User talk:Bgrus22

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Hi. I wanted to explain why I reverted your recent edit to The Dentist. The IMDb is a not reliable source, and its contents should not be imported into Wikipedia. It's written by random people, who sometimes make up hoaxes when they're bored, much like Wikipedia. For this reason, we require citations to be to sources that are not user-generated. Usually, this means articles written by professional journalists or academics in a source that has editorial control – for example, Variety or the Los Angeles Times, which often cover American films. Second, per MOS:FILM#Audience response, we don't user reviews. They are subject to vote stacking and brigading. Instead, we use professional services, such as CinemaScore or PostTrak. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it says on wiki that user reviews are acceptable as long as they are identified as user reviewsBgrus22 (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In recognition of high-quality editing on current events often extremely politically-charged and difficult to manage by all but the greatest editors. Fvoltes (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: hope youre doing well, long time no see! thanks for letting me know right now I am working on a few pages ranging from a footballer to Italian politicians. Hope thats all fine a' okay. Bgrus22 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bgrus22. Thank you for your work on Hava Inbar. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Thank you for taking the time to write this message, it is very much appreciated. I didn't realize there were other G-d fearing folks here editing on the site. I hope you stay well and safe in these trying times! Feel free to send me a message if you ever need a hand with something or to get any pages started. Oh and your page is amazing, I may be stealing some tags you have that I didn't know about :) . Bgrus22 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgrus22, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 00:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Bgrus22 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Nice work on creating new articles. Andre🚐 08:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still creating great new articles - thank you! Andre🚐 17:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ~2025-31245-28. I noticed that you recently removed all content from a page. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bgrus22 - The unregistered editor is partly right, because you were (through good faith but serious error) attempting to hijack a valid redirect to an existing article, J. J. Putz. Redirects should not be blanked except in extraordinary circumstances. This was not an extraordinary circumstance. Redirects should not normally be blanked even if they are thought to be incorrect. Normally issues about redirects should be taken to Redirects for Discussion. If you had tagged the redirect for a deletion discussion, a more experienced editor would have given you the advice that I am about to give you. The redirect was there for a purpose, because Joseph Putz is a valid search term for J. J. Putz. You want to create an article about another person for whom Joseph Putz is a name. This requires disambiguation. You should already be familiar with disambiguation, but maybe you have seen it without understanding it. What I have done is to move your sandbox to Draft:Joseph Putz (soldier). If your draft is then either accepted by a reviewer or moved to article space, the redirect at Joseph Putz should be changed to a disambiguation page.

The advice from the unregistered editor to overwrite the redirect is wrong. The redirect is there for a purpose. It should neither be overwritten nor blanked. It is there for a purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Thank you for taking the time to address this! I did put it in redirects for discussion as I said, this unnamed user seemed to derail my attempt despite our previous discussion in their talk page. I also offered to put in the template that goes in the top of a page "this page is for x, for the topic y please go here" although I will admit I did not name it the best but he seemed to understand what I meant.

Why make it under (soldier) when the baseball player is not known by that name while the soldier is known by his name and is more prominent amongst academic works? I think that it makes for a lower quality page when we have the tools to provide a link via template, like used at the top of here. Bgrus22 (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be copying your comments here to DRN, and replying to them within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Putz (Officer), 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MichealKal (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgrus22. Thank you for your work on Joseph Putz (Officer). Another editor, MichealKal, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work, thank you1

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MichealKal}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

MichealKal (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MichealKal: May I ask why it wasnt placed in the Joseph Putz namespace? the redirect leads to a player that is not the main topic for the actual name and there is a redirect to him on the officers page Bgrus22 (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]