VaudevillianScientist

Welcome

Hello, VaudevillianScientist, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tetra-n-butylammonium iodide (January 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Mirror Cracked was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tetra-n-butylammonium iodide and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tetra-n-butylammonium iodide, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, VaudevillianScientist! Having an article 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! The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tetra-n-butylammonium iodide has been accepted

Tetra-n-butylammonium iodide, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quaternary ammonium cation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethyl. 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) 06:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Hartmuth C. Kolb

Hello, VaudevillianScientist,

Thank you for creating Hartmuth C. Kolb.

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

There should be references that are independent of the subject that prove their work is notable

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

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

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hi VaudevillianScientist! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Kj cheetham, I'm still learning how and when to tick these boxes. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Victor Goldschmidt, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German and Norwegian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

John L. Magee (chemist) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, John L. Magee (chemist), is not suitable 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. Lopifalko (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, VaudevillianScientist

Thank you for creating Charles T. Prewitt.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Quoc Viet Le moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Quoc Viet Le, is not suitable 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. Reading Beans (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Quoc Viet Le (November 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Quoc Viet Le and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cabrils (talk) 23:22, 25 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, VaudevillianScientist. Thank you for your work on Jürgen Kirschner. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, VaudevillianScientist. Thank you for your work on Hannu Oja. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Quoc Viet Le has been accepted

Quoc Viet Le, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BuySomeApples (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm David Eppstein. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Olga Kocharovskaya, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi David, the birth year was from the Russian Wikipedia page. For reference, there are two available online

https://id.oclc.org/worldcat/entity/E39PBJymyXfPx4GwkmbTBqjwG3.html (in English)

https://memoclub.ru/2015/09/palatka-vo-dvore/ (in Russian, search for Ольга Анатольевна Кочаровская) VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Rupert G. Miller moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rupert G. Miller, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Parzen Prize moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Parzen Prize, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Founders of statistics

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Founders of statistics, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rupert G. Miller has been accepted

Rupert G. Miller, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, VaudevillianScientist. Thank you for your work on Hans Elsässer. User:Ibjaja055, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for creating this article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ibjaja055}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Greetings

I see you have been very active in articles about chemists. I tried to write an article about Peter Gill, but it been moved to draft space as Draft:Peter Gill (chemist). Could you take a look at it and perhaps help me to get it accepted? I think the major problem is the lack of direct sources. Some of the links support the text but they are not direct sources. I have been on WP for a long time and I am now getting old and my memory is getting worse. I was an admin but gave it up because of my age. All best wishes. He is noted as a member of the World Association of Theoretical and Computational Chemists. Bduke (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Peter Gill

I have been thinking about this article too, but you are way ahead of me. You might find this link useful: https://watoc.net/watoc.dirac.html WATOC/our-people/academic-staff/p-gill.html and this one https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/about/our-people/academic-staff/p-gill.html. Let me know if you think I can help further. Bduke (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I'm confident that the draft as of its current status will be accepted on Wikipedia. One of the two links you provided is already cited. Stay tuned for the result! Cheers. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Well done. I agree. I am getting too old. Are you a computational chemist? I was but retired nearly 20 years ago and my links with and interest in computational chemistry declines every year. Bduke (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I'm not a computational chemist but collaborated with a few in the past. I can understand why your interests decline over time...If you let me know your contact info such as the email, I'd be happy to connect. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wolfgang Klein (linguist) has been accepted

Wolfgang Klein (linguist), 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adelchi Azzalini has been accepted

Adelchi Azzalini, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Stewart Fotheringham question

Hello,

I saw your move on the page Stewart Fotheringham and just had a quick question. I struggled with naming it originally honestly because of his inconsistent name use, with most publications going by A. Stewart Fotheringham. However, when I was deciding on the original page name I found online sources (of varying quality) for Alexander Stewart Fotheringham, AS Fotheringham, Alexander Fotheringham, and just Stewart Fotheringham, [1]. I decided to be safe and include his full name Alexander Stewart Fotheringham, mentioning he usually goes by A. Stewart Fotheringham in the page. I'm very low confidence on any choice, which is why I included the full name, but I was wondering how you decided his preferred name was Stewart Fotheringham, as most publications at least have an "A" in front of the name. If dropping the Alexander, Wouldn't "A. Stewart Fotheringham" be closer to what it seems he prefers to publish under (such as J. R. R. Tolkien, J. K. Rowling)? Thanks for clarification. Is there a source for his preference besides one being used more regularly? Is there a Wikipolicy or design criteria I can use for future guidance?

Without any outside source, I just assumed he might be trying to differentiate himself from other researchers with a similar name, and was using his middle and first initial rather then the conventional first and middle initial to do that. However, I don't know him and am only going off of what I see.

