Welcome!

Hello, Yestertempest, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete 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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where these words will end up. I hope this page is among pages associated with my new account. I am not a new editor. I've made hundreds of contributions, but I made them via an IP address only. Once I felt ready to create my first article, I decided to create an actual account. All the edits and contributions that I made under my IP address didn't transfer to my new account. My logs are empty, lonely, and I wonder if they even made a difference. Boo-hoo. Here's to starting over! (If this page ends up in an inappropriate location, I hope someone will make a good-faith deletion. I said I wasn't a new editor; I did not say that I'm an editor with a nifty wiki skillset or one who understands all the guidelines.)Yestertempest (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, welcome again. New or not, but its never hurt to replenish those skills! :) Also, feel free to ping me if you need someone to explain the guidelines. I am here slightly over a year. :)--Biografer (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yestertempest: I just wanted to let you know why I undid your addition to the albatross article. "Rookery" is actually a word used to indicate a collection of nests — of many species; it's not a collective name for a group of albatrosses. The word actually originated as a descriptor for Rook colonies! Feel free to ping me if you have any questions... MeegsC (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Feel free to ping me any time with questions or whatever. Welcome to the crazy world of Wikipedia! I've been here for 11+ years and (mostly) still enjoy it. MeegsC (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yestertempest: Hmmm... I'll have to check out the Spáno article; I'm up to my eyeballs in "real life" at the moment, so it may take a few days. As to what your parakeet parents might be doing, check out the fecal sac article. I'm glad I'm not a bird! MeegsC (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like whoever was feuding gave up back in May. David notMD (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yestertempest! You created a thread called Article with a disturbing edit-war history at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you have been editing properly reported headlines which accompany some of the sources used in the Deaths in 2018 page. The consensus existing there, as agreed over time, dictates that we should include the whole main headline from the page being used as a source, including the formatting copied and pasted verbatim - apart from SHOUTY headlines, which may be converted to lower case. Where there is a tabloid use of such sensational journalistic blurbs as "Latest", "Breaking" or similar, we are allowed to strike them out, but factual components of the headlines should always be included as they are read in the source article. Any editing outside this guideline constitutes original research. Careful reference to previous conversations in previous months and years will acquaint you to the conventions on this. I have re-instated all the changes you made, in line with present consensus. If you would like to discuss the consensus as it stands now, or make suggestions, please open a new section at the Talk page there. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gee willikers, I had no ill intent. I altered those links only because they seemed similar to the link that I had recorded that was later termed shouty. Based on that, I wrongly interpreted that words like RIP, honorifics, and phrases like "In Memorandum" were part of this shouty classification. My recent activity was an attempt to "cleanup"; it was not meant to be disruptive vandalism. I thought I was undertaking tedious donkeywork by "getting the shout out", not micromanaging or rejiggering established guidelines. I am not interested in bully-editing or being a party to edit wars. I was merely attempting to mass-correct what I misperceived as "unnecessary". Good thing I had an errand to run or I would have "mass-corrected" far more posts. I am puzzled by a past comment of mine (archived) about edit-wars and a situation that I no longer recall. Is this meant to suggest that I enjoy such conflict? I have no problem with my edits being reversed. My ego is not tied to something just because I posted it. I've encountered my share of bullies on Wikipedia, so it's hard to assess when someone is being a bully or merely trying to acquaint or re-acquaint me with established standards. I would like to think that this call-out was NOT intended to be a trip to the principal's office.

