Sample Page

WP:TNT is WikiSpeak for “I’m too lazy to put in the effort to fix this article, I don’t want other editors to worry about it, and I don’t want our laziness to be the reason the problems are still there, so I’d rather force whoever worked on it to start from scratch again.”

If I had known about the Graphics Lab sooner, I wouldn’t have brought up this Minecraft painting of Jean Picard at the Reference Desk back in 2022. Perhaps the fixer-uppers at the Graphics Lab would’ve been less inclined to use colorful metaphors.

My only complaints are that:

• I have to mark what I brought up as “resolved” after the image is fixed, which means that if I wait too long, or I don’t keep frequently returning to the Graphics Lab to check on it again and again, I run the risk of causing there to be an embarrassingly long gap of time between the image being fixed and me placing the {{resolved}} tag. No other noticeboard on Wikipedia obliges users to go out of their way to confirm fulfillment like that.
• I typically have to wait days or even weeks before someone gets around to fixing the image file that I brought up,^[b] so I’d sometimes put up a custom {{ombox}} banner that says This request hasn’t received a response in {{age in days}} days to remind users scrolling by of how long I’ve been waiting in the hope of getting the attention of the potentially willing.
• I once had a request archived despite the image file I brought up not being fixed.^[c]

I’ve found it inconvenient that, in order to make a request for comment, you have to be in an unsettled dispute with one or more editors, which means you have to pick a side and hope you’ve made the right choice so your actions don’t seem foolish in hindsight. This means you can’t use RfC to preemptively establish consensus on something that no one has fought eachother over yet.

I don’t think articles should be userfied as an alternative for draftification, as putting a user’s username before a deleted article’s title would give the implication that that particular user owns that deleted article and has the exclusive right to improve it. Then again, the userspace can be used by users to work on their proposed revisions to articles.^[d]

I’ve come across a couple of Wikipedia articles with tags that say “See our advice if the article is about you” (either {{COI}}, {{undisclosed paid}} or {{promotional}}) even though the article is about an abstract concept (e.g. open-book management) or some other thing that isn’t a person or organization, so the wording on those tags humorously implies that a given concept is a sentient person capable of viewing articles.

Because redirects count as new pages, they are subject to review just like ordinary articles are. This is the case even if a redirect’s scope is exactly the same as its target article, apparently.

Come to think of it, it’s convenient that it’s now acceptable to start an AfD discussion to propose merging or redirecting an article to another one instead of outright deleting it and making its revision history unavailable. If these sorts of proposals were made on talk pages, those messages would likely go unnoticed for unreasonably long periods of time unless {{please see}} was used at relevant discussion pages to draw attention to them.

Draft is created

Draft is submitted

N Draft is abandoned

Article is created

Draft is moved

Draft is accepted

Draft is declined

Y Article remains

Article is nominated for deletion

Y Article is kept

N Article is deleted

Article is draftified

When I feel safe doing so, or I’m willing to take a chance with a stub, I like to be bold and move a draft into the article mainspace instead of submitting it for review, which I am discouraged from doing in most cases by two factors:

• After a draft is submitted, it may take several days (or even weeks) for it to get reviewed. On the bright side, that potentially gives editors plenty of time to improve that draft while waiting.
• Submitting puts a draft at risk of being rejected (instead of declined) by a reviewer, even if tendentious resubmissions aren’t really a problem.

Of course, there’s the risk that the new article may be nominated for deletion, especially if it’s poorly-sourced. However, if the discussion ends in favor of deletion instead of re-draftification, I can always go ask the deleter to restore the article as a draft.^[e] Although, if the deleted article was a stub, and all its sources have been salvaged on a source assessment table, then I shrug (figuratively) and move on.^[f]

Another benefit of moving a draft instead of submitting it is that, if a draft is moved into mainspace and it later gets nominated for deletion, the article’s fate would be determined by the consensus of multiple editors rather than the opinion of one AfC reviewer, and being AfD’d may make it more likely to be improved by other editors (if sufficient sources exist to make that possible), whereas most drafts are hardly ever edited by anyone besides their creators and/or any eager beavers who happen to stumble upon them.

I don’t do web searches for sources, and I’m generally super hesitant to visit any because I prefer not to leave my digital footprints on so many different websites just for Wikipedia’s sake.^[g] When making new articles, I like to stick with references that others have found and (in many but not all cases) added to articles to support claims.^[h]

Admittedly, this tendency to deliberately keep myself source-blind in this regard has put me at risk of being fooled by deceptive footnotes (added by other users) that appear convincing, plausible, and contain no obvious telltale signs that they’re not what they seem to be.^[i]

On the other hand, being hesitant to visit just any old site may make me less susceptible to the dirty tricks of entities like the Heritage Foundation or archive.today than the average encyclopedia builder. After all, curiosity killed the cat that failed to stop, think, and take proper safety and security precautions before it took a leap of blind faith into uncharted waters.^[j]

When I add text, I sometimes can’t help but make last-minute changes to it after I’ve published it. Sometimes, I’ll revisit something I contributed to several months ago just to make more edits.

