Hello, Ffffrr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  

==References==
{{Reflist}}

An article you recently created, Hanning Schröder, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Markus Pernhart, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Austrian and Slovenian biographical lexicons are both excellent sources that unquestionably establish notability. The text appears to be fully sourced, and additional sources are provided. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My draft for that article was eventually accepted, that message was written for my first attempt. Ffffrr (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Shouldn't the draft then be deleted or redirected? Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I click the draft link it redirects to the article for me. Ffffrr (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have recreated several U.S. state portals. Although they have potential, the portals currently seem incomplete when compared with similar pages such as Portal:California or Portal:Texas. Do you intend to carry out further work on these portals and to continue maintaining them in the future? If so then WikiProject Portals can help. Another editor has kindly improved Portal:Kentucky to an acceptable standard, but there is no guarantee that anyone will get around to fleshing out other skeletons in a similar way or keep them up to date with future changes. It might be better to finish off the partial portals that you have created before creating any more incomplete pages. Certes (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do plan to improve them but will others in the WikiProject help as well? Ffffrr (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask for help from editors interested in each topic at the talk page of WikiProject Montana, etc. WikiProject Portals can also help with general guidance about portals but has neither the resources nor the subject knowledge to perform detailed maintenance on portals on every topic. Please bear in mind that these volunteers may have other priorities outside the Portal: namespace, and that they have not yet chosen to create these portals themselves. If you're prepared to create full portals and commit to maintaining them, that might be useful, provided that the topic has sufficient content. However, portals left as a skeleton for others to complete are likely to be deleted. Certes (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are you getting on with these portals? I see that you made a substantial edit to Portal:Alabama recently, but it still needs further improvement. Sections such as Recognized content and lists such as National Parks are blank, and the selected article is always Alabama. Those parts of the portal don't fill automatically but need significant amounts of manual curation and ongoing maintenance. (I could fix it myself, but Alabama is just one example and I've no knowledge of or particular interest in that state.) Pages such as Portal:Minnesota are obviously still under construction and will need to be nominated for deletion if they're not likely to be completed; indeed a much better version was already deleted. If you want to keep your work in progress, one option is to move the portals into user space while they are still under construction and release them back to portal space when complete. Please let us know your plans. Thanks again, Certes (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure, I thought they were good enough, but if others do not then I guess they can decide what happens, what would you like to happen? Ffffrr (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try to keep them or merge them with the United States portal maybe, but if others decide to delete it then I guess I can’t do anything about it. Ffffrr (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ffffrr,

I can see you are a new editor. Please be careful when creating categories, create them only when they are necessary, see that they don't duplicate existing categories and, above all, make sure that they fit into the existing Wikipedia category structure. Most standard categories have already been created so new categories are typically just needed for annual updates (new to 2021) and subjects of new articles. Don't try to replace existing categories with ones you think are "better" until you have a lot more experience on the project. If you are interested in categories and categorization, please participate in some CFD discussions so you can better understand the category criteria.

If you have questions, please visit the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Ffffrr (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Montana portal indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the category being deleted but not the portal. Is that fine? this is also my answer for the other 2 categories. Ffffrr (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Washington (U.S. state) portal indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Jessesgirl184 (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Washington (U.S. state) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ffffrr, thanks for your contributions. Please note our guidelines on hyperlinks, here. Tony (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ffffrr (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I notice you are adding a lot of short descriptions to articles. This is a good thing as many don't have them on en.wiki at this time and could do with them. However one thing I've noticed, you're often over complicating the short descriptions and making them too long. According to WP:SHORTDESC they should ideally be no longer than 40 characters. The short description should contain the most basic information, and shouldn't elaborate to a lower detail level. For instance onDonald Segretti you put "attorney best known for working as a political operative with then-U.S. President Richard Nixon's Committee to Re-elect the President during the early 1970s" which is way too complex, far too much detail and removed from the core point. I've shortened it to "United States attorney" as a more appropriate short description. Remember a short description isn't a summary of the article, or an overview, just a very concise mention of the precise top level scope of the article for mainly disambiguation purposes. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 16:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is also normal to start short descriptions with a capital letter, per WP:SDFORMAT. (There might be rare exceptions for a notable "iOS application", etc.) Certes (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again you over expanded a short description in this edit. Short descriptions sole purpose is to provide disambiguation during article searches to ensure they are able to identify the correct article. Again they are not summaries or overviews of the articles, but a precise explanation of what the page is. Please read WP:SHORTDESC before making any more changes to short descriptions. If you continue to overcomplicate the short descriptions beyond what they're intended for, and keep changing them to start with a lower case letter, it will be considered disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 17:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I simply thought the descriptions were not specific enough and thought more detailed ones would be better, and from what I understood it was said that descriptions should not start with capital letters unless they were a proper noun, I guess I was mistaken. OK I will try to do better and be careful. Ffffrr (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So brevity is preferred to detail, is this correct? Ffffrr (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some presentations of the SD, especially on mobile, are truncated to 40 characters, so a longer essay risks having its important words cut off. The goal is that a reader can look at the SD of Jupiter and see that the article is about a planet rather than some other topic called "Jupiter" such as the god or a town. We don't need to explain that it is a hydrogen gas giant with 80 moons, because the article's title tells us which planet the article describes.

