User talk:WormEater13

Welcome!

Hi WormEater13! I noticed your contributions to Texas House of Representatives and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Marquardtika (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Janis Holt has been accepted

Janis Holt, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shawn Thierry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney. 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) 07:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - thank you! WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jose Aliseda has been accepted

Jose Aliseda, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yvonne Toureilles has been accepted

Yvonne Toureilles, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

I noticed you're marking a lot of edits as minor that aren't minor edits, and just wanted to leave a quick note about this. Please see Help:Minor edit; most of those edits (this edit for example) should not be marked as a minor edit. - Aoidh (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aoidh. I'll be more careful in the near future and check out WP:MINOR. Thank you for informing me about this. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit

Hello, WormEater13. Thank you for your feedback. I understand the importance of proper citations. I will provide reliable sources for the added content and re-submit the changes. I appreciate your understanding and will ensure that the article meets Wikipedia’s referencing guidelines. Thanks again S21ZRA (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @S21ZRA - of course! Feel free to re-submit your changes after you add reliable sources. Once again, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Thank you. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Rina Chunga-Kutama

Hello WormEater13. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rina Chunga-Kutama, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: References provided in ther article are a sufficient claim of importance. Use WP:AFD . Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I 100% agree with your decision - as of right now, the article looks fine. When I tagged it for CSD, it had no claim to importance and barely any references. I will be proposing the article to AfD soon. Thank you so much! @Whpq WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About recent revision to someones blanking of their user talk page

Blanking your own user talk page is actually allowed, it just falls on reviewers to make sure they know how many times the person has been warned. Shadow311 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah 100%. It was an accident which I take accountability for, and I didn't mean to revert the blanking of a talk page (I thought it was an article until I read the User talk:). Once I realized, I stopped. However, I wanted to reinstate the other editor's warnings, which is why I undid the edits manually. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About reverting edit

Hello WormEater13, Thank you for your message. I was surprised to see my contribution removed because of a lack of neutrality, as I aimed to follow Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. Although I must admit I hadn’t recently consulted the article you referred me to, thank you for the reminder.

That said, I made an effort to avoid editorial bias and to summarise only Gazidis’s publicly stated objectives, without commenting on his management or his communication. Was the issue perhaps due to insufficient sourcing? I did have some difficulty finding reliable sources in English for certain points.

I also believed that including the historical and cultural dimensions of the club (a relevant aspect in this particular acquisition) was a proportionate and non-promotional contribution. Did you think overwise?

I’d be grateful for your guidance, as I’m considering getting involved and contributing more by the end of the year, Thanks again, Echo (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2001:861:72:8EA0:E194:DB92:992A:6A25!

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia and for reaching back out!

I reverted your edits due to quotes such as these:

"Gazidis has expressed a commitment to revitalizing the club not only on the pitch but also by strengthening its cultural legacy and deep community ties, in line with Larry Tanenbaum’s vision for socially rooted and community-driven sports institutions."

This was clearly not written with WP:NPOV and has editorial bias. It's a mistake that a lot of people make daily - so it's not that big of a deal, as long as you're careful! Here on Wikipedia, we are very strict about WP:NPOV since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You are more than welcome to contribute to articles, as long as they're constructive edits. For example, I saw your edits to Olympique Lyonnais–AS Saint-Étienne rivalry, which are great!

Hope this helps! If you have any questions, feel free to ask! WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see how this quote does have editorial bias indeed. I'll try to improve my original edit. Thanks a lot for your answer, and your constructive and positive feedback! Echo (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your user page is devoid of well-deserved WikiLove, so here :D. Thank you for your work fighting vandalism with recent changes patrol, article creation, WP:AfD, and other WikiGnome stuff too. Cheers. GoldRomean (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I appreciate it!! WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for sources

Hey there WormEater13, I hope you're doing well. I've seen you making many AfD nominations and I'd like to give you some tips for finding sources; you may know some or all of this already, in which case I apologize for bothering you. Your nominations have been very high-quality, especially for a newcomer, and I appreciate your work – keep it up!

