This is an archive of past discussions with User:Web-julio. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to BRICS. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 19:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
You are adding this category, which you yourself created a few minutes ago, to articles of people where (1) they are not Lithuanian, (2) they are not bisexual, or (3) it is WP:NONDEFINING.
The problem is your adding a blatantly incorrect category to articles, including BLPs. If you are so unskilled at categorizing, then please stop relying on WP:PETSCAN. Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 19
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.)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Maitê Proença, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
It look like he just goes by "Rahim Redcar", so you can drop the C from the RM proposal to avoid any ambiguity, since no one has voted in favor of the C (yet) and it doesn't appear in any recent RS. Raladic (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Web-julio. Thank you for your work on Middle Dakota. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
no such term is mentioned in the target page
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi Web-julio. Thank you for your work on Os Rios Grandes. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
not mentioned in the target page
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi Web-julio. Thank you for your work on Rios Grandes. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
not mentioned in the target page
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username MPGuy2824 and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, September 31, for deletion, because a consensus decision previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username MPGuy2824 and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, April 31, for deletion, because a consensus decision previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hey, it looks like I was wrong about the CSD here. Sorry about cluttering up your talk page. I still think the redirect should not exist though. The reasoning given on the target page is "Java (specifically the java.util.Calendar class) allows dates such as February 0 (= January 31) and April 31 (= March 1)." The problem is that Java seems to accept any number there and so 366th of April 1991, turns out to be 30th March 1992 according to Java. Like BusterD says below, don't let this deter you from editing or creating redirects. Happy editing! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of November 31
Hello, Web-julio,
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username MPGuy2824 and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, November 31, for deletion, because a consensus decision previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
When you find yourself responding to admin action of any kind, I invite you to consider the acting administrator as a resource. I like to think wikipedians act as impartially as possible, but often we find ourselves opposed on the merits, sometimes vividly. Wikipedia sysops are trusted to use advanced permissions, not to correct our fellows. In this case you were right, and I'm happy to be called on it. If I were asked directly, I would have seen my error, agreed you were right, and I'd thank you for calling me on it. So, be direct. I'd prefer it. It's quicker. I consider such notices a personal favor, especially when I disagree with the notice (how would I see there's a spider on my back, anyway?).
As you get a few thousand more edits under your belt, you'll realize most wikipedians will react the same way. We're a far more collaborative community than we see in consensus measuring processes, especially when you look at wikiprojects and the article review/improvement systems they facilitate.
Nice to meet you, no hard feelings, and don't cease editing boldly. Smart people often disagree. This is a good thing. Just keep it civil, make arguments in good faith, and if I'm wrong, call me on it. I'm counting on you. BusterD (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter I of Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glimpse.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Hi! I saw your comment here. I didn't close that discussion, so won't be re-opening it, and I deleted that redirect because it was created by a WP:sockpuppet, so will not be undeleting it either. But you're perfectly free to create a new page at that title if you believe it is needed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Dietrich Braess, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. SMasonGarrison21:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
@Smasongarrison it doesn't seem you tried to improve the categorization. Has he a disputed gender? It doesn't appear looking the bio. Is there a more specific category for German men in his field? Then subcategorize, but since you didn't provide an explanation nor pointed where I did something wrong and my edit follows that guideline, as I see he is not the only one directly in the German men category, then I boldly reverted as I think you didn't pay enough attention to this issue. Web-julio (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I see, you're right, I didn't open the category page before categorizing. For me, containers were only categories with "by" in their name. Web-julio (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Good to know -- I've added the container cat. But a good rule is to see if other pages are in the category if the categorization guidance is confusing. SMasonGarrison23:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please stop adding red-link categories.Magnolia677 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
You created a useless category. There is already a category for "Erotic dancers", so the category you should have created would have been a sub-category of this. What a mess you're making with all these wonky categories. I think User:Smasongarrison discussed this with you above. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
@Magnolia677 Not every LGBTQ dancer is an erotic dancer. If you dislike it, you can nominate it and its siblings (I didn't create Category:Lesbian dancers, for example).