Confusion about capital letters is understandable. For a while, Wikipedia showed Wikidata's descriptions, which do not start with a capital. Certes (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see. Ffffrr (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the short description is not a replacement for any article. It's not a summary or notes form of it. It's only purpose is so if someone is viewing search results they can tell which article is the one they wish to select and read in more detail from the short description to avoid confusing it for another article, where the actual title isn't quite descriptive enough. Canterbury Tail talk 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm I have amended one of your short description overwrites (too much commentary, guidance left in the edit summary) at Dune (1984 film). Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additions to Portal:Delaware. Just a note that you placed the articles you added in the Recognized content section, but from spot checking, none of these appear to be WP:GA or WP:FA class articles. So, I moved these into the Selected article section (diff). In the future, please place non-recognized content in the Selected article sections. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok whoops. Ffffrr (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ffffrr,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 00:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I’ll check it out. Ffffrr (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just wanna say... I'm new here HighStone06 (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Portal:Delaware requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Delaware. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create Portal:Delaware based on a previous version. Thankfully the speedy deletion was reverted. Ffffrr (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hoary was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Much of this is unreferenced. His life, for example -- how do we know this? Where can the reader go in order to check the veracity of what this draft says?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Markus Pernhart and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Markus Pernhart, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hoary (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ffffrr! 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! Hoary (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ffffrr, this appears to be an unattributed translation of de:Markus Pernhart – for instructions on how to remedy this, please see WP:CWW. I do commend your efforts to remove some of the more flowery Stilblüten in the original text, but content translation isn't exempt from WP:V. I suggest that for the time being, you trim this down to a stub using only information which you can actually verify. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see, yeah I sometimes forget to add one, ok I will keep that in mind. Ffffrr (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Let me know if you have any questions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 08:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment I was about to leave a similar message - this is not uncommon with 'phone users. Only a small percentage of your changes after the 17 Oct date have summaries.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is just easier to click send without adding a description so it just falls out of my mind Ffffrr (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use the preference mentioned above and find it to be a very useful reminder. Certes (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, regarding this and this change, please see MOS:TIES and MOS:COMPASS. There is no grammar error to be fixed. Best wishes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see, so it is spelled differently for British English speakers than for American English speakers, ok understood Ffffrr (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have wandered into a minefield. Please have a look at the Talk page for the article, where you will see that the tag you removed is the result of a very long argument, despite it being quite clear that their current status is Registered charity. best wishes Mattymmoo (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read it seems the group was given charity status and some other groups would like to remove that status, but as of now they still have it so at least for now it makes sense to officially describe them as a charity. Ffffrr (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone is on the same page: the RfC on the matter has now been formally closed, and found consensus not to use any such descriptor in the first sentence of the lead section, for that article. Newimpartial (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2029 in sports indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. 1857a (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Pernhart, 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.

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!