Thank you for your help! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

He uses that on his official website

https://search.asu.edu/profile/2372224 VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but he also uses "A. Stewart Fotheringham" on the same website, and has more then one publications/sites with different preferences. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

He's called Stewart in life. It also helps with online search without Alexander, which is the purpose of a wikipedia article. You can definitely write his full name in the introduction paragraph. A lot of the times people use a nick name as the article title since it is easier to find publicly.

On the side, I see your great progress in adding these quantitative geographers into wikipedia. It's still lacking an entry on Andrew D. Cliff, perhaps you are working on that. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Check his self intro here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvMYYpHhpjM VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I have not seen that video, nice find. From a publication standpoint, most of his work is A. Stewart though. With multiple sources for each variation, including the A. Stewart on his personal site, I'm unsure on dropping it completely, especially as thats the name on his textbooks and on multiple peer reviewed publications (Many pages include a middle initial if the person uses it frequently I've seen). However, if we're going with how he introduces himself in public, that might be a good argument.

Sorry, I spent a couple days stewing on the name and took what I thought was the most "conservative" approach. As long as the choice is supported by sources and thought out though I'm not going to argue the point. Thanks for indulging me! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Peter Szatmari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hospital for Sick Children.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, VaudevillianScientist. Thank you for your work on Institute for Molecular Science. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start. Needs independent sources and material derived from them. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, VaudevillianScientist. Thank you for your work on Robert Hastings (ufologist). North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Rationale for adding names to Crystallography template?

If they have a Nobel, won the Ewald or similar then they clearly belong. However, it is not clear that all the recent names reach this level. I have posted on the template, and also asked IUCr & ACA for comments as I think we should be careful about this. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi VaudevillianScientist. Thank you for your work on Norio Kato. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

There is certainly no question about his notability, he is one of the most famous X-ray diffraction experts of the 20th century. I will suggest adding a scientist box and image.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great article. I think you should be autopatrolled. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, how do I use this capability? VaudevillianScientist (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi VaudevillianScientist, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 22:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Schwede66 and thanks for your suggestions! Yes, I will be sticking with high standards. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Please note there is nothing wrong with posting only a link to an AfD at a notice board however adding requests asking editors to save the article and prevent deletion is not a neutrally worded notice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Noted, cheers. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Spideog (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Side-comment from AFD on timeline of UFOlogy

First of all VaudevillianScientist please do not let the outcome of this AfD and the useful, necessary disputes between editors that are part of editing Wikipedia discourage you from continuing to contribute!
I was reading your discussion with Sgerbic I wanted to share my point of view in case this can help.

Please understand that there are different expectations when including information on different articles, based on the article's subject. If I look at the article for a given European sailor/explorer of the 17th century, I would not be surprised if it includes a voyages section detailing each journey they took, even if no individual journey is sufficiently notable to have a separate article. However, if I look at a timeline of relevant European exploration, I would not expect to see each of these journeys; in fact I would expect to see none of them, unless during one there was a specific feat, discovery or event that has been very widely commented on. Perhaps in other articles that are more specific (say, the article or history of a specific city, country or population) it would be relevant to note contact with the sailor / explorer; but again, this would only be expected if it was notable for the understanding of that article.

Coming back to the timeline of UFOlogy and Leslie Kean's book. I would definitely expect it to be listed on the article about Leslie Kean. I would only expect it to have a separate article if it had been widely commented on and is a seminal work / major work in the field. Perhaps in 30 years this will be the case, but from a quick internet search, right now this is not the case. In specific articles about events, people that she comments on (etc.) it may be relevant to mention her analysis or their contribution to her book, sourced appropriately. But in the timeline I would very strongly not expect such a work to be mentioned.

Happy editing! Shazback (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Shazback! I'm glad you toned down my words somewhat, text can be so frustrating to hear tone. I feel a bit frustrated that VS does not seem to be understanding what I'm talking about, but then that is my problem. I see that VS probably has a lot to give back to the Wikipedia community, they have spent a lot of time on this article and it can be a hard lesson when your peers choose to delete your work. I've been there many times, finally I really read what they wrote and understood from their perspective that they are here for the best of Wikipedia, and the rules should apply across the project. Now I try harder to make sure I have proved notability before I invest the time it takes to write an article. Sgerbic (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I hear you @Shazback. I just want to reiterate that Kean's book has been removed from the timeline after I saw Sgerbic's original post. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked

I have been advised of your attempt to "out" JoJo Anthrax here — having, I suppose, made an (incorrect) guess that he is a certain scientist in real life. This is completely unacceptable. (So is your canvassing of support to the discussion,[2][3] but I'm not concerned with that at the moment.) Do not repeat it, no matter how upset you become about the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of UFOs. You have been blocked for a month. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 22:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC).