And forgive me, I honestly didn't erotic dancers shouldn't be in general dancers categories. I guess it's like writers vs songwriters categories case. Web-julio (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I really think you should not be using speedy tagging tool, like quick categories. Like why are we making an intersection of gender+sexual orientation+occupation. Like how does this meet the criteria for EGRS? SMasonGarrison22:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Also as I've worked my way through your edits, it's pretty clear that you've removed a lot of the category keys for LGBTQ categories (gay men and lesibians). Gay men and lesbians are supposed to be in both the main LGBTQ category and a gendered child category if it exists. There have been several CFDs about this. SMasonGarrison23:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I was just explaining why I was doing so, I didn't subcategorized in a void or in bad faith. If the article was saying she is bisexual and a dancer, you were using the reversion tool abusively because all unsourced content should be removed, not just my edit. Web-julio (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I reverted because there was literally no mention of the word bisexual in the article. But you're really missing the point. The point is that you really need to slow down on categorization because you don't seem to understand that you are making categories that are inconsistent with categorization conventions. Like just look at how the German men conversation went down. I pointed you to policies and the category documentation itself and repeatedly asked you to read the policy. You really really really need to listen to what others are saying.SMasonGarrison05:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
The German men is totally different as I learned something. Unrelated, I was being constructive, and the gender+sexuality+occupation are pertinent with EGRS as most categories like that exist. That's debatable? Ofc, but every time someone brings it up in CfD it's kept. Web-julio (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
It's not "totally different". You reverted repeatedly and insisted that the reason be spoon fed to you. Instead of asking without reverting. SMasonGarrison05:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I only reverted when I couldn't see an explanation or a easily thinkable/plausibly handy reason. And some edit wars are okay as long they are short (less than WP:3RR). And I say that occupation and sexuality are okay as I remember seeing this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
No -- edit wars aren't ok. It's a waste of volunteer time. Just ask if it's not obvious to you. You really need to recognize that you are learning so not everything will be "easily thinkable/plausibly handy reason" SMasonGarrison06:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
That is not the convention. I have literally explained this to you several times. The category is not fully diffused. I am going to restore the status quo. The point is that you are not familiar with the norms. I am happy to explain things, but only if you stop making disruptive changes. Ask first don't just revert. The are several CFDs about how to handle LGBTQ nesting. SMasonGarrison05:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree that I know what you meant, but I usually like to point out the fact of literalness that makes the first impression on me Web-julio (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you want to actually learn how this works? Or do you want to just be snarky and waste up volunteer time? Literally -- you are not making this a rewarding experience. I have asked you nicely to slow down because you are making a lot of time wasting edits. I have pointed you to resources, and proposed a less damaging approach to your edits while you learn. SMasonGarrison06:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry I sounded dismissive because I answered quickly before checking those CfDs. I confess that I was anxious to answer but at the same time I felt that I needed to explain why I did that comment, which I'm also sorry if that sounded rude. Web-julio (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
It's fine, but my point still stands. I am happy to help you learn, because I'm always excited to have new editors who are interested in categories. But I don't want to fight you or have to battle/edit war to get you to actually listen. SMasonGarrison06:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I just looked these CfDs. It doesn't seem the issue you brought is really addressed. Following 96z's consensus, they disregarded it. If a metacategory (container layer) existed, they would be in the same level, according to this comment, but this never happened, but in the last CfD, Marco issued again but the consensus turned different. Web-julio (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
This was an extremely mess series of CFDs the recreator was warned for it. It was eventually sorted out. You are welcome to dig more into it. SMasonGarrison06:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Yep -- categories are actually pretty complicated once you dig into them. One suggestion to get you started might be to work on diffusing an existing category like an occupation that needs to be diffused by nationality or a century that needs to be diffused by occupation. I think that will help you get more familiar with how categories work. What kinds of categories are you interested it starting with? SMasonGarrison00:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
So I'm going to take your comment at the RFD as you being uninterested in learning. I have to admit that that's fairly disappointing, given our conversation here. SMasonGarrison02:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, I read "There's nothing to learn here", as you not being interested in learning what the problem was. Because in my opinion you really shouldn't have been using speedy for that procedure. Furthermore, " as no consensus or policy was shown regarding this inconsistency" told me that you hadn't understood the issue related to how you approach learning about categories. Not everything is explicitly written in a policy or CFD. If you keep demanding that someone show you exactly where everything is, you're going to have a hard time. I've pointed out several times that you're unfamiliar with a lot of these processes. I think that you are going about "learning" by making a lot of messes. And your response is to be defensive and insist that everything be sourced when people point out the problems. I've offered to mentor/teach you on the condition that you not make it exhausting. You seemed to be uninterested based on you ignoring my question AND by your statement on saying that there's nothing to learn. SMasonGarrison00:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@Smasongarrison is very kind to say so! I've been inactive in categories for a while as I undertook a rather ambitious project related to Major League Baseball which has taken up a lot of my editing time! So I'm not as up to date as I would like. However, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
oh im sorry. I confused the brackets when writing the reply. I later noticed I received 30 notifications of pinging I was wondering how. Web-julio (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Welcome Web-julio!
