User talk:Commandant Quacks-a-lot

Fomenting hatred against a well-known living person is contrary to the WP:USERNAME policy and so I have blocked that account. Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess so. It feels a bit like WP:BITEing some new kid who just doesn't like the Lakers, but we've got to draw the line somewhere. I'll do my best to encourage the user to change their username and get back to editing. I always hate to see potential valuable editors get discouraged because of things like this. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, it appears you didn't leave a message detailing to them WHY they were blocked. It's important to do that, so they can correct what they've done. I'll do my best to sum that up for them, but keep that in mind for the future. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

"Potential valuable editor"? Their only contribution other than choosing a hate mongering username was to throw a random person's name at the very bottom of a school article without context or a reference. Assuming that is a living person, that is two BLP violations. I blocked this account as not here to build an encyclopedia, since there is zero evidence of positive intent. You then told them that I appear to have forgotten to leave them a block notice. No, I did not forget. I am very careful to leave block notices for any editor who has made positive contributions. This person hasn't, and so, as I often do in other NOT HERE cases, I decided to leave no notice to discourage time wasting and wikilawyering. You then chose to act like an adminstrator and leave a friendly, welcoming message containing a false presumption about me. I suggest that you re-think your approach. Cullen328 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Everybody's got potential. My first edits were stupid, too, but i've grown to love the mission of this place. Besides, it's best to follow the proper procedures. And what's wrong with being friendly? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being friendly to anyone who has shown the slightest trace of being productive. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

hey, Im new here and I just wanted to add a small YouTuber I like. I thought it would be nice and put him on the map. but It's still confusing and I'm not sure on how to make a page. I just hope you publish it so I can see it in the wild. I hope I can get some help SourCruz123 (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@SourCruz123, first of all, Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you're here. Currently, the main problem is how your references are formed. Instead of how you've got it now, put ref tags around the link you're sourcing, like <ref> link </ref> (don't forget the "/" in the last one, or it won't work). There's more info you cad add using various reference templates (when editing the article, the templates should be available in the top left corner), but as long as the link is there in the proper form, that'll work for now. There's a bot, and other users, who can go through and fix that later if you don't want to bother with it. More details on this whole process can be found at WP:ILC. I reccommend you give that a read. Once the references are formatted correctly, other reviewers can give the draft a look-see and help you with the process further. Best of luck, and don't hesitate to ask me, or the nice folks at the teahouse any questions you have. Cheers! -Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to Articles for Creation! - BSH (talk) - (she/her) 18:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a ton! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Commandant Quacks-a-lot, thank you for reviewing the draft for Priyanka Chahar Choudhary. The current submission includes newer sources and coverage that were not part of the previous AfDs, the latest being from February 2022. I'd appreciate it if the draft could be reviewed on its current sourcing and merits. If the sources are still considered insufficient, I completely understand. Thank you. Saroj (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the article does look pretty good as it is. I'll have to talk to some admins, see what they say about it and have them unblock page creation of that article. I'll try to ping you in the conversations, so you can chime in. It might be a while before I get a chance to do it, though. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm a bit confused about why my draft (Draft:William_Greer) was declined for lacking inline citations.

I have fully cited the career section and the production discography table with direct, individual links verifying the credits for each track. The footnote numbers are active and link straight down to the verified sources at the bottom of the page.

Could you help me understand what specifically is missing or what else needs an inline citation? It looks to me like everything is fully backed up by a source.

Thank you for your guidance! ScattterBrains (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@ScattterBrains - You've sourced the "Production discography" perfectly. However, you have to source every section using Inline Citations, not just the discography. Every major fact needs to have an inline citation. Once you've got inline citations in the "Early life" and "career" sections, you can resubmit the draft.. If you want to reuse the same source several times, you can; see WP:REFNAMES. Looks like a good start, though! If you have any more questions, or I've failed to explain it clearly, feel free to reach out to me. - Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Oki tysm I believe I got it now I resubmitted it ScattterBrains (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, that looks right! Good work! Looks like Bonadea has already re-reviewed and declined it, too. You're well on track to getting it accepted, though! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Will someone review it again since I submitted it. ScattterBrains (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, someone will eventually. Sometimes that can take just a few minutes, sometimes weeks or more. I probably won't review it again, in case another editor can find something I've missed. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please review this draft? An additional source has been added that describes the person. The article also contains other sources. Thank you very much! ~2026-30242-88 (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, @~2026-30242-88:, currently it's not submitted for review, so I couldn't accept it even if I tried. However, there are a few problems I see. Firstly, there's a lot of unsourced content. That's bad for any article, and especially an article about a living person, or "BLP." There's some unsourced information in the "Biography" section (i.e. the first two paragraphs and the bit about his construction work), and the entirety of the "Persecution" section. It looks like another reviewer has put some ^{[citation needed]} tags elsewhere in the article, too; make sure to get sources for those. Also, ref number two, at https://cyberleninka.ru/, is sending back a Cloudflare 520 error, so I can't really check whether or not that's a good source at the moment. That's probably just a temporary downage, but I can't give you any feedback there at the moment. SO, get those sources in there, and then resubmit it, and I or another reviewer can give it another look-see. Best of luck! -Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)