User talk:Rumba Samba Mambo/June 2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your submission at Articles for creation: Picada (Argentine cuisine) has been accepted[edit]

Picada (Argentine cuisine), 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Zoozaz1 talk 03:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Picada (Argentina) (June 4)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DanCherek was:
This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.
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.
DanCherek (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Rumba Samba Mambo! 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! DanCherek (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of sunshine pop artists has been accepted[edit]

List of sunshine pop artists, 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.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

— Bilorv (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Rumba Samba Mambo, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! 🐍Helen🐍 (let’s talk) 22:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Cris Miró[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Cris Miró at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! This is a really interesting article, and can definitely run on DYK with just a few tweaks. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts[edit]

You've been here about two weeks. You've already created full-blown articles. You've had a DYK approved. You clearly have a great deal of experience. What other accounts have you used?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 I've been using User:Bleff since I was a teen, I created this account to specifically dedicate myself to LGBT-related articles. Is it prohibited? --Rumba Samba Mambo (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tough one. At a minimum, you'd have to declare both accounts on both userpages, but why do you want to use a different account from Bleff to tackle LGBT articles? Why couldn't you do the same thing with Bleff? If you read the policy WP:SOCK, you'll notice that there are legitimate uses of alternative accounts and illegitimate ones. None of the legitimate uses fall neatly into what you're doing. I also noted that your two accounts do overlap on several articles, e.g., Pic-Nic, and that's not usually a good idea for alternative accounts, although the edits don't look problematic. All that said, some administrators think that as long as you're not using multiple accounts for deception or to support each other in a dispute or anything else that could be construed as disruptive or misleading, you can do what you want as long as you declare the accounts (that's an absolute requirement). I'm not crazy about it, but that's partly because someone like you, who seems to have good intentions and has contributed to the project in a positive way for a long time, may get themselves in trouble if they use the two accounts in ways they shouldn't. Put simply, I think it's a bad idea, and I suggest you think about it before continuing. You could also ask other administrators, particularly ones who are experienced in dealing with sock puppetry issues, e.g., Ponyo, Yamla, and Mz7. BTW, thanks for your candor.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Bbb23's thanks for your candor. Look, it's just going to be best if you stick to a single account. That way, you won't run afoul of WP:SOCK. It is possible to use two accounts; for example, you might use this one only to edit LGBT articles and then never edit those same articles with your other account. You'd need to declare this is what you are doing (see WP:SOCK). There are also ways to protect your privacy, but that doesn't seem to be a concern. So, look, my advice is to just stick to a single account; it's just so, so much easier. It's tricky to do multiple accounts properly. Too tricky for me, for example. If you really think it's in your best interests to use two accounts, though, please take the time to read WP:SOCK and (I suggest, but don't require) come up with a plan to adhere to that policy and discuss it with us. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as concerned as my colleagues. This seems like a legitimate attempt at WP:TECHALT, but should be declared as such on both of your user pages to avoid instances such as this. You really need to avoid cross over edits between the accounts if you choose to continue down this path, however. If you don't think it's possible then best to stick to your main account. Just one opinion though... -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that TECHALT is the closest, but I still think it's tough to pull off, especially if you intend to edit a lot with both accounts. BTW, Ponyo's "just one opinion" is worth a bunch of opinions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I love editing and creating new articles; originally in my main account I mainly focused on music-related ones. I had so many sandboxes that I felt messy, and created a new user to pour all my interests into LGBT articles and develop them further. A kind of personal project. Bbb23 is right about the overlapping in Pic-Nic; it was a mistake, my intention was to keep each user separated in a specific area of topics. I apologize, I was not aware that this was against the Wikipedia's rules. What would be the next step? Delete this account? Rumba Samba Mambo (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting accounts on Wikipedia is not technically possible. I think I can safely speak for Yamla and Ponyo that the answer to your original question about whether using these two accounts is prohibited is no. In other words, you can do what you set out to do. I think that Yamla and I are more "concerned" than Ponyo, but it is still your decision. If you have more questions before making that decision, I'd be happy to try to answer them or find someone who can.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, in the meantime I'm adding the Alternative Account Userboxes in both User pages. I wouldn't want my main account to be blocked because of my silly idea. I'll continue attentive to your messages.--Rumba Samba Mambo (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rumba Samba Mambo, I'm not an admin, just a regular user, but who's been around quite some time. Before getting into it, I want to echo what Bbb23 and Yamla have said, and thank you for your candor. I see a couple of other reasons you might want to throttle back, and consider just using one of the two accounts.

