User talk:BappleBusiness/Archive 1

November 2017

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Wall Street Journal, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at The Wall Street Journal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please also read WP:MEAT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Triangular theory of love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commitment. 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) 05:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Party leader / chair merger

Hey, I noticed you tagged party leader and party chair for merge, but didn’t start any discussion on the talk page (typically this is done on the talk page of the target article). I urge you to create the discussion section and give some rationale for their merger. — HTGS (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me! Feel free to add a comment at Talk:Party leader. BappleBusiness (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Files listed for discussion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 17 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

• File:Joseph Lagana 2018.jpeg
• File:Joseph Lagana 2018 (cropped).jpeg

Thank you. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 23:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Progress Pride flag on LGBT page

Hi, BappleBusiness.

Over this last year at BLM / George Floyd protests in Seattle, I saw a lot of white people with old-style rainbow flags. I suppose they were there to be supportive, but it felt like they wanted to turn the protest into a Pride Parade instead. And it felt once again like black and brown lives were less important.

I really appreciated it when people started using flag variants with black and brown stripes. I especially like the inclusivity of the Progress Pride flag. It says we're all in this together. (Plus I think that flag looks cool.) It seems like the Progress Pride flag and colors are becoming more of a standard these days.

What do you think about letting me restore the Progress Pride flag image?

Thank you. Chrisjazz (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The idea behind Wikipedia is that it's an encyclopedia, not a place to bring advocacy. I understand your position, but it's irrelevant for a discussion about an encyclopedia, which describes the world.

I do think it's important to choose a symbol for the template that reflects the community at large for the purposes of the template. Luckily, the standard rainbow pride flag was made for that very purpose - to create a simple design that leaves out no one. The Progress Pride flag is performing more as a supplemental role to the community flag, to raise awareness for a particular issue (in this modern day case, the struggle for trans rights and racial equality within the LGBT community). See the "Victory over AIDS" pride flag for example, which raised awareness for the AIDS epidemic.

Design-wise, making the Progress Pride flag representative of the community, especially as in the stripe format in the template, becomes an issue as more and more subcommunities want to add on their mark. Look at Valentino Vecchietti's intersex "inclusive" flag, a design nightmare. I can think of multiple reasons why every subcommunity should be additionally represented on the flag. What about bi-erasure? The fetishization of lesbians? Neurodivergent individuals in the community are certainly underrepresented and misrepresented. How about nonbinary people? Yeah, they're included under the trans umbrella, but trans people are included under the LGBT community and that didn't stop them from adding a chevron.

When there is a simple design that represents the entire community--hell, it's entire purpose is to include the entire spectrum of identities--we should use it. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 20:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, BappleBusiness. Yeah, no symbol will feel perfectly inclusive to everyone. I thought I was seeing a recent shift in the world from the old rainbow symbol to the new progressive pride one. Maybe not. Chrisjazz (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit to January 6

Hi BappleBusiness, with regards to your edit on January 6, the original change I made was part of a broader change to DOY articles. I won't revert your change this time, but could you please look at, and participate in, the discussion here? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

	The Autism Barnstar
	This Autism Barnstar is for.. well, suggesting the creation of a new Autism Barnstar! casualdejekyll 22:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Compound surname

Template:Compound surname has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emotional expression, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Generation Z Date Range Edit War?

Over on the Generation Z date range, editors had put down the 1997-2012 age range at the top due to the United States Library of Congress officially citing the Pew's definition as of 2022. Many other institutions as well. Even the Millennials wiki page has the 1981-1996 definition at the top in the first paragraph. However, an editor who has a history of committing edit wars on this as well as other pages is vandalizing the page as well as having a history of adding outdated sources (such as Pew's 2015 definition) for unknown reasons. This can be seen on that Wiki's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostlyOperative (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality on Factory Model Schools

Hello! I wanted to follow up regarding the neutrality tag you added to the "factory model" page. I'm happy to work through your concerns on the article's talk page. If you no longer have any concerns, I'll go ahead and remove the tag. EdHistory101 (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Doug Weller talk 08:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

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

Doug Weller talk 08:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question!

