Hello, Potatornado, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD ( talk) 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you please add your sources to this? The WP:BURDEN is on the creator to do so. Without sources, this risks being nominated for deletion. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 18:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Cashton High School (Wisconsin), Potatornado!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This was redirected because it was judged to contain too little information to be a valid article. High schools are usually found notable (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) but they need to be verified.
To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Boleyn ( talk) 18:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Have you considered joining the Wisconsin WikiProject? We would love to have you! Dolotta ( talk) 01:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Cashton High School (Wisconsin), Potatornado!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This has been tagged as needing more references.
To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Boleyn ( talk) 14:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for adding wiki-links to that article! I should have just done it myself but well... thanks :D
‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia
ᐐT₳LKᐬ
15:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Potatornado, with regard to List of Wakefield Trinity players… as far as I'm aware, the red links that were on this article would not be considered overlinking. I believe overlinking is when an article links to another article many times, and/or when a sentence becomes "a sea of blue", i.e. there are that many links in the sentence, that the reader becomes confused as to which article the links are linking to. In this instance I would generally only use the nolink=1 when a link can't realistically be created, e.g. the person's forename/fore-initial is unknown, and hence the red links were a positive thing, as they are an indication that an article doesn't exist, and are are an encouragement to create that article. Please see Wikipedia:Red link. Best regards DynamoDegsy ( talk) 15:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the style [[snake]]s is preferred to [[snake|snakes]], always putting punctuation before quote marks is dispreferred ( WP:MOS), and substituting "theorized" for "theorised" is an unexplained WP:ENGVAR change. AnonMoos ( talk) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
-- 14:30, Monday, October 16, 2017 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Hello, Potatornado. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
This barnstar is awarded to Potatornado for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE November 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Potatornado,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Kolu (company) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolu (company) .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
Rentier ( talk) 22:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Potatornado. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the
Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at
User:Potatornado. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Potatornado|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}
. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message.
Rentier (
talk)
22:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "
cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history, which is
legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Alexa Curtis (lifestyle blogger). Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lacypaperclip ( talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
00:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Potatornado!
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 Drover's Wife (
talk)
04:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
|
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
MER-C
16:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[1] [2] [3] and [4] are choice diffs. You are also blocked for undisclosed paid advocacy editing, despite the demand above to disclose. Your actions are reprehensible, inexcusable, morally bankrupt and explicitly not welcome here. MER-C 16:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Potatornado ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hello, MER-C. My reason for appealing this block is as follows: This is not an advertising-only account. I have made thousands of contributions aside from those selected by you to support that claim. There is also no conflict of interest. I was not paid for any of these edits, and all were based on supplementary research that supported their relevance. I am not here to intentionally make, in your words, "reprehensible, inexcusable, morally bankrupt" edits, and that was never my intention at any point. All "sockpuppetry" that has occurred in the past was inadvertent due to my inexperience with Wikipedia and an IP block that affected my network of computers, which I have explained to the administrators who have blocked me previously, and have sorted it all out correctly, although the problem seems to be worsened every time something like this happens. Again, my rights are at your discretion, but I would simply like for you to consider these things. Thank you. Potatornado ( talk) 13:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have reviewed your contributions and concur with MER-C's assessment - those edits are clearly spam and your unblock request has not attempted to explain why you made them. SmartSE ( talk) 20:28, 30 April 2018 (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.
The article Navy Safe Harbor Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
A laudable aim, but miles away from meeting WP:NORG
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.
SmartSE (
talk)
20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Potatornado, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD ( talk) 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you please add your sources to this? The WP:BURDEN is on the creator to do so. Without sources, this risks being nominated for deletion. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 18:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Cashton High School (Wisconsin), Potatornado!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This was redirected because it was judged to contain too little information to be a valid article. High schools are usually found notable (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) but they need to be verified.
To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Boleyn ( talk) 18:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Have you considered joining the Wisconsin WikiProject? We would love to have you! Dolotta ( talk) 01:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Cashton High School (Wisconsin), Potatornado!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This has been tagged as needing more references.
To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Boleyn ( talk) 14:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for adding wiki-links to that article! I should have just done it myself but well... thanks :D
‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia
ᐐT₳LKᐬ
15:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Potatornado, with regard to List of Wakefield Trinity players… as far as I'm aware, the red links that were on this article would not be considered overlinking. I believe overlinking is when an article links to another article many times, and/or when a sentence becomes "a sea of blue", i.e. there are that many links in the sentence, that the reader becomes confused as to which article the links are linking to. In this instance I would generally only use the nolink=1 when a link can't realistically be created, e.g. the person's forename/fore-initial is unknown, and hence the red links were a positive thing, as they are an indication that an article doesn't exist, and are are an encouragement to create that article. Please see Wikipedia:Red link. Best regards DynamoDegsy ( talk) 15:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the style [[snake]]s is preferred to [[snake|snakes]], always putting punctuation before quote marks is dispreferred ( WP:MOS), and substituting "theorized" for "theorised" is an unexplained WP:ENGVAR change. AnonMoos ( talk) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
-- 14:30, Monday, October 16, 2017 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Hello, Potatornado. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
This barnstar is awarded to Potatornado for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE November 2017 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Potatornado,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Kolu (company) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolu (company) .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
Rentier ( talk) 22:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Potatornado. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the
Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at
User:Potatornado. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Potatornado|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}
. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message.
Rentier (
talk)
22:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "
cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the
page history, which is
legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Alexa Curtis (lifestyle blogger). Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lacypaperclip ( talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
00:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Potatornado!
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 Drover's Wife (
talk)
04:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
|
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
MER-C
16:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[1] [2] [3] and [4] are choice diffs. You are also blocked for undisclosed paid advocacy editing, despite the demand above to disclose. Your actions are reprehensible, inexcusable, morally bankrupt and explicitly not welcome here. MER-C 16:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Potatornado ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hello, MER-C. My reason for appealing this block is as follows: This is not an advertising-only account. I have made thousands of contributions aside from those selected by you to support that claim. There is also no conflict of interest. I was not paid for any of these edits, and all were based on supplementary research that supported their relevance. I am not here to intentionally make, in your words, "reprehensible, inexcusable, morally bankrupt" edits, and that was never my intention at any point. All "sockpuppetry" that has occurred in the past was inadvertent due to my inexperience with Wikipedia and an IP block that affected my network of computers, which I have explained to the administrators who have blocked me previously, and have sorted it all out correctly, although the problem seems to be worsened every time something like this happens. Again, my rights are at your discretion, but I would simply like for you to consider these things. Thank you. Potatornado ( talk) 13:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have reviewed your contributions and concur with MER-C's assessment - those edits are clearly spam and your unblock request has not attempted to explain why you made them. SmartSE ( talk) 20:28, 30 April 2018 (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.
The article Navy Safe Harbor Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
A laudable aim, but miles away from meeting WP:NORG
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.
SmartSE (
talk)
20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)