  • You stated two reasons for having created another account: editing in different topic areas, and the issue about multiple sandboxes getting out of hand.
    1. other topic areas – what happens if you come up with interests in new areas, as you grow as an editor? I've been here 16 years; maybe in that time you'll develop an interest in World War I, or regional varieties of Spanish, like Lumfardo; will you be thinking of creating even more accounts? This could be increasingly problematic, as well as a bad example for other users, of why "he can do it, but I can't" (assuming it's even permitted, which I expect it won't be). Rather than solve the problem then, why not just solve it now, before things get too complicated?
    2. multiple sandboxes – if managing all your article drafts and other content is becoming a headache for you, there are far better solutions for this. One I'm aware of, is a tabbed userpage structure, which creates multiple, large tabs at the top of your userpage, like some websites have to organize their content, and from which you can drill down into multiple threads and subthreads, the way you see at some websites. This will make it easier for you to manage everything, without needing two (or more) accounts. I'll link a user example, when I find one for you.
  • As time goes on, you might forget which account you used for a given article, and end up using the "wrong" one. User:Bbb23 already mentioned Pic-Nic, and you've barely gotten started with this id. Or, you might simply forget you were logged onto "A", when you meant to use "B". That would start to edge into a problem area, and might cause alarm bells to ring, causing admins or other sock-chasers to start spending time looking at the edits and analyzing them to see if there was a problem. Why put them through that?

I think that perhaps Bbb23, Yamla and others either out of modesty, or not wanting to seem like they're just interested in making things easier for themselves, as opposed to easier for you, didn't state what I consider the strongest argument for you to use only one account, and it is this: dealing with sockpuppets at Wikipedia is a huge problem; it's a time-sink, and there are hundreds of pages of sock puppet investigations with tens of thousands of words on them of admins and others bending over backwards to be fair to users and not accuse them unjustly, while doggedly trying to identify and sanction those who are actually using multiple accounts with ill intent. I've been involved with this myself, but only peripherally, and I can tell you it's hard work, and takes a lot of time. I chased a whole swarm of puppets all over Cuba; turns out they were socks of Krajoyn (talk · contribs); just check out these two sock puppet investigation pages (one, and two), and try to imagine how much work must have gone into what appears on those pages, not to mention all the discussion on article and user Talk pages (e.g., here, here, and here) that aren't even reflected at the SPI itself. It's hu-u-u-ge; and all of that, is just about one sockmaster.

So, even if the admins appear to be bending over backwards not to appear to be acting to lighten their own workload, but rather are working to smooth your own experience here, I'd appeal to you to consider what goes on behind the scenes to make all that possible, and to consider just using one account in order not to be even the tiniest pebble in the mountain of effort needed to keep the project going smoothly, and keeping ill-intentioned sock puppets at bay. I will get back to you about the "user tabs" thing; I think that will be an eye-opener for you; perhaps even one of the admins know what I'm talking about, and have a link available they can offer; I'll have to search for one. In the meantime, the WP:WikiProject Military history has something like what I'm talking about. Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you decide to opt for a single account, but neither username seems quite right for that, you can choose a third name, like "Rumba Bleff" or whatever you want, while still keeping the history from one of the accounts. An admin can help you with that, if you want to go that route. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot I understand your concern and I appreciate your opinions; the reality is that I acted under ignorance. My intention in creating the user was never to use it to get involved in disputes involving my main account, since I considered that the connection between the two would be obvious if I tried to do something of the sort. I am not aware of what "user tabs" are. According to what you wrote (as I understood), I could merge both accounts in a single one and keep the history of both. Is that so? Rumba Samba Mambo (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt your last question, I'm not an expert on usernames, but my understanding is that you cannot "merge" accounts in the way I think you mean. But you don't lose any history, either: you just start using one of the accounts, and stop using the other one, and somewhere on your user page, you add a link to your other (no-longer used) account, and that page will retain all the history of that account. So, nothing is lost, with the contributions from each account visible indefinitely from their respective History tabs. Please don't take this for gospel; I'm sure an admin will correct me, if I got anything wrong.
User tabs are probably just a template or something, which generate tabs at the top of your page, like at WP:MIL. They can help you organize your content, so that if you have four sandboxes, or forty, it's no longer necessary to have two accounts to manage a complicated page structure, if you need that to manage your work. I'll look for an example. Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kwamikagami has a tabbed user page, at User:Kwamikagami for organizing their content. The tab style I was picturing in my mind's eye was a different style, with rounded corners, and some background shading that was different, but this is the same general idea. Do you think that might help you organize your content better? You could organize it, for example, with one 'Sandbox' tab on your main talk page, and then when you clicked it, it could go to a page with four tabs (or as many as you want) for sandboxes 1 – 4, if you see what I mean. Mathglot (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The code is simple. It's at User:Kwamikagami/sandbox/doc. The tabs are placed on my user page and on each sandbox with the template-like link {{User:Kwamikagami/sandbox/doc}}. So yeah, you could put it in your main sandbox instead. There are probably other ways of doing it, I just saw that on someone's page and copied it. — kwami (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cris Miró[edit]

On 29 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cris Miró, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that by being the first travesti to become a national celebrity, entertainer Cris Miró increased the visibility of the transgender community in Argentine society during the 1990s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cris Miró. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cris Miró), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rumba_Samba_Mambo/June_2021&oldid=1036831309"