User talk:Smallangryplanet

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Crisco on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 21:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		This is awarded to Smallangryplanet for accumulating more than 200 points during the December 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process were crucial in reviewing over 9,000 drafts during the drive. Thank you for your participation and helping to reduce the backlog! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Glad I could help out :) Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kaja Kallas on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 02:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Smallangryplanet. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 5 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 20:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you @Gnoeee! Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

hi i I'm facing problem in citations in line reference can i fix the problem in my Wikipedia draft I am facing problem. Zalli.mb (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Zalli.mb, you might want to ask over at Wikipedia:Teahouse, they should be able to help sort things out. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

can you fix problems my draft got declined one time in past Zalli.mb (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox U.S. state on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 22:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Whoa! Glad I could help. Thanks for letting me know and for the barnstar! :) Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! About this comment: "Comment: I think this still needs a broader range of sources, rather than one NGO and the source itself. Can you find any secondary news coverage of this organisation? Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)"

There are multiple secondary sources, including GLAAD, CFDA, Out, Essence, Blavity, Self, ABC and more. Curious what additional sources can be added or where to find them? Appreciate the assistance! vfrank (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

A lot of the sources appear to be about Karl Schmid, or by Karl Schmid, or from the organisation itself, rather than about Plus Life Media itself. Does that make sense? The awards citations are also duplicated several times, so I would check out WP:REFNAME also. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

I can understand why you might think I made that page using AI, but I most certainly did not.

I’m a professional newspaper reporter and I read a lot. Apologies if my words sound a bit robotic, or as if everything is a big deal.

I will ask some others to peruse the draft over, dig up a few more sources and re-word some stuff. But I promise you: I wrote this all myself from scratch. As for the more formal tone, I’ll read up on Wikipedia Style and see what I can do.

I have already submitted this article once before and learned a lot from the experience, but onwards and upwards, right? I don’t mean to be a pest, but what I wrote on the draft was all me (I have a tendency to be fluffy from time to time).

I am familiar with editorializing, so I’ll be sure to ready everything over a few times.

I would appreciate if my draft was not deleted, since have been working on it since my first submission was declined.

Thank you for understanding.

Cheers,

Alex - SlipperyOnIce Slipperyonice (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Slipperyonice! Sorry for the misdiagnosis!! I would recommend having maybe a look over at WP:NPOV, I know it can be tricky when editing something you're closely connected to. Would be happy to take another look. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for understanding.

I’ll read up on the neutral point of view.

Cheers,

Alex Slipperyonice (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Smallangryplanet, 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 15:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to NPP! I wanted to let you know that I have declined your G11 and WP:A7 speedy deletion nomination of 2025 AFC eChampions League Elite. The article does not qualify for G11 speedy deletion because it does not contain blatant advertising. Further, because sports seasons can be notable (and the article has three sources now), I believe the 2025 AFC eChampions League Elite has a credible claim to significance, which is a lower standard than notability. If you do not think the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, feel free to nominate for deletion at Articles for Deletion. If you have any questions about this. Please let me know. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Significa liberdade! Thank you for the kind feedback. I was a little iffy about if that was a valid delete and I should have asked at the NPP help board. Thanks again! Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Smallangryplanet. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! ~2026-80954-2 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you forget to login? A temporary account removing that kind of stuff seems to be odd. - Flower (she/her) 15:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

User:IPOfAFlower, it is not remotely odd. When active I remove incorrect speedy tags on a daily basis, though I am not a regular and thus do not have an account. A link to WP:RFD was provided in my edit summary, and the instructions for how to proceed are there. Normally I would offer to do them myself if there was an issue, but I do not plan to edit much until the last week of this month. ~2026-80954-2 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Recently, on the pages Hamas and Talk:Hamas, you seem to have several times violated the policies of Wikipedia:Consensus and Ownership behaviour, and to have abused page Talk:Hamas.

1. Directly after my edit of 21Nov2025 on page Hamas with elaborate motivation, you reverted it with no more substantial explanation than saying “This misrepresents the RS” (22Nov2025), which is a too vague ‘reason’ because it doesn’t say which quote would be misrepresented and in what sense. Thus this revert violated our obligation to clearly explain every edit in the edit summary, as stated in WP:CONSENSUS. (It is very likely, you learned and copied this trick from Raskolnikov.Rev who demonstrated it in Sept2024, Oct2024 and April2025. I’ve warned Rsk about this behaviour; he seems to have ignored that; right after this posting to you I’ll warn him again.) After those four much too vague words in your edit summary however you spent another 44 words in that edit summary on grumbling against the opposing editor, which probably isn’t helpful for the process of reaching a consensus. If you’ll continue reverting edits without clearly saying(in the edit summary!) what’s wrong with the edit in question, I’m afraid I’ll have to request you to be sanctioned for apparently lacking the skills or the willingness to cooperate constructively and collaboratively.