Do you get paid to be an active editor of Wikipedia? 2600:100A:B10A:17DD:101:34D5:CE26:B136 (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! No, I am not paid.

Almost all editors are volunteers; they donate their time to contribute to the project. There are a small number of editors who are paid by parties other than Wikipedia, but they have to disclose this relationship and are (like all editors) governed by restrictions on conflicts of interest. There are also staff of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization that operates Wikipedia), but as far as I am aware, their jobs don't involve editing.

I don't need to be paid, because editing is a lot of fun, and you can contribute as much or as little as you want! Let me know if you have other questions. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Space Song

The article Space Song has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet notability guidelines for a stand alone article, return to status quo (redirect) or delete.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

GeorgeNotFound draft

Hello @BappleBusiness: it's PantheonRadiance. I noticed that you apparently edited the GeorgeNotFound draft, which just so happened to be right around the time I was also working on the draft myself - earlier today at around 12 PM PST. However, I didn't notice that you revised it until after I saw an edit conflict once I submitted my revisions to the draft. As much as I appreciate your edits to the draft, seeing as how several of the sources still contained references to other unreliable sources like Dexerto and Sportskeeda along with some replaceable primary sources, I decided to copy over portions of my work into the draft.

Thanks for your efforts, PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for notifying me! I made some changes to meld the best from both our edits. I tried my best to not include the unreliable sources when I readded content, but feel free to get rid of that if you see it. I also reworded some stuff, most notably the fanfiction paragraph, but I didn't remove any information. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 05:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you so much, and I love the new edits you made to the draft! Also, in retrospect I came off a bit too brash towards you, and I apologize for that. I saw that George's article was deleted via AfD and had been rejected a couple times, so I just wanted to make sure every source in the draft came from a RS (and I may or may not have been a bit taken aback when I saw the edit conflict as well lol). Anyway, I personally feel he meets GNG now, but you're welcome to submit anytime you feel it's ready for mainspace. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries! I'll send the draft through the AfC process and hopefully it will be approved! ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to the Gen Z article

Hi, there’s a user that’s going berserk removing a lot of sources in order to establish some sort of range dictatorship. This user is trying to silence any Gen Z range they can other than 1997-2012 to fulfill this. Right now there’s a wall of sources that only this user deem fits and as a matter of fact no news agency actually define these ranges so why are they allowed to take up this amount of space? Why can this user randomly just remove articles from the same news agency just because a different writer had a different range? Wikiboo02 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you raise this issue on the Generation Z talk page so we can have a community discussion about the sources added? The additions do concern me. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 06:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to create a discussion in the talk page about it but no one is active. Should I create one anyway? It’s impossible to add new references despite them being from October 2022 and reliable (Forbes and Bain & Company) he wouldn’t accept them. He says they’re unreliable and accuses me of vandalism saying that I could be banned. Instead he undid everything and warned me a bunch of times. He’s making his own edits of course. He’s violating the disclaimer that says that we should reach a consensus and that there should be consistency in the ranges provided by a source. He’s constantly talking about another user that was banned previously and same thing could happen to me if I continue. Wikiboo02 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about the Gen Z article

