User talk:LR.127

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Start a new talk topic.

Gettysburg

@LR.127: - I agree with most of your recent changes to Battle of Gettysburg, such as the a.m. to am, spacing, and changing "In order to". They improved the quality of the article. My question, out of curiosity, is why remove the web links in "Memoirs and primary sources"? I believe it is helpful for the reader to be able to easily review some sources. What is your reasoning? Just curious, TwoScars (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have a solid reasoning - it's been reverted. Thanks for checking in. Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

Hi LR.127. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the invitation, but I'll wait several months before I'll comfortably consider myself experienced! :-) Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Feel free to pitch in whenever you're comfortable then :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi LR.127. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Fastily 00:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A message from [[User:{{subst:Colnl86}}|{{subst:LR.127}}]]

Colnl86 (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Hi LR.127! I have found many official sources in the form of state media. And there are several, not even mentions, but whole interviews with the person about whom the article is about. That's why I didn't understand what needs to be fixed? Tell me, please, I'll look for more sources. Is it just them? ThanksColnl86 (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for asking. I recommend you look at WP:BLP and how Wikipedia aims to maintain a style on a living person. I don't think "state media" qualifies as independent coverage.

I recommend you look at your sources that seem to be user-generated (Yandex Docs?) and make sure that every source is reliable. Rather than looking for more sources, try to instead trim down and focus on the most reliable sources.

For more information, you can also ask at the Teahouse on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. LR.127 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Peaq1

Peaq1 (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Hi, you declined the article I submitted "Draft:Emmaojinere" I didn't quite get what you mean by not meeting minimum inline citations and I would appreciate to improve it. Thanks[reply]

Hello! Wikipedia articles, including your draft, needs to have more sources cited in the article. Especially for a living (or recently-deceased) person, claims like the person's birth and death date need to be reliably sourced. You can check the blue links in this message or at the top of your draft for some official information! Hope this helps - cheers. LR.127 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proxying

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TotalTruthTeller24 if you're going to be creating redirects to fictional works. This sock puppet is habitually using WP:AFC/R to recruit people to proxy edit. What happens is one account creates a redirect (or requests that a redirect be created), and then another accounts comes by to create an article at the redirect. This is done to evade blocks on the sock puppets as we find them and avoid scrutiny on their disruptive edits. If you can report the sock puppets to the investigations page I linked above instead of helping them, it would make the administrators' job easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the notice - I'm not familiar with how sockpuppet investigations go on Wikipedia; could you explain to me what's happening on this case (and the technical terms like clerks and CheckUsers)? Cheers :-). LR.127 (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TotalTruthTeller24 (TTT24) was blocked several years ago. They continued editing through numerous sock puppet accounts, evading our blocks, and continuing to make the same disruptive edits. Reporting people to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (SPI) is pretty easy. You can just follow the prompts at "How to open an investigation". However, some people prefer to use Twinkle. I personally don't think it's any easier, but I seem to be outvoted on this issue.

CheckUsers are administrators who can see the IP addresses underneath accounts. For example, if my IP address happened to be 192.168.0.1, I'd be able to see that and block it. There are a few other things that CheckUsers can access, too, but they're not really important.

Clerks are normal users (or sometimes administrators) who assist CheckUsers in the maintenance of SPI. Clerks can tag cases for Checkuser review, and they're usually the ones who give a final look at the case before it's archived.

Some people find identifying sock puppets difficult. I collected a few thoughts, which might help. TTT24 in particular tends to bulk create a bunch of redirects on some fictional work. Many of the redirects are characters, but major story lines, episodes, or spinoffs might also be targeted. I guess I'd say that TTT24 treats Wikipedia like it's Wikia/Fandom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined my draft

hello @LR.127 trust you are doing fine am just going to drop this here again. u said something about date of birth. Draft:Caoilinn Springall

You can also remove the date of birth section if you feel it's not well-supported by reliable sources. Rather than declining a well-sourced article, consider focusing on her notable achievements and appearances in significant films, which clearly establish her notability. Afro 📢Talk! 21:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for checking in!

Fair point, I should have done a more detailed review rather than using that one example in my comment. I'll make sure of it next time I review biography drafts. Cheers, and thanks again :-). LR.127 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @LR.127, I have fixed the highlighted issue and resubmitted the draft. The subject clearly passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. She has appeared in notable movies as a lead role and has been nominated for her role in a blockbuster movie by a notable award. Afro 📢Talk! 22:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]