Missvain (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ffffrr. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hanning Schröder, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fffrr, good day. It is not common to add DOB on short descriptive (sd) but in disamb pages. SD is just a very short descript (normal under 40 character about the article). I have added more than 30K sd and at least 20k of them are biography articles. Cassiopeia talk 03:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It varies, some biography articles do have the birth date and others don’t, I and some other editors find it to be useful information for the short description but others do not. Ffffrr (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though most editors are in agreement in adding the date once the person has passed away from what I’ve seen. Ffffrr (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheChunky was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hanning Schröder and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hanning Schröder, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 20:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a version of this article on the German Wikipedia so I thought it was notable. Ffffrr (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding Short descriptions to articles. However, many of these descriptions have been much too long – the current guidelines at WP:SDSHORT advise a limit of around 40 characters. Please read the full guidelines at WP:SDCONTENT — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 21:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I’ve tried to shorten some and I’ll try to reduce the number of words in the others. Although the category Articles with long short description says that only those with more than 100 characters end up added in that category, though I’ll try to make them as brief as possible. Ffffrr (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The category includes all articles with Short descriptions over 100 characters. The limit is still around 40 characters — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that you are aiming for not much more than 40 characters. If you import an existing Wikidata description it is often not at all suitable for a Wikipedia Short description — it is intended for quite a different purpose. It will normally need a further edit to shorten it and probably also to alter it so that it does not just repeat the article title. Read the article lead and look for suitable phrases there. Also note what categories have been set for the article; a slightly adjusted category title often serves as a good Short description — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Chinese philosophers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naturalism. 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) 06:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hanning Schröder and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hanning Schröder, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A version of this article exists in German and I added references about the subject. Ffffrr (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. There is a complex and, to outsiders, near-incomprehensible difference between the very small City of London and the much larger place, London. This renders this edit kind-of wrong, though it's absolutely not your fault if Wikidata already had it wrong and you didn't know! I mention it now just in case you ever again come across topics that require this distinction to be understood ... if not, you can cheerfully ignore it and do more fun stuff. Hope this helps, with all good wishes DBaK (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, ok I’ll notice more next time. Ffffrr (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! DBaK (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just to explain why I rollbacked your changes to the short description of Belgian election articles – the title is self-explanatory, and therefore meets WP:SDNONE. Changing it to simply 'Election' adds nothing of value. Cheers, Number 57 16:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I thought it was useful but ok. Ffffrr (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still adding short descriptions of just "Election" to election articles. Please don't do this. If you want to add short descriptions, please add them as "none". Thanks, Number 57 11:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I won't add that any longer. Ffffrr (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for 1935 European Figure Skating Championships and the 100+ other European Figure Skating Championships. The imported SD is contained in the article title, so "none" is a correct SD — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing these edits, just a reminder about WP:SDNONE. Number 57 16:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I fixed it thanks Ffffrr (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you restored uncited material, removed for that reason, without supplying supporting RS refs -- please see wp:burden. --2603:7000:2143:8500:D81D:8498:830C:AF0B (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Ffffrr (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If uncited text is removed, it is proper to restore it, but only if one supplies supporting RS refs for the text. --2603:7000:2143:8500:D81D:8498:830C:AF0B (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe I have restored any material, perhaps you meant to message another user Ffffrr (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies. I believe you are absolutely correct - two editors (you being one) editing in close time, and I pinged you incorrectly. Apologies. --2603:7000:2143:8500:D81D:8498:830C:AF0B (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that, a few hours ago, you added a short description to the “Vacuum aspiration” article that describes it as a “Form of suction-aspiration abortion using an electric pump that creates suction”. However, as you can tell from the article itself, vacuum aspiration can be done with an electric pump *or* with a manual vacuum aspirator, like the one pictured in the article, and this article is about both types of vacuum aspiration, so that short description isn’t accurate.

How could we rephrase the short description so that it is an accurate description of vacuum aspiration itself as well as the scope of this particular article? VictimOfEntropy (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new short description based on text from the article. Ffffrr (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ffffrr. I noticed that you are adding short descriptions to pages that have already been tagged for speedy deletion. While there is, of course, always a chance that they might not be deleted as a result, I'd say it isn't necessary, given that there are over a million articles that don't currently have one that aren't currently tagged for deletion. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're still doing this (most recently at Akita Mining College, which I just deleted) and not listening. Please stop. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake Ffffrr (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hanning Schröder, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hanning Schröder, who played with his wife in the Harlan Trio in the 1930s on historical instruments, was recognised as Righteous Among the Nations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hanning Schröder. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hanning Schröder), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Short Description Barnstar
		For adding and improving short description on many articles in the English Wikipedia. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ffffrr. On the short description you added to James Wood (encyclopaedist), you might like to check out what an Anglican is. Moonraker (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ffffrr, you have added a whole bunch of short descriptions to the Daytime Emmy award ceremony pages, but you have added them inconsistently, with "Award ceremony" ([1]), "Television award" ([2]) and "Held in 2014" ([3]), and even some of the more recent being blank ([4]). Can I ask what your logic is here? — HTGS (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they were adequate descriptions. Ffffrr (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ffffrr aside from the question of which articles deserve different descriptions, why did you apply the null short description to some articles? A blank short description should only be applied in unusual cases, and I see no reason those articles couldn’t have had a similar short description to the other years. — HTGS (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I’ll make them consistent then. Ffffrr (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you not been payingmore attention to the short descriptions you add to articles? — HTGS (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I saw both “award ceremony” and “television award” as suitable descriptions to the article. Ffffrr (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, although I think most people would see consistency as preferable. But why did you add the empty short descriptions? — HTGS (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because “Awards” is in the title of the article it could be obvious that it is an award ceremony but specifying it is better ultimately. Ffffrr (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it simply your perspective that any short description is better than no short description? — HTGS (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When no short description is necessary you leave it blank. Ffffrr (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but where a short description is necessary, you should not enter a deliberately null short description. — HTGS (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing short descriptions haphazardly and without effort. It is not necessary to create SDs, or to shorten them, if the new SD is less helpful to readers. I have just noticed you changed the SD for Creative Arts Emmy Awards from annual award for technical and other similar achievements in American television programming to Class of Emmy Awards ([5]). I assume you copied the phrase “Class of Emmy Awards” from the lead. It is not helpful or descriptive as a short description, and there are many ways you could have shortened the existing SD while still being descriptive. — HTGS (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to Sexual coercion among animals is also problematic. Adding local short description: "Sexual coercion among non-human animals", overriding Wikidata description "use of violence, threats, harassment, and other tactics to forciby copulate" [6]

