This is an archive of past discussions with User:Irtapil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"Arial" is a commercial font which is only available on a limited range of systems, so what you did is probably not as helpful as you thought it would be... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I am aware Arial is a commercial font, but it is more likely to be already installed on a reader's computer than any of the free fonts which contain the applicable characters. Most people won't want to install a new font to read a small detail on a page, free or not, and if they don't have Arial font, won't it just default to something else?
Which systems don't include Arial? Linux? That's surely a far smaller number of readers than the people who would already have a free font installed that contains characters like dotless ba. Irtapil (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: this is what it looked like before i changed the font:
it seems likely not everyone was seeing that, or it would be fixed already, and the people who see the same error seem more likely to also be windows users, or have the same glitchy font that comes ahead of Arial in the queue?
Irtapil (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
the lang-ar had a less streaky option Arabic: ﷽, but it was illegibly small, in a table you can increase font size, but in line with text that's not a winner.
{{script|Arab|﷽}}
﷽
gives the same error.
Irtapil (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Script/Arabic
"Amiri (appears feathery on Windows; errors with combining shadda with kasra and in Rohingya [1])"
﷽
{{font|font=amiri|﷽}}
that font looks fine in other programs, just goes weird for that character in chrome.
i'm still not sure what you mean by "not as helpful as you thought it would be" ... how helpg=ful did you think i thought it'd be?
Irtapil (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It's finicky appearance-hacking that only works for some people. and so is not a general-purpose solution to the problem. AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: what would your idealised solution be then? do you actually have a better idea or are you just complaining that my quick fix for a small problem isn't perfect?
As far as i gather the effect of forcing Arial font displays Arial if it is present then if it's not installed it goes back to whatever it would have displayed without that setting? so it possibly helps a lot of viewers, and has no effect for others? The "feathering" mention on the help page sounds like it is likely to be just a windows thing, and Arial comes with windows, so it likely solved it for everyone who has the problem.
The problem seemed likely to be restricted to that particular obscure character, a generalised solution (e.g. editing the template font list) would likely create WAY more problems than it solved.
i could work out the offending font - Amiri - and uninstall it from my own computer, but that solves it for only ONE user, and Amiri displays other characters fine, without streaking into the toolbars.
what proportion of users would actually not have Arial? i do wonder if some people might have Arial without the full character set? but if they don't have the Arabic characters from Arial the chances of them having a specific Arabic font are even lower.
you say Arial only works for some people, but is there any stable and extensive Arabic font they are more likely to have installed? i didn't just pick the most common font in general, i picked the font with the most extensive Arabic charachar set, out of the fonts likely to be installed on an English speakers computer. the SIL fonts would work too, but they are way less common than Arial. do you actually have a better idea? if you want to add a list of all of the fonts other than Amiri to the formatting on that one character, just go do it rather than complaining that i didn't. i even worked out which don't was causing the problem, if you want to add a solution for the tiny proportion of people who don't have serial, just go do it. but they likely weren't even getting the same glitch, so it's a bit pointless.
those all display identically on my android, so, the solution does nothing, but there was also no problem to solve. if you want a solution that applies to people who do not have the problem, then that's a fairly eccentric approach...
if you actually do have a better idea i am keen to hear it. i often use arial because pages use have obscure characters, and some fonts will have these but not connect them properly, so they look completely different. i add the appropriate lang tag lang|ar or lang|ur etc. as well and as far as i know, this means that if the user is one of the 1% of internet users who do not have Arial installed or will default back to the fonts associated with that lang tag. so, if you have a better solution please do share. i could add additional fonts, but most of what i would add is already attached to those Lang tags, so that's a bit pointless.