I am repeatedly humbled by the editing talent on Wikipedia. That said, I try my best to do more good than harm. I am not shy about asking "dumb" questions or seeking help from more experienced editors. I will continue to participate in Deaths because I enjoy it. I am not interested in "being first" or always "being right". I'll continue to let others, who enjoy the attention, seek the spotlight. I'd rather stay in the background and do what I can, which includes being courteous to others. Yestertempest (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had no intention of belittling anyone or sending them to some fantasy headmaster' office! All I do is edit within the particular guidelines of the page I am editing. If I see something that is in error of that, I'll of course put it right. Any comments which might appear to be criticism are in actual fact more of a question (which you've more than answered in good faith on this occasion!) I'm hoping you aren't going to take the reversions of your good faith work badly, nor that you will reduce your good editing in Wikipedia just because of slight setback like this. I've had the same kind of issues with perceived criticism of my editing in the past, and decided a long time ago to learn and move on, and it's stood me in good stead. During my school years too, I was among the bullied, so there's no way I'm going to suddenly change into the bully. Nor am I an attention-seeker - I try to stay out of the limelight in my public life too. I'm pleased that you have taken my comments the right way so far, and hope that we can both edit Wikipedia side-by-side to our best abilities in the future. Best wishes, sincerely. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the message on my talk page. The letters in brackets/parenthesis you mentioned are not actually placements of letters in brackets/parenthesis. If you look in the page coding, you will see that they are links generated by the {{ill}} template, and refer to articles in other language versions of the person or animal which has died. For example, if you hover over the (ar) letters, you will find it is a link to the Arabic language article created for the deceased subject on that line, and the same goes for languages signified by the other letters in brackets/parenthesis. To generate an "ill" link, you first have to search other language Wikipedias to see whether they have an article which is currently shown as a redlink in the English Wikipedia. It can be done with practice, but I wouldn't worry too much about it as there are plenty of editors (including myself) who make sure other language links get inserted. However, there's no harm in having a go yourself, if it is done with care so it displays correctly. Best of luck. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you for your above-and-beyond professionalism and cordiality. Yestertempest (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When re-instating information erroneously removed (such as the CoD I mistakenly reverted in a good faith edit when changing something else), please also take care in how you do that too, as you erroneously removed the whole list of entries for the 29th and three other valid entries further down. Editors have had to fix these manually. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ref. I noticed that there was a large chunk missing after my CoD edit, so I half-suspected that I had triggered something unintended. I forgot your instructions about how to make a dummy edit (so my attempt to question and call attention to what I may have possibly done in the course of my CoD re-instatement did not show up; should I have done a revert at that time?). I am terribly embarrassed about removing a valid slew of entries. To all the editors who had to manually restore my blundering wholesale removal, I apologize profusely. I also apologize to you, personally, Lee. I didn't notice that you were the editor who had reverted my CoD edit, which I would have INSTANTLY regarded as good faith, since you have been tremendously gracious to me in the past. I handled both situations poorly, and for that I sincerely apologize. As stated previously, I try to do more good than harm in my editing efforts, so I am very disappointed in my failure to do no harm this time around.Yestertempest (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would have saved all the hassle if I had spotted my own initial mistake, so it just proves we are all learning as we go along. Thanks for the civil reply, and keep up the good editing. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are much too gracious.Yestertempest (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HI. It appears your addition was not removed due to non-notability. Because you did not pipe that he was a "(cartoonist)", his link led to the 'more famous' Charles Glass, author and journalist, and someone obviously researched that Charles and found he had not died. I have re-added him with the piping plainly pointing out the difference - it does mean he comes up as a redlink and may disappear 30 days after his date of death. Cheers. Ref ^(chew)(do) 04:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the word "pipe" in this context. Why was the obituary link not sufficient to establish his identity and occupation? Thank you for your kind assistance. AGAIN.Yestertempest (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Piping" only ever means one thing. Like this: [[Charles Glass (cartoonist)|Charles Glass]] - it shows as 'Charles Glass', but points to the hidden 'Charles Glass (cartoonist)', because there is already a 'Charles Glass' article and we don't want visitors to access the wrong article when we link to it. The "pipe" is the first half of the coding before the vertical bar ( | ) symbol, which then shows in the page as the name after the bar symbol. Hope that's clearer. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a tip for you. When adding what are considered notable achievements or membership of notable organisations or groups, please bear in mind that the additions MUST have an English Wikipedia article and appear as a bluelink in the subject line. P.S. you cannot link to IMDB in that way, plus IMDB is just another Wiki and is never used for sourcing anything. Just thought I would point that out, and keep up the good editing. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC) As always, Lee to the rescue! I am humbled by your kind attention to my editing. I appreciate the tips. I'm seem to be a slow learner, but I try. Thank you again.Yestertempest (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might like to join in the discussion at Talk:Deaths in 2019#Redlinks. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (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) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Frog Applause. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't give an answer on the notability of either or, I just know that when it comes to animals they need their own independent article to be listed. Rusted AutoParts 04:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yestertempest. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Frog Applause, 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) 03:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yestertempest. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Frog Applause".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]