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

VaudevillianScientist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I acknowledge this incident and there is proven evidence that I intended to patch it up.

Decline reason:

I do not see anything in this unblock request that indicates you understand how serious of misconduct an attempt to out another editor is, especially when done to harass or intimidate. You are, frankly, fortunate that the block has an expiration date; nothing here convinces me to make it any sooner. Also, as noted above, the outing attempt was not the only disruption you were causing, it was just the most serious. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Seraphimblade, compare discussion on my page. Bishonen | tålk 04:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC).

  Thanks for the heads up, Bishonen. Given that, I think declining the unblock is the way to go here. VaudevilleScientist, I understand it can be frustrating to have something you've done a lot of work on nominated for deletion, but such is the nature of a collaborative project. The canvassing alone could have easily earned you a block until the AfD discussion concluded, but the outing attempt is just over the top here. And you don't have to be right to count as outing; it's the fact that you tried, not whether you succeeded. You cannot do that again. I'm sure you wouldn't much like it if people started trying to find and post personal information about you. Even if they were way off the mark, you'd still know they're trying to do it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I can understand some people don't want to be exposed of their identity online because they may be subject to danger. On that part, I'm sorry about my conduct. There was a tendency of escalation in the conversation with VaudevillianScientist (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  ... with JoJo. It wasn't the case with others. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Vaude, many here at Wikipedia genuinely want to improve our coverage of this topic and there is a very productive discussion about improving our coverage of that subject. You could have been a very important and productive voice in that discussion, helping to improve the project's articles. Unfortunately, you attempted to intimidate a fellow editor. That was a huge error. The project welcomes editors with all sorts of different views and they all work it out without threatening each other. TravellingRecluse (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Bradv, so your suggest me to add a new unblock request box or change the reasoning? Not so sure I understand the comment. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're welcome to add a new unblock request at the bottom of this page. Just add this text, like you did the first time: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} – bradv 03:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

VaudevillianScientist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I acknowledge this incident and there is proven evidence that I intended to patch it up. I'm sorry about my rash behavior that may have exposed an editor's identity, which amounts to harassment per WP policy. In addition, while good-natured discussion with like-minded peers on the platform is OK, excessive canvassing for gaining votes or support violates WP policy, so does trying to dominate a conversation with superfluous, rapid-fire exchanges called bludgeoning. All of these get in the way of the gradual and strife-free consensus formation advocated on WP. This should be an example for all of us to engage in a cool-headed discussion in the AfD process rather than try to tear one another down for the good of none.

Accept reason:

Appeal accepted. Happy editing. -- asilvering (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This may seem like a minor quibble, but the reason we treat outing so seriously is not really about protecting someone's livelihood – it's to keep Wikipedia a safe and secure place where people are free to contribute without fear of retribution, retaliation, or government censorship. Wikipedia is one of the last places on the Internet where users are in complete control of their own privacy, and I believe that shows in what we are able to achieve together. This is why outing, and attempted outing, are both considered forms of harassment.

All that said, you did reverse your outing attempt before your block, which shows that you knew you made a serious error in judgement. Personally I'm inclined to view that, together with your acknowledgement here, as sufficient to address the stated reason for your block. There are concerns above about bludgeoning and canvassing, so those will also need to factor into the decision whether to unblock you. – bradv 03:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• To agree with the last sentence that Bradv has written, I would urge that the user not be unblocked before the AFD is closed, due to their canvassing. Aside from the clumsy outing attempt, the canvassing has been reason for a two-week block (that is, assuming the usual one relist). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Overtaken by events. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  The AfD has concluded, so this is no longer an issue. @VaudevillianScientist, can you address the concerns about bludgeoning and canvassing? -- asilvering (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Would this qualify for a lifting of the ban? VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, I'm satisfied that you understand what you did wrong and how not to do it in the future, but I didn't see the original outing problem and it's now been suppressed. @Bradv, @Bishonen, they've been blocked for about a week already. I wouldn't have been inclined to unblock or reduce the block if it had been a one- or two-week block for an attempted outing, but maybe bringing it down from a month is appropriate? -- asilvering (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure whether you want to reduce the block or lift it, asilvering? But either is OK by me, and I'll leave it to you. I see VaudevillianScientist has also addressed the bludgeoning and canvassing in their new unblock request. The original outing which has been suppressed was simply that of addressing the other user by a (first) name hinting at a certain RL identity. Bishonen | tålk 22:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC).

  I'm fine with unblocking here. If I were the responding admin here I probably would have gone with an indefinite block, as what we really require in these cases is a reassurance that it won't happen again, not just for a set amount of time to pass. We have that assurance now, and following my last comment the concerns about bludgeoning and canvassing have been addressed, so the block is no longer needed. – bradv 03:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)