If you cannot see why these edits are problematic then perhaps you should hold back on editing short descriptions. — HTGS (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more descriptive, it specifies that non-human animals are the ones involved in that subject. Ffffrr (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions of "Wikimedia list article" are not valid here at the English Wikipedia. Before continuing with editing of short descriptions, please take the time to read Wikipedia:Short description. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the description be null, or changed to what else? Ffffrr (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see now. Ffffrr (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you to be a little slower on the revert trigger? If you read the headnote, you'll see that the gold version of the five-pound coin which is issued in cupronickel is not covered by this article. If Wikidata says that then Wikidata is wrong. Many thanks. Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it was my error, thanks for correcting. Ffffrr (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please stop trying to summarise it in a short description. Please. Kingsif (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see what part was wrong? Ffffrr (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of it. Kingsif (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you should add a better description then. Ffffrr (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the whole issue - I have, it doesn't need it, but I have. Part of the issue is that besides not knowing anything about things you're trying to summarise, you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a short description. You should not be trying to explain the whole being of something in a sentence, you should basically be choosing the most pertinent category and using that. And I am not the first person to tell you this. It's been years, maybe pick another thing to edit. Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I do in my view. Ffffrr (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have an interesting view, then. Do you look at all the messages on here saying your work in short descriptions is noble but altogether bad and not wonder if maybe you don't know enough to know you're wrong? Kingsif (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then what should I do then? Ffffrr (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'd normally suggest going to the short description project and getting advice on what they are and how to edit them. Since you seem to have done that and haven't improved, and all the advice given on this talkpage for two years hasn't helped, either, it's probably time to stop. Kingsif (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ffffrr (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your contribution Hayden Aves (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ffffrr (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ffffrr!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 10:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll look into it and familiarize myself with the policies, thanks. Ffffrr (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, perhaps you know the meaning of the abbreviation M.G.C. in globular star cluster MGC1 (?). I am a contributor of the LIST OF ASTRONOMICAL CATALOGUES (Wikipedia), and I discovered the existence of MGC1, of which I think it is (or could be) the one and only object in the MGC catalogue (number 1, so to say). Or... perhaps there are many more MGC objects (?). DannyCaes (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a type of globular cluster Ffffrr (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be unknown in SIMBAD (the world's most complete source of catalogued astronomical objects beyond the solar system). DannyCaes (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop just importing the Wikidata short descriptions and moving on. Often the Wikidata version is too long for use here. Often the Wikidata version is generic and too short. Often the Wikidata version is just not suitable here. So, almost always, the Wikidata version needs to be edited further. The SD for a person should normally include their nationality, their year of birth if included in the article and possibly their year of death. Locations should say which country. Several people have said similar things to you for over two years. Please focus or simply chose an alternative activity in Wikipedia — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I do. I don't see why I would receive this message. Ffffrr (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent activity with short descriptions doesn't seem all too different from what I do. Ffffrr (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop just importing the Wikidata short descriptions and moving on. Please read the Wikidata description and seek to improve it. They are often fine for Wikidata but not good enough to just import — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostInTheMachine, if Ffffrr has shown no sign of improvement after this time, it may be time for them to cease editing short descriptions. I have not seen Ffffrr’s recent edits, but would you agree? — HTGS (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: Ffffrr seems mostly to create short descriptions and, these days, many of the edits are reasonably OK, so some form of sanction should not yet be necessary. Instead, @Ffffrr: needs to listen to the advice to just slow down. If an edit would be just an import from Wikidata, then avoid using the Import button on the helper and instead adopt the habit of always using the Edit and import button and then treating the text as if it was being input from scratch — STOP, read the description and think about it before hitting Save. Please — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think before the edit but thanks for the advice. Ffffrr (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]