In some cases where I’ve struggled to solve a problem on Wikipedia, I would sometimes visit the relevant forum (such as the help desk or the village pump) and suddenly get an idea or two that turns out to be an effective solution to the problem I was concerned with, so it turns out that I never needed to bring up that problem in the first place.

In the middle of 2024, I edited Vāsudeva such that a couple of instances of “an historical” were changed to “a historical”. When I was reverted, I consulted the help desk for general advice and was told:

[F]ollow what the article’s creator did and keep usage consistent within it.

With that advice in mind, I used some historical revisions to successfully argue my case for the “a historical” wording on the talk page.

• 
  Hierarchy of disagreement
• 
  Comparison of pyramids
• 
  Phase diagrams of water and carbon dioxide
• 
  Phase diagram of water
• 
  Water-energy nexus
• 
  Causes and effects of global warming
• 
  Timeline of North America
• 
  World history
• 
  Geologic time spiral
• 
  Escape velocity vs. surface temperature
• 
  Stellar evolution
• 
  Triangle of everything
• 
  Reachable universe
• 
  Observable universe

Items are checked () if I’m satisfied with the amount of coverage a topic has in the mainspace. If there isn’t a separate article about it, I wouldn’t push for such an article. Underlines indicate articles.

This user previously used another account: MrHumanPersonGuy.

en	This user is a native speaker of the English language.

mdy

This user prefers month-day-year over day-month-year.

dmy

This user can and will ask stupid questions if needed.

This user drinks chocolate milk.

This user loves Dr Pepper.

This user gets so preoccupied with whether or not he could, he doesn’t stop to think if he should.

) (	This user occasionally uses parentheses like this to give off the illusion of multiple edit summaries.

== ==

This user page has been edited by the Untitled Sections Police.

Ω	This user can, and will, clean up difficult spills if needed.

This user likes to watch Animator vs. Animation

This user doesn’t look at where we are, but at where we will be two more papers down the line.

This user is interested in science.

This user is interested in astronomy.

This user is interested in history.

This user is interested in alternate history.

This user used to contribute using Google Chrome.

This user contributes using Firefox.

This user contributes using Windows 10.

This user is autistic.

This user is aroace.

This user’s past does not define him ’cause his past is not today.

W	This user is a White (motivated by peace)

DANG!

This user’s computer is CRUMMY![m]

This user can never figure out the best way to organize all these userboxes.

1. ^ I always thought it was fitting that a Chinese sign said that.
2. ^ Case in point: Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Jan 2025 § Reachable universe diagram, when I had to wait for over a month for a simple typo to be fixed.
3. ^ Case in point: Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop/Archive/Feb 2026 § Typos on a color legend

   ---

   On the bright side, I eventually got the idea to make a template to replace the image.

4. ^ Example of a case in point: User:MrPersonHumanGuy/Timeline of the far future
5. ^ Case in point: Mr. Beat
6. ^ Case in point: Kyle Hill (YouTuber)
7. ^ In the rare case where I really want to visit a source just to see what it says, I would just go to the Wayback machine to see if it’s been archived there.
8. ^ Examples of cases in point:
   • The sources in the very first revision to The Scale of the Universe were either salvaged from now-unavailable revisions to Draft:Cary and Michael Huang in 2022 or introduced by other contributors in this WT:BFDI discussion in December 2023.
   • Most of the sources I added to Tuttle Twins came from this page; the rest were cited on Libertas Institute and Angel Studios. I made a source assessment table so I could reckon how safe it might be for me to convert the then-redirect into an article.
   • Admittedly, the sources I added to MechWest are ones that were conveniently mentioned on the official YouTube channel’s Posts.
   • The sources I added when I converted the redirect The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic into an article came from this Wikiquote entry on Joseph Stalin.
9. ^ Case in point: Whilst looking through historical revisions of Draft:Sambucha, I came across a bunch of great-looking sources in a revision by a temporary account user that reverted themselves, so I decided to add them back. Soon, another editor pointed out that they’re all fake, so I quickly reverted myself.

   ---

   The temporary account via which those bogus citations were added was also used to tag that draft for speedy deletion, which led me to put it up for deletion review.

10. ^ Come to think of it, my choice of metaphors for this sentence evokes a rather ironic mental picture. Generally speaking, a cat wouldn’t willingly get in the water, let alone leap into it unless it was blind and didn’t know the water was there to begin with.
11. ^ This series is in development, so it’s likely too soon for there to be an article about this series.
12. ^ Formerly a single article titled List of world map changes
13. ^ How so?
    I only have 4 GB of RAM, so my computer tends to have “slow moments” (especially when trying to use a web browser while Roblox is running), so I have Task Manager and the Process Manager tab open all the time just in case. Unfortunately, now is apparently a bad time to wish for more.