Google News (the "News" tab under the search bar in Google) is very good for finding independent sources.
Google Scholar [1] is good for finding academic articles. So is JSTOR [2], which is more focused on the humanities.
You should be eligible for The Wikipedia Library – I strongly recommend checking it out. It gives Wikipedia editors access to a huge range of academic databases and other reliable sources.
If you're searching for a specific phrase but get lots of false positives (results that contain the phrase but aren't about the subject you're looking for), try using quotation marks – this will force the search engine, whether a web search or an academic database, to find exact matches for the whole phrase. For instance, I get very different results for later three kingdoms [3] and "later three kingdoms" [4]. With quotation marks I can read about the Later Three Kingdoms, but without them all the results about Korea are buried by results on the Chinese Three Kingdoms.

Thanks for reading and I hope this was helpful. Feel free to ask me questions about finding sources, AfD, or anything else. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 12:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Toadspike! Thank you for these tips and for your kind words! I am aware of JSTOR/GScholar and have been using TWL to access a few paywalled sources. However, I was not aware of the quotation marks trick, since I very often do see false positives when searching for secondary coverage about a subject (particularly, BLP). I've just tried this and realized that this is some incredible help and will save me a lot of time. Thanks again! WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi WormEater13, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False statement in concern

In PRODing Shohagi Union High School, you made the statement, "The only source for this article is a Bangladeshi encyclopedia, which is not reliable." If you want to say it doesn't contain significant coverage of the school, that's fine, it doesn't. If you want to say it's a tertiary source, that's fine too, it is. But please strike or remove your claim that it is not reliable. Banglapedia, published by the scholarly Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, is a reliable source. This has come up a couple of times at WP:RSN, you can read more about it in the archives there. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I will be making a few modifications to my original PROD for better clarity. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review draft : Gjesti

Hi i fixed all things you required at draft :Gjesti , when you have time you can have a look again, thank you. Lanceloth345 (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lanceloth345. I'm likely not going to review the draft myself to avoid giving off a appearance of a conflict of interest, but after a brief review, I still believe that a large amount of the sources may not be WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject, given their promotional nature. I would recommend waiting for a AfC reviewer to do a formal assessment though - those are just my thoughts from a quick skim. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello WormEater13:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Your Edit on Draft:Kedibone

Hi there! Just a quick note, the tag about missing citations in the plot section might not be needed. The summary reflects details that are easy to verify from the film itself and are often mentioned in reviews as well. As long as the plot stays clear, accurate, and avoids any interpretation, it usually doesn’t require specific citations. Removing the tag should be fine in this case. Afro 📢Talk! 14:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afrowriter - apologies for the oversight! Thank you for pointing it out. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming expiry of your patroller right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi WormEater13, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Lilly and Jack Sullivan

Hi there, thanks for your work at AfD. I wanted to let you know that I believe this closure was not correct, and the volume of discussion should have lead to a relisting. I was hoping you might be willing to re-open it and leave it for another closer to decide. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @MediaKyle! Thank you for your message. Sure! I can do that, especially since there is a good chance that a stronger consensus towards either keep or delete emerges from a relist. I think I overlooked the amount of discussion in that debate, so my apologies for that. I will go ahead and do that for you. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WormEater13, this was not a good AFD for a NAC to handle. Please only take on discussions where opinion is completely or almost completely unanimous. No close calls. Please consult Wikipedia:Non-admin closure and follow its guidelines appropriately. I'll just tell you that it is very uncomfortable to have a discussion closure contested and have to go represent yourself and your decisions at WP:DRV, it can feel like you are on trial. So, please choose AFDs more carefully. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I probably shouldn't have closed that one. I will stick to closing AfDs where the consensus is built/almost fully built instead of AfD's that are borderline. Thank you though for letting me know and for looking out for me. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June Backlog Drive is almost over!

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 800 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to WormEater13 for accumulating at least 50 points during the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025 AfC backlog drive award

	June 2025 AfC backlog drive award
	Thank you WormEater13 for participating in the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]