2. Talk pages are meant for pursuing consensus in cases of edit disagreements, by reading the arguments of the opponent, criticizing or even rejecting them but in a respectful and constructive way, in search for some ‘common ground’ with the opponent and thus some compromise or consensus. But in the talk section about my motivation for my edit of 21Nov2025, in your reply of 22Nov you don’t react on any of my arguments of 21Nov. Also you don’t give a clear and concrete reason for your edit revert of 16 minutes earlier; so basically your talk posting of 22Nov2025 is misuse of a talk page discussion for attacking and grumbling against another editor – even though you’ve been officially warned, on 2 Oct 2025, to not treat Wikipedia as battleground. In that 22Nov talk posting (of 246 words), you say no more about my edit than: “I have already explained in great detail that your edit misrepresents the RS”. But regardless whether that is true or not, it certainly is not an explanation of what you consider to be wrong with the edit.

3. But your: “I have already explained in great detail that your edit misrepresents the RS” is, unfortunately, not even true; therefore, in effect you have not given any argument at all (not even indirectly), on 22Nov, against my 21Nov edit proposal with fully new motivation; but nevertheless you bluntly reverted it. This either implies that parts of the article Hamas in your opinion can’t be edited and have been declared sacred by you, which would violate WP:CON, or that editor Cb can’t be allowed by you to edit parts of article Hamas, which would violate WP:AGF what you’ve already been explicitly and officially warned for on 2 Oct 2025; in both cases it is an example of Ownership behaviour.
What really happened in your posting of 22Oct (that you link to on 22Nov), is: we had a (beginning of a) discussion on 16Oct–3Nov2025, not about the edit (proposal) of 21Nov2025 but about a different proposal of 16Oct2025. On 22Oct, you disagreed with my edit proposal of 16Oct or with parts of its motivation, and tried to argue what was wrong with them. But after my reply on 3Nov you never replied back.

Summarizing: you’ve used these three transparent tricks (1:a too vague reverting ‘reason’ in the edit summary; 2:saying “I have already explained” on talk page in stead of actually explaining; 3:misrepresenting your own old talk posting), to make it seem to the superficial observer that you’ve properly motivated your edit revert of 22Nov2025, while you actually have not; which seems to me a form of gaming the system. Today though, I’m planning to start a new talk section (Talk:Hamas#The statement about ‘1967 borders’) about this same edit proposal of 21Nov2025 which until now seems to have only been obstructed by you and one other editor through tricks, violating WP:CON, Ownership behaviour, and ‘gaming the system’. I hope to see you participating in that discussion in a constructive way, in line with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:AGF.

By the way: in case Smallangryplanet wants to reproach me again for my speculating, 30Jan2025, that Seurat might be a ‘propagandist’: this was a possibility that sprang to my mind when I read Seurat’s citation “acceptance of the 1967 borders in the Cairo Agreement in 2005” etc. in our article, and saw how it was paraphrased in our article. As soon as I finally got hold(Feb2025) of Seurat’s whole book I understood there’s no reason to mistrust Seurat. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Feeding Our Future on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 02:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments regarding the Draft:Tomas_Lang that you reviewed early December. The page has been edited by adding external references and removing some of the other references. Among others, links were added to an event hosted at the University of Chile in late October 2025 to celebrate the legacy of Professor Tomas Lang, whose recording is available on-line. His co-authorship of books released by major publishers is highlighted, given that such authorship is one of the established criteria for notability.

I will appreciate your feedback on this new version, which was submitted for review in early January.

Thanks in advance. Jh2024 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jh2024 - from first glance I still don't necessarily think this article passes the requirements we have for academics - you can read more about that here - but it's still featuring mostly citations to the subject's own work (which is not in and of itself notable, regardless of publisher). It might be worth reaching out on general help pages like WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:COMPSCI (more specific project devoted to computer science) to ask editors for help sourcing this article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)