User talk:Renamed user a82bb9212f38372fe8d02c8d26dd6ec2

Welcome

Welcome to my talk page, everyone! Ironborn392 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chitu Khan has been accepted

Chitu Khan, 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!

Fade258 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello Ironborn392, If you have any other account, kindly disclose them as per WP:SOCK. Best Regards. Chronos.Zx (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have any other account. As far as I'm aware, that is against the rules. I did have an account previously, but I do not have the login information for that anymore, and thus there are no further edits on it and no sockpuppetry. I'm sure a moderator can check my IP to confirm. Thanks for visiting. Ironborn392 (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the result of the investigation. Ironborn392 (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello, I'm Weirdguyz. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks. Redlinks are useful and can often be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" link (in the tools listed at the left in desktop view) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Please only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! Weirdguyz (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, I've been removing a lot of them this past month... I'll be sure to keep that in mind from here on out. Thanks for letting me know. Ironborn392 (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! We all start somewhere, and I think I did the same early on as well. Of course, if you see a redlink which is obviously improper or broken then go for it (there was one I saw you removed which I would have as well, hence why I didn't undo it), but avoid unlinking things which could conceivably have an article. Weirdguyz (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So just to clarify, I can purposefully leave redlinks behind to encourage article creation? Ironborn392 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you think there is something which should have an article which is mentioned, you absolutely can! It also helps, because then the article will already be linked somewhere when it is created so it won't immediately be an orphan. Weirdguyz (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]