Irtapil (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
"Also probably many mobile systems, to start with... AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)" well the solution does nothing, see above, but they also don't have the problem. Irtapil (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
is this the right way to do a list of fonts for characters that aren't displaying properly in the default? Arabic: ◌ٔ {{langx|ar|{{font|font=tahoma,amiri,arial|size=175%| ◌ٔ }}}}
Irtapil (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
No. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do here, but the {{font}} template's |font= parameter must be a single font, not a list. This works:
If you want to have three fonts, you'll need three copies of the template, one for each of the fonts. Huon (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thank you @Huon:, sorry i didn't quite explain my intention well, i meant it to show in any of the fonts on that list, not all of them. I've seen it done somewhere before, with formatting table cells, i'm not sure if it works in font template. Irtapil (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there's an easy way to format something as "pick the one of these three fonts that works best". If it's possible at all, you'd probably need some rather fancy HTML. Huon (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
what's going on here? i moved the table to another page (my user page) and it didn't keep doing it.
To me the image looks like a case of too many templates. There is a hard limit for the number of templates transcluded on one page, and if you exceed that limit, any further templates just don't work any more. A little more context would be helpful her: Where did the table come from, what's the diff of the edit you are asking about, and what is "it" that the table didn't keep doing? Huon (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Huon: size in what sense? would this mean switching from templates to an alternative, like style formatting in tables, doesn't help? Irtapil (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, but the pages linked above say that something called "Post-expand include size" is the measure that's limited. I'd read that as "the amount of text and/or code that is put into the page through the template". For example, {{red|Hello world!}} is turned into <span style="color: red;">Hello world!</span> - that's 45 characters, so it counts for 45 bytes against the maximum post-expand include size of 2,048,000 bytes. You could put that template some 50,000 times on a page. If a template generates not just 45 bytes but, say, 1000, then you can have it 2,048 times. Note that non-Latin characters may take more than one byte each. Style formatting in the tables isn't expanded and thus doesn't count against the limit at all, so that may indeed serve as an alternative if possible. Huon (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, you can specify a list of fonts (with the last on the list as the fallback default) in HTML code, but I'm not sure how or if this carries over into Wikipedia templates. See this example from further down on the linked page: AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC) <span style="font-family:Gentium Plus, Charis SIL, Doulos SIL, serif">
Copying licensed material requires attribution
archived
archived 2023
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Arabic diacritics into Rasm. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Diannaa: do i need to do this when coping stuff to and or from my user page and sandbox? e.g.
If i copy draft material from my sand box do i need to use the copy template or something? I imagine this would be useful for avoiding accusations of plagiarism? is {{copied}} the right template to use?
I copied an old version of the Phoenician_alphabet to my user page, is the link to the relevant edit / version sufficient and appropriate attribution? (it contained some poorly referenced material, which was not well attributed enough for the article, but which i found interesting and wanted to look into later.)
I have several old or alternate version of content from various articles i'm working on. I presume when copying from a Wikipedia article to my own page, a link to the page is sufficient? My user page doesn't need i be encyclopedia quality? if i include these in an article after working on them separately, do i use the {{copied}} template? do you have any pointers for how to use that in this situation, e.g. what info to include?
p.s. @Diannaa: how do i add an edit summary to an existing edit if and when i forget to do it before i hit "publish". Your link didn't really explain how to add it. Irtapil (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Please provide attribution each time you copy within Wikipedia, unless you are the sole author of the text being copied. If you forget to do it at the time you do the edit, you can add the attribution later, by making a small but useful edit and giving the required attribution in your edit summary. Here is an example.— Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Diannaa: Sorry, i'm not sure if i'm understanding.
To add edit notes to a page's history i need to make an additional edit and add notes when i publish that edit? I can't add or change notes for an old edit?
Given there's an exception for "unless you are the sole author of the text being copied", that means i don't need to add the copy template if i am just copying something i composed on my user page or sandbox page?
is there a way to avoid accusations of plagiarism if into an article i paste a large section of text or a table that i composed in my sandbox? i was composing things on the article pages, hoping someone would jump in and collaborate (and i guess just because it seemed simplest). But i left one page in a bit of a messy unfinished state for a few days and i think that might be what attracted a massive rollback. So i'm currently working on a version of that in my sandbox, but this seems to create different problems.
