Hi Outofinfo! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Thank you so much mate. Outofinfo (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metajive is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metajive until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mekomo (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could we talk about your recent edits to Sarah Maza?

I just wanted to let you know: when you removed the birth year, you introduced an error for a detached footnote. Also, when you removed the "promotional" line, you introduced a hidden harvid error because a source was no longer cited inline but still listed as a reference.

But mainly, I wanted to ask: you've removed a line about 2 other historians that she worked with. You say it's because they were on her dissertation committee -- that's fine as a point of clarification. "Worked with" is vague, for sure. I'm specifically basing it on the source that I cited. But do you have a source for your assertion & if you do, why not include that information instead of deleting the line outright? It would be an interesting fact about her background.

Thank you for clarifying your edits. I'll fix the errors as well. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 00:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and for taking care of the citation/formatting issues.

On the “worked with” wording, the only supported relationship in the biographical material anywhere found is that Davis and Sewell served on Sarah Maza’s dissertation committee.

Because “worked with” can imply active scholarly collaboration (co-authorship, joint research, etc.), I removed it to avoid overstating what the source actually supports. If we want to keep the information, a more precise phrasing like “her dissertation committee included…” would be more accurate and fully consistent with the sourcing.

Appreciate your understanding, and thanks again for fixing the formatting issues.Outofinfo (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to a source about the dissertation committee? I would like to include that in the article, because that's an interesting fact that those historians were involved.

Also, I noticed that you removed more facts: years as a professor, when she earned her degrees, a translation, and info about when she joined Northwestern. These are uncontroversial facts supported by sources, and I see no reason to remove them. Please could you explain why you are removing more information from the article? You are also marking these unexplained deletions as "minor revisions", but they aren't minor at all. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 02:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:DancingFountain per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DancingFountain. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]