the street are Sikhs from India. As for Toddst1 being a "buddy" of mine, that too is incorrect. We are both administrators and sometimes comment in the same discussions, but I cannot recall ever having a direct conversation with him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A little correction, Cullen, I don't think Toddst is an admin.

What I did after I saw this yesterday, was look up User:Swastika. There are more than a billion Hindus in the world who could potentially have been named Swastika. So, first, I was surprised to see people wanting to block it without care for context. But then it turned out the editor was actually editing Nazism-related articles. So, the conversation was cut short. Obviously, username Swastika should not be editing Holocaust articles, even if they were named Swastika by their Hindu parents and were just learning what it means in the western world and that's how they landed in the Nazism topics. "KKK" is nowhere near the level of "Swastika". Unless they edit white supremacy related articles, especially since the username is not just "KKK", I don't think the user ought be bothered at all. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Toddst1. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 31#Inactive admins for March 2015. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Cullen nor I were "buddy"ing with Toddst1. I was saying it was inappropriate to report the editor to UAA. If anything I was defending you. I have your page on watchlist; I didn't and don't know who Toddst is. I understand you were feeling attacked after the way the OP was phrased here, but I and Cullen having a "kick out of it"? Our "accusations and taunting"? Sorry to say this is really disappointing. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: and @Cullen328: Sorry. I misinterpreted your actions as "taunting". It was strange hearing from a fellow Wikipedian "Do any of them advance an American KKK agenda?" I might viewed it wrong, but from my view it was like "Oh, does Malaysian KKK have anything to do with American one". It's kind of like saying that Afghan Americans are as guilty as Taliban, if you know what I mean. Besides, a user can have DNC username, but it doesn't make them party-specific. It can also mean Daniel Nicole Cummins.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for Swastika, I would also check for what they put into those articles. If they put reliable sources like The New York Times, instead of Alt-right sources, I probably will be more inclined to welcome them, no matter how offensive the name might be. Long story short, if the editor adds something fringe or offensive under those names, feel free to block those, however, if their fringe theory is supported by a reliable source, such as The New York Times, I would get it slide. Besides, if an editor even edits an article on David Duke or KKK doesn't make him a white supremacist.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked on the articles that User:Swastika was editing: Otto Ernst Remer was the one that caught everyone's eye back in 2005. The funny thing is, is that people viewed his edit as an association to Nazism, but in reality what he did was expanding an article from a stub to a start class article. I also don't see any far-right ideologies in his edits aside from his userpage.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming before any edits

Hello! This is just a recommendation but welcoming users before they have made any edits is highly discouraged as most welcome messages thank the user for their contributions and if they haven't made any yet, this can be rather confusing for the new user. Also, if a user hasn't made any edits yet we can't tell if they're going to be good or not. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze The Wolf: I understand. It's hard to tell when they make a constructive edit and when not. A sock can make a constructive edit but we don't know what and who he is until late.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. THis is why we don't welcome a user until they've made an edit. With me, since I use Twinkle, if a user is an IP I can choose from a general welcome, a welcome for if the user made test edits, a welcome for if the user has made constructive edits, a welcome for if the user has made unconstructive edits, and one more that I've. If the user hasn't made any edits it can be confusing if I gave them a general welcome as even that one mentions that the user has made contributions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze The Wolf: Some of the editors that I greeted in the past were Draft creators. It's totally fine for an editor to create an article in his sandbox, but majority of times they end up being rejected for promo reasons. I still welcome them, because I assume good faith first, and the aftermath of that good faith as second.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you should be doing. If a user creates an article, unless it's a blatant violation, you should always assume good faith. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Can I Make Article on this name "Susovan Sonu Roy" ??? Sonybot (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonybot: You can make articles on anything, as long as reliable sources exist.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I make an Article about on this name ... Will you Publish my Article ??? Sonybot (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonybot: I'm not a part of AfC.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll Submit the draft and then you'll review and Publish it ... Can you do it ??? Sonybot (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonybot: Yes.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now I'm creating that Article then I'll forward you ... Then you can check Sonybot (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Susovan_Sonu_Roy Sonybot (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sockpuppet repeatedly attempting to force this draft into mainspace. Best to not get involved. Waggie (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chineseisinferior

You greeted them despite the fact that the username is overtly racist, and they had already made racist edits. Please be more careful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Sorry. I try my best. I was doing welcomes from the New users log this time, and was unaware of what happened. I did however reverted one vandalism edit today, so I am not being totally ignorant. :)--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that you are totally ignorant. Far from it. But before you greet a new editor, look at their username and a few recent edits. This editor is an obvious racist hatemonger. I have blocked them indefinitely. Please do not greet people like that. Report them instead. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Job Tate due diligence

I hate to ask, but when Rutlandright indicated that connected contributors would be working of VT state legislator pages, I would feel remiss to not ask.

You're clear of any COI with Job Tate, correct? —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Yes. I don't even live in Vermont. I was looking for someone to greet or revert and end up stumbling on you two edit warring.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so, but I'd rather ask than assume. And now if there's a question later, you can say you've already talked with an admin about it. Job Tate is deleted. Rewrite at your leisure. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for the message on my Talk Page--Mark Rhodes 13 (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianMendoza34 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thank you for the welcome message on my Talk Page-- Rio197 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome on my talk page!

Hi MollPollyRolly! Thanks for the warm welcome on my talk page. Truair82 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello. Thanks for the welcome on my talk page. Could you plese help me with something? There is a Wikipedia article about a historic institution which is very short and crudely written. It is flagged at the top as follows:

This article has multiple issues. Please help to improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (April 2010) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (April 2010)

I am writing a draft version of a new article on this subject in my sandbox. Once my draft is over, can I send it to an editor for review, or, since the page already exists in a flagged state, should I just delete the entire content on the current flagged page and replace with mine? I would prefer to send my sandbox draft to an editor first.

Another question: if I click on submit to an editor, will it go to an editor who is an expert on the subject in question? I would prefer this.

Thanks.

Anderson1970 (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anderson1970: Sorry for a late reply. You sure can just replace the text with your version, as long as it is sourced. :)--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Thanks for your cordial welcome message. A sandbox question: The Mitchell Wilder sandbox entry I began yesterday has disappeared today. Any idea what happened?Ciao bill (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ciao bill. Your edit history does not show any edits to a sandbox. Perhaps you forgot to click "Publish changes"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! "Publish" seemed intimidatingly final, but now I know "Show Preview" can be ephemeral!Ciao bill (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hi, Thanks for the welcome message! I honestly didn't expect that. Thanks so much again!GuyForceOne (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GuyForceOne: No problem. Feel free to ask for help here if you need anything. :)--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to update a Page name

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How can I edit a page name? For example, someone is the "IV" but it won't allow me to change it. (PegasusSM (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

You want to "move" the page. It's under the "page" dropdown, which is usually on the top right of the Wikipedia interface. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PegasusSM: However, it's not always moves, and might require administrative attention.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that depends on what they are trying to move: So @MollyPollyRolly, what exactly do you want to rename? Salimfadhley (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of welcome templates

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hi @MollyPollyRolly, I raised this concern at ANI. Please feel free to say your bit. Salimfadhley (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia (user pages and user talk pages) for persistent disruptive editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 16 November 2021‎ (UTC)

There is still a discussion involving your welcoming people at the AN thread mentioned above, but I've unblocked you. That was unnecessary. Please join in the conversation there before you welcome more people, though. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome message!

Thanks for welcoming me on my user talk page! Really sweet of you :) Spookypuff (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st Rhode Island Regiment

Hey, when I had just joined you said I could leave a message here if I needed help. Well, I've been trying to get the Rhode Island regiment up to higher quality and looking at the talk page, the only thing holding it back from B tier are bad references. Since I’m new, could you point out to me what work needs to be done to the references to it might be upgraded to B tier. Also, when whatever the problem is fixed, who do I need to talk to for it to get officially upgraded? Many thanks in advance. Deadtravller (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deadtravller: You need to find sources. Books are preferred.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the chance :)

Hi MollyPollyRolly, regarding Special:Diff/1062050326, no worries: There have been plenty of chances, such as [1], [2] and [3]. Especially valuable chances as the contributions contained reliable citations and thus were not automatically reverted, resulting in relatively long-lasting damage to the biography of a living person. I hope the lack of interest in providing another chance before blocking is somehow relatable. Anyway! See below! :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Those are not the chances I was referring to. I see no warnings on his talkpage, which made me baffled as to why he was blocked right away. Yes, trolling is a big deal, but you should have warned them, not simply revert them. You also shouldn't have his talkpage access revoked simply because he was asking for clarification. Calling him a troll, even if he is is also rude. It might be viewed as a personal attack.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user is a repeatedly returning sockpuppeteer. The three diff links above are from three accounts, each created after the previous one was blocked. Sockpuppet contributions are freely revertable, sockpuppet accounts are blocked and the request for clarification was trolling if you have a look at the edit content again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: And of whom he was a suckpuppet of? You didn't provide that in the block template.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the first account was GeraldFord1980 (talk · contribs), who has been doing exactly the same thing since 2010:

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year!

Hello MollyPollyRolly, On a much more enjoyable note: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia.

Cheers, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your note of introduction, MollyPollyRolly. MalpequeRoadie (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a thoughtful gift.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the kind welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrowIce (talk • contribs) 05:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You & Question

I appreciate your kind welcome on my talk page, MollyPollyRolly.

I also have a question: Are edit-requests only published on a subject's talk page when an editor addresses them? I created an edit-request on a semi-protected page, and my edit request is not yet published on that subject's Talk Page, nor did I find it in the current lineup of edit requests.

However, that edit request is listed on my contributions page. Please confirm that an editor will be able and address my edit request, thank you! Boxermystic (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boxermystic55. You posted your edit request on the talk page of a redirect, namely Talk:Ri Sol-Ju. The correct page for the edit request is Talk:Ri Sol-ju. Note the difference in capitalization. Cullen328 (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MollyPollyRolly, since Cullen328 responded to my question, you do not need to reply. Thank you again for your welcome; I appreciated that. Boxermystic (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than a greeting needed...

Sometimes you have to do more than smile. You greeted User talk:Rev. Dr. Ulas Hayes who has proceeded to edit only article Ulas Hayes. Please look at the history of that article.

See that article's 'editors' Reverend Dr. Ulas Hayes, Ulas Hayes, Chaplain Ulas Hayes, First Ward Voters League. Noticed all but one blocked?

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reverend Dr. Ulas Hayes/Archive. And text at User_talk:Reverend_Dr._Ulas_Hayes.

Anyway, something needs to be done with this repeat problem. I'm thinking not WP:SPI, yet, but it needs to be brought to some venue for resolution. And I don't think WP:AVI, cuz it's a problem of content, COI and more. But this is more of the same from 10 and 12 and 13 and 14 years ago, and needs to be rejected again. And I don't have the time, so step up to more ways to help Wikipedia? Shenme (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shenme: Well, I wish I could be of assistance, but somebody mistaken my account for somebody else, so I probably won't be able to help until this issue will be resolved if ever.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

Hello. Recently, my homepage as well as subpages were deleted. Without prior notice. I do not know who to report to but would it be possible to send me the removed content by e-mail? I really care about it because these are important things for me. Nocne12 (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see [4]. --Icodense (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]