No, you cannot add or change the edit summary for an edit you already dld.
You don't need to include attribution if you copy your own prose from your sandbox into an article.
I don't know which messy work of yours someone removed or why. What reason did they give in their edit summary? — Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The edit summaries:
"Reverted to revision 930263664: I'm sorry but Wikipedia pages are not sandboxes for anyone to expertiment with their rudimentary knowledge of a topic. Please take to the talk page and gain consensus for your edits (TW)"
Repeating the above revert after I undid it: "Reverted to revision 930263664: I am sorry you cannot make these major unencyclopedia edits without previous discussion on the talk page and the garnering of a consensus; per WP:BRD you made the edits, I have reverted them, now you need to discuss them on the talk page first. They seem to be copied from somewhere. They are not in any summary style of Wikipedia (TW)"
Then found another article I was working on. "Reverted to revision 953613498.: You cannot do these huge opaque data dumps clearly copied from somewhere in longstanding pages. You don't have the ability to explain what you have done in English. It is only tables and more tables. The articles become unreadable (TW)"
Dear User:Irtapil, thank you for your message on my talk page. I understand that you put a lot of work into editing the Urdu alphabet article. I glanced at your version and although I do not see anything that stands out as problematic, perhaps User:Fowler&fowler does. I would recommend waiting for him to respond there and see what he has to say before you consider reverting, although the choice is ultimately yours. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk06:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. @Anupam: Sorry i didn't see this till after my most recent message on your page. I can see bits F&F might have objected to, i got interrupted while working on the page and thus there were a few messy/unfinished tables sitting there for a few days. I want to try and fix these issues, so there's something optimal to discuss. But while i was working on that F&F repeated the reversion to the much shorter and poorly references version from 6 months ago (not Wikipedia quality because large sections of it were based on a small number of sources). By "the choice is ultimately yours" do you mean it would not be unreasonable to undo the reversion and keep working on it? I nearly did that, but i know "edit wars" are very much frowned upon. Is there a right place to save and work on an alternate version for discussion? Irtapil (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Elsewhere they say content being there for 3 weeks counts as reason for it to stay, but the stuff that was in the Urdu Alphabet page much longer, and cintributed to by about 20 other editors, doesn't qualify? Irtapil (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Ethnologue
Hi Irtapil, here's a workaround that might be of interest for you. Ethnologue's primary links haven't changed, so you can actually look at older versions via the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. So current links are behind a hard paywall, e.g. Urdu. But if you go before Oct 2019 here, you will have full access to older versions (occasionally there is a soft paywall, so you just have to click around a bit until you an unlocked view). Language family pages are still free.[1] –Austronesier (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Is the paywall new? Are the pages linked prominently supposed to be the free summaries? should i point it out if i come across paywalled things in an infobox? Irtapil (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The soft paywall (5 views per month) was introduced c. 2 yrs ago, the hard paywall with the outlandish subscription prices end of last year. AFAIK all pages evoked by infobox parameter "ref" are now hidden behind a hard paywall for IPs from industrialized coutries. So they are accessible for some readers, for many others not. A few editors already talked about it, but we ended up with a "wait-and-see" attitude.
Paywalled sources are not per se tabu, in fact WP is against WP:FUTONBIAS, but Ethnologue is actually meant as an auxilliary source, so the paywall really brings the promiment position of Ethnologue into a questionable position. The Ethnologue reference can certainly remain there but not as a primary index. I hope more editors will join the discussion in the project talk page. –Austronesier (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, non free sources have their place, hence my suggestion being adding another rather than replacing them. A big part of the point of Wikipedia is to make the i formation in difficult to access resources, accessible to a wider audience. Irtapil (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Why "futon"? what's the furniture connection? (i double checked the page you linked and there's no explanation, the sock puppet page had a photo of an actual sock puppet LOL.) Is it an acronym or a reference to "couch surfing"?
I suppose i may as well ask a general question while i'm at it, Where can i find good quality freely available linguistic sources? is there a "PubMed Central for linguistics"?
