User talk:BrandNewSaint

Welcome!

Hello, BrandNewSaint, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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! Joyous! Noise! 18:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Cookies! BrandNewSaint (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to echo the welcome @BrandNewSaint. Always nice to see a 'new face' tackling vandalism. Knitsey (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still learning and improving, especially when it comes to using the warning templates, but thank you for your welcomes! BrandNewSaint (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and some tips

Hi BrandNewSaint! Thanks for your contributions to counter-vandalism and patrolling recent changes. Since you seem to have got the hang of the undo feature, may I suggest the Twinkle and/or Ultraviolet tools? These will allow you to easily leave specific warning templates on user talk pages. I personally find UV (or its slightly older counterpart, RedWarn) to be really quick and easy to use. WindTempos _they ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for the recommendations, I had assumed I needed rollback/autoconfirmed priviliges for me to make use of anti-vandalism scripts, but I'll still give Ultraviolet a look! BrandNewSaint (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only hard requirement for Ultraviolet is to be autoconfirmed, which you are! UV will use a "pseudo-rollback" revert if you don't have the right, which works almost exactly the same, just a little slower.

Do bear in mind that you are still responsible for semi-automated edits with tools like this, so do make sure to read the instructions before you get started :) WindTempos _they ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...

??? why? 47.204.51.113 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I believe BrandNewSaint (correctly) reverted your edits because they weren't supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. Please check either of the links I just provided for more information. Take care --tony 21:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not explaining the reversion I made to your edit(s) at Dietrich Flade. I believed they were unsourced and also had unnecessary commentary/instructions. BrandNewSaint (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok... but how to add them... correctly? 47.204.51.113 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello BrandNewSaint. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 15:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the insight! I have taken a look with them, still working out how to best personalize them without just leaving the unedited template on someone's talk page. BrandNewSaint (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with bad faith edits like vandalism, instead of manually undoing them, maybe you can apply for rollback rights or use tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet. That way, it makes the process easier and efficient. Galaxybeing (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

Friendly suggestion - when reverting changes for being "unsourced", perhaps you should see if what you're reverting to is also unsourced? If so (looking at your edit history, this is often the case), you have no reason to prefer one revision over the other. You should also be notifying the editor that you reverting the changes. Poor form on both counts, but you seem to have good intentions and I'm sure you can do better. 24.125.219.223 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I should be more thorough and careful regarding reversions. BrandNewSaint (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

related to poorly sourced controversial section in Parag Jain Wikipedia article

Hello first of all, I am not the one who removed those controversial topics from Parag Jain’s Wikipedia article. But I want to ask you whether you can say with certainty that whatever controversial details are in that article have been taken from a reliable source. Because @Blued20 is the editor who added those details in that article. I have repeatedly requested him to use details from other Canadian media organizations or official Canadian government sources to verify those points, but he has not done this. Instead, he has cited The Bureau, which is a small Canadian investigative media company.And this The Bureau itself claims that its sources are an anonymous Canadian Intelligence Agency report whose own credentials are not verified. That’s why I told @Blued20 to bring more reputable sources that support The Bureau’s claims or bring an official Canadian government statement. Instead of doing that, he is making false accusations against me that I am pro–Indian government, which is absolutely false.And another user, @Pasados, also raised the similar concern that these details are poorly sourced. Yet this @Blued20 is making such false accusations against both me and @Pasados that we are spreading a pro–Indian government narrative, which is completely wrong. This shows that @Blued20 is using emotional words without providing concrete proof to support his claims.So, I request you to either bring reliable sources or allow these details to be removed. Because @Blued20 has not been replying for a long time.For more context, you can visit the talk page section of the Parag Jain Wikipedia article. Umar Choudhary8 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone my reversion and removed the content back to the last version before mine, I apologize for not having looked into the verifiability of the sources. I've read through the Parag Jain talk page and to me it seems like Blued20 has backed down. BrandNewSaint (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir

I have been waiting for his @Blued20 reply but he has not replied for almost 15 days. Umar Choudhary8 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not back down. You were spamming the same reply on the talk page, and I ended the conversation saying please come back when you have more references and citations to offer not your opinion. Yet, you went ahead and vandalized the article despite the user talk topic going on. How is it in interest of Wikipedia users to remove entire section from a profile of Indian spy chief? Why do you want only positive things to be mentioned on the page? Please desist from further changes to the topic unless you have more references. Only and only my references are from non-Indian media and offer material published earlier than all of the other references. Blued20 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change to tswana

You changed my recent change adding more information about my own tribe why ? Kagisomangope (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your edit due to the policies regarding Original Research, and due to the fact that you didn't provide a verifiable source. Personal experience is sadly not enough for information to be considered verifiable, even if you personally know it to be true. I hope this explains my reasoning. BrandNewSaint (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that post 1992 US Politics were a contentious topic, thank you for pointing this out for me so I may be more cautious and I apologize for any edits that were disruptive. BrandNewSaint (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fatty Arbuckle

Fatty Arbuckle's mention in a GWAR song. The reference is true ( I've listened to it hundreds of times over the years). I just need to know how to provide the proof and references needed. I'm not particularly adept with technology, and the proper way to cite sources and what not. It's why I failed English class in High School because I didn't know how to write term papers. From writing about the subject, to citing the sources, notes and biography. If you could tell me what i need to do and insert in that Wiki page, i would be grateful.

Thank you 162.246.123.246 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you just need a source (a link) to be put between "ref" and "/ref" without the qutations, (replacing them for <>), at the end of the content you want to add. You can check out the in-depth page regarding citations through this link to learn more. Thank you. BrandNewSaint (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]