User talk:Darkm777

Welcome!

Hello, Darkm777!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf what exactly are you referring to? did I do something I was not supposed to? Please be more specific. Darkm777 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the message does not mean there are any problems with your editing. It's just an FYI. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Carol Cady

added a link pointing to Los Alamos

Lynn Bjorklund

added a link pointing to Los Alamos

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry about that! Darkm777 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions

Hi Darkm777. There is a great need for more participants in deletion discussions, and every editor is welcome. But the speed with which you're contributing caught my attention – only a minute passed between your edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital Crime Writers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macon City Council and between your edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INAT and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyRepublic. In my experience, that's an extraordinarily short time to read an article, review its sources, and search for more sources if the ones in the article are insufficient. If you want to contribute helpfully in this area (again, more contributors are needed!), I'd suggest that you read (or re-read) the advice about contributing to AfD discussions. Regards, PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 02:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've generally tried to invest more time in these reviews, but for this case I quickly conducted a Google News search and looked at existing sources to confirm notability. For example, I found that "Macon City Council" didn't have any in-depth articles in Google News or on the first few pages of Google results, and checking took less than a minute. While three other individuals had already voted for deletion, I believed the decision was appropriate and didn't require further investigation. I usually dedicate more time when I'm the first to vote and no other viewpoints are provided, but here, the arguments presented by others made the decision much quicker. If you feel I've made any incorrect votes, please feel free to critique me, but I stand by my actions and the speed with which I voted. Darkm777 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No critiques on the basis of correctness—your !votes are fairly accurate. The only thing I'd note is that the 03:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrinceTortoise Thanks. Wow good catch on the Billboard. That was in tiny print on the side. I struggled to find it at first, but I still feel there is probably much more out there on Dophin Records in print media, not online. Darkm777 (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They really didn’t make it obvious that it was an ad. Your not noticing is their fault for hiding the information. Looking at the discussion as a whole: The argument in favor of keeping has strong support, and while I may disagree, it is a reasonable position to take. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]