Because attribution is essential. If you don't get indentation and signatures right, people wouldn't be able to know who said what. And that would be detrimental to the purpose of a talk page, which is not only to discuss content and policy but to provide record of what was discussed and how decisions were made for others to see. Nardog (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
ah, now i'm confused, i thought you were objecting to me indenting first post, but that doesn't make attribution ambiguous. so what were you objecting to? Irtapil (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course it does. Indentation indicates subordination. If you're not replying you shouldn't indent. Nardog (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation support request
Hi,
While working on article Islamic advice literature I realized that word 'Qisas' is appearing in different meaning at Qisas Al-Anbiya it comes as story/anecdote telling (alternative spelling Kissa). And in article named Qisas seems to come as revenge. Need support in creating proper disambiguation page and links so reader do not end up in unexpected pages.
Of course article Islamic advice literature too needs support in update and expansion since lot of scholarly references are available in books and google scholar too.
Hi @Bookku: sorry, i'm not very knowledgeable about this. But i'll see if i can find you some links of where to find the answers. Irtapil (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Ways to ask general questions about editing Wikipedia:
if the article has content but not many references you can add {{more citations needed}} to the top of the article.(but it looks like the article is short but well referenced, so suggesting it for expansion on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam is probably more suitable.)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Thanks for uploading File:Indiyaa in Meitei script 2020-05-30 09-07.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!03:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
if you
archived
archived 2023
are capable of your user page overload - you should get the fact the burklemore hasnt edited for a while - you need to get a sense of asking questions of editors who havent edited for a while might not just answer (or who knows maybe they will) JarrahTree14:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
user pages and talk pages of other users are usually for their discretion -adding a label like that is
(a) a problem in that it is up to an editor if they so choose - it is not for others to attribute such items
(b) the editor hasnt edited for a while and may have left wikipedia without saying so
(c) the australian biota project has some very dedicated editors who carry on regardless, if you choose to create such an item, wp:AGF and a slight matter of courtesy could involve actually letting the participants know of the tag... JarrahTree01:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: I still don't know what you are referring to. Aus biota is a start, i thought you were talking about Kashmiri language.
What did i do? (I can't tell if it sounds like the things i was intending to do, or something i might have done accidentally.)
do i need to fix it? or just do it differently next time?
what does "could involve actually letting the participants know of the tag" mean? let them know where? how? i put a user box on the project page, isn't the project page the place to let people know about it?
@JarrahTree: you seem to be talking about a message i left on somebody else's talk page? (@Burklemore:) but why do you object? what are you saying i should have done differently? you put stuff on my talk page, that seems to be the way they're supposed to be used?
"a slight matter of courtesy could involve actually letting the participants know of the tag" but they get notified of things i put on their talk page? Irtapil (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!14:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!14:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@JorgeLaArdilla: It depends what you want it in the corner of (table, section, or whole page)?
To align an image to the right you add "right" between two pipes "|" like this
[[File:File.png|40px|thumb|right|caption text]]
If you want the picture in the top right of a section you put that between the heading and the text of the section. Any text following that line of code will go to the left of the image (if the reader's screen is wide enough).
Which image do you want in which corner? (and which page, if you don't mean Rasm?)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
There is no requirement that each sentence have an inline citation. I agree that having a bunch of citations at the end of a paragraph makes it hard to distinguish individual sources, but that does not mean that the prior sentences are unsourced. Tagging them doesn't help anything. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
{{help me|why does this image distort it when i try to add an updated cropped version?}}
the image file i was trying to crop
i tried to crop an image and it distorted weirdly.
i tried again and the new version looked wrong but the previous version looked ok.
i reverted to the previous version and that looked wrong, but… see screencap below.
see highlighting
Hm, I took a look and was unable to duplicate the error! The image does not appear distorted to me no matter which version I'm looking at. This might be something local to your computer. I'll leave the help me box up for now since I don't know what might be causing it. Howicus(Did I mess up?)03:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I can second being unable to reproduce what's in your screenshot—that's pretty weird. My only guess is that your browser is doing something funky, so you could either try restarting it or viewing the image on another one. Double checking it myself, the current revision seems to look good regarding the white border.
