BrandNewSaint

Welcome!

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

...

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

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)

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)

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

you deleted the new tour dates i just added too 67.82.4.71 (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your diligent work here on Wikipedia. We genuinely appreciate it. Keep up the good work! Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Aw, thank you very much! I just try to do my best. BrandNewSaint (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

hello

Hello! (XLs6 (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC))

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

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) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Please be careful when patrolling

Your revert here restored a bunch of WP:BLP material with wholly insufficient sourcing. I know it's easy to see large removals by new accounts and assume they're vandalism, but please exercise more care in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'll admit it was my riskiest revert, I saw that the account that deleted the content claimed to be the subject. I revised each link in the previous version and gave the articles a glanceover, checking that they were still up.

I'll take the warning, and apologies to Sashaorloff. BrandNewSaint (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The links may have been live, but they were to blogs and other self-published sources which cannot be used for material related to a BLP except in certain specific situations. Sorry if this came across as a warning, was intending for more of a reminder and introduction. I see that you're a relatively new editor and there is a lot to learn about our policies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is going down as a learning experience on BLPs, thank you for catching it! BrandNewSaint (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate the help and advice. Glad it is resolved.

- Some links were to a real domain (of a government website), but there was not a real page (404/errors as they were made up lawsuits by the poster)

- Some might have been live at one point, but changed. That happens.

- Some were to his own personal blog citing the Wikipedia entry he created, and then cited his blog to Wikipedia as evidence, which he then posted to LinkedIn he did to "SEO Hijack" me. That's how I found it.

Again, thanks for your help. Sashaorloff (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I am the editor referenced here. This is my full response.

For the record, that lawsuit I "made up" regarding a LendUp "subsidiary" received a docket update 2 days after I emailed Rolling Loud.

Pretzelseveryday (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

This page is an editorial, sources primarily link back to their own website, it's against the principle of Wikipedia. If you have an issue with this you can discuss it on the Talk page, not bullying other users. ~2026-45400-4 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleting

dony be deleting my information because it is accurate and correct plus I am a direct descendant of Cornelius Washington Mckissick I'm the 3rd Great Grand Daughter Skittles0134 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in Wikipedia there isn't any way for others to verify any of the information you post, just trusting the word of an user isn't reliable, and so there needs to be a reliable, independent source that confirms whatever information you add. Just being right, and knowing the truth, isn't enough for it to be posted. You're welcome to read the guidelines about Verifiability to learn more, tho! BrandNewSaint (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

wimbledon 0 3 arsenal score error 1990

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/wimbledon-fc-2004-_arsenal-fc/index/spielbericht/2753000 Keith curle scored an og ~2026-21398-94 (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, perfect then! It would help if you added the sources in the edit summary to avoid future confusions with others. Thank you! BrandNewSaint (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

second source https://www.worldfootball.net/match-report/co91/england-premier-league/ma569945/wimbledon-fc_arsenal-fc/lineup/

Baby Einstein videos

I'm sorry about this edit I did. ~2026-21503-21 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, you've received 4 warnings by now, hopefully your next edits will have a reasonable explanation so that they don't get reverted. BrandNewSaint (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Hayden Pickard

This is a deeply pressing matter, the edit on his page has been removed. On behalf of all women everywhere, please restore it. Superstylin15 (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It is an unsourced statement on a BLP article, I suggest you read the BLP guidelines as well as Verify it with a source. As well as the tone of the content added was absolutely Not neutral. BrandNewSaint (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Asking for a source and verification is missing the point entirely. We don't host such POV-laden allegations anywhere on Wikipedia regardless of whether a source is included.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)