Hi there BappleBusiness, I’m a new user so please forgive me if I’m interrupting but I’m not sure I’m going to get the support I need in the talk page as no one is editing the -age except for this specific user who is now on a rampant spree we’re he removes any citation that was there in favor of new ones he found that he thinks are better. I’m surprised no one is doing anything and I don’t want to engage in edit warring with him as it doesn’t lead anywhere. He’s now accusing me of things I haven’t done and warning me in the edit log saying he will report but it’s obvious that I haven’t. Tried providing citations but he removes them and adds his own. Accuses me of not following the 18 month rule but his citations are all new with no consensus and definitely no 18 month rule satisfied. They also remove citations from this summer claiming they’re outdated and doesn’t allow anyone else to add citations. Should I contact an administrator? Please I need help with this disruptive user, can you help reverting his changes? Wikiboo02 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wikiboo02, I will create a section on Talk:Generation Z so we can discuss this in a more centralized fashion. I'm busy in my personal life at the moment, so I haven't looked at the sources you or @GhostlyOperative have added, but I will revert to the WP:STATUSQUO until we come to a consensus at the talk page. Also, beware of WP:CANVASSING. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 22:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will read about Canvassing. Again, I’m so sorry for the drama. Wikiboo02 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't think you are canvassing, I just know that it's a common mistake among new editors. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 02:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a sockpuppet on the article page now who's making edits and reverting other people's edits. This user is editing things without fully disclosing it in the edit comments. Can you check it out and revert it to status quo? Wikiboo02 (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I made an edit on the talk page and don’t know if you were notified or not. Can you please tell me where I made disruptive edits? As for now I’ve only been accused but I haven’t added anything to the page since you rolled it back to status quo. I only tried to undo some new edits. I also gave some details on the Center of Generational Kinetics as I saw you only listened to Zillennial’s reasoning but some of the things he’s saying are misleading. Wikiboo02 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As you can see in the edit history I only reverted edits by WaterIguana, he didn’t just remove Generational Kinetics source from the top as we all agreed on, instead he put it in another place where it wasn’t before as well as removing something completely unrelated in the Asia section where he removed 1996-2012 from the McKinsey source even though it’s correctly cited. Can you please go to the page and check WaterIguanas edits and you’ll see what I mean. I think he’s deliberately using the fact I mistakenly reverted all his edits as me targeting the agreed upon replacement of Generational Kinetics and his addition of a Cosmopolitan article. Can you please roll back to the status quo including the Asia section and then let him add the Cosmopolitan article? That way we can ensure no one’s editing while there’s a dispute. I think as per Some1 and your suspicions there should also be a sock puppet investigation. Apparently an IP that appeared in GhostlyOperative’s last investigation is now on the Zillennial page and Centennial357 talking about WaterIguanas edits and encouraging them to protect it. Wikiboo02 (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikiboo02 I really don’t know what is going on here with the Gen Z article. It’s not a page I’m currently working on. The sources that are put up in the Zillennial article including the Cosmo article were all discussed with admins in the Cusper page prior. Those sources will stay up until discussion with the admins demonstrate a solid reasoning for taking down said sources other than random editors personal preferences of what should be up in the Zillennial article or not. When it comes to the Gen Z page that’s a separate matter. If the issue is using it as a citation for the mention of Zillennials in the Gen Z page? The article does discuss Zillennials by that name if it’s being used to cite the Zillennial name Centennial357 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding sock puppets editing the Gen Z article

Hi BappleBusiness, I don’t know if you have noticed GhostlyOperative has created new socks. One of them FallLeavesSpooky was blocked and the other one RRTortuga is reported but it’s a duck and the evidence is obvious. In this case, is it possible to revert the edits if it’s obvious the accounts are sock puppets? Especially when they’re trying to edit the same part. Wikiboo02 (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If it's obvious that the accounts are sockpuppets, you can revert the edits since it would be considered vandalism. BappleBusiness^[talk] 00:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GeorgeNotFound (January 2)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Slywriter was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Multiple rejections have been ignored for this to be resubmitted.

Sourcing is terrible, external links is a farm of social media sites.

Follow the instructions mentioned by previous reviewers.

Slywriter (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BappleBusiness! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Slywriter (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Gen Z Politics: Latin America

It would be nice if you could add a reference or 2 to your "Latin America" contribution to the "Gen Z Politics" article. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Joaquin89uy, I actually moved that sentence (and its lack of sources), which was written by someone else, from the Generation Z article. My fault for not adding citations at the time or clarifying that move in the edit summary. I've added some sources now; let me know if you think we need more. BappleBusiness^[talk] 02:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. Will check 'em out. Thanks. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)