If you're curious to know an alternative way to crop an image, then you can look into CropTool, which is a gadget for Wikimedia Commons (note you can also just use its website). Let me know if you have any further questions, and happy editing! Perryprog (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
SuggestBot
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Taiwan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. STSC (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Archiving on Taiwan
Hello Irtapil. I reverted one of your edits on Talk:Taiwan. Actually, it the discussion was already archived. As the page has a lot of frequent discussions, the bot also archives frequently (60 days). However, it is best to avoid reinstating old discussions. I would suggest you start a new discussion and link to the older one to provide a context.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499 and HitomiAkane: This refers partly to a topic from User_talk:HitomiAkane/Archive_1, but it seemed more appropriate to put it on my own talk page? You were talking about some inaccurate transliterations in arz: and i think I've possibly found another, but i know hardly any Arabic so i don't know weather it actually is inaccurate. This looks like a problem, but i'm way out of my depth, so tagging @Nehme1499: who spotted a similar problem and seemed to come up with a decent plan to repair it. There are a huge number of articles in arz.wikipedia.org that use the Arabic spelling Arabic: ايسلاند for the English word "island" in the title, or the body. All of these pages (or at least the dozen or so i checked) had the same author arz:مستخدم:HitomiAkane and no other human editors. This struck me as weird, because that is one of the very few words i know in Arabic, and the article on Islands in general is under that title arz:جزيره in Egyptian wiki. The transliteration was often in place names, but even in place names things like Island (or Lake or Mountain) get translated, with fairly rare exceptions Loch Ness vs Lake Geneva. The transliterstion of island also uses the Arabic dotted ya ي unicode character, whereas the spelling of the name of Masri Wiki uses the ی terminally undotted Farsi version of Ya. There are no matches to this spelling with the ی undotted Ya. I'm not sure how i could go about finding a suitable speaker of the dialect to give an informed second opinion? I got the impression user:Nehme1499 speaks Lebanese? Irtapil (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me. The issue is that in Lebanese we strictly use characters in exactly the same way they are used in Arabic (so without the terminal ی, or the use of other characters like ڤ present in the farsi alphabet). So, I don't have in-depth knowledge of writing systems in Arabic dialects that don't strictly follow the Arabic alphabet. For me, what should be done is simple: if the title is a "given name", like Grand Island, then Island should be transliterated into ايسلاند. If island is used to indicate the geographical entity, like Quinchao Island, then we should use جزيره (or whatever the correct word for "island" is in Egyptian Arabic). Nehme149918:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Do you know where i could find an appropriate person to talk to? or a right place to mention it?
The different unicode character thing mostly just indicated to me that all of the usages of that spelling were the same user with the same keyboard (without having to check the edit history for all of the pages).
A few were names of football clubs and i've noticed from Bayern Munich "Fußball-Club Bayern München" that which words get translated in that can be a bit weird (Bayern is the German name for Bavaria, but in German Munich is München). Are there any football clubs with Island in the name that might be on there with multiple editors to compare?
@Irtapil: Thank you for pinging me, First of all, and as @Nehme1499: mentioned, it was inaccurate transliterations for the word (Island) in those articles, I'll try to fix them all as soon as possible, the second issue that Masri Wiki uses the ی terminally undotted Ya as all Egyptian write it that way, in addition to another set of characters explained here to expand our options when translating, thank you all, HitomiAkane (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm looking for someone to translate an article from Russian Wikipedia that does not seem to have an article in English Wikipedia, ru: Альянс врачей. They an organisation being mentioned in recent news about Alexey Navalny. There's no information about them in English Wikipedia but there is extensive article in Russian Wikipedia. I can't find any mention of them in English Wikipedia using that specific Russian name "Альянс врачей", or a literal translation "Alliance of Doctors".
I'm looking for someone to translate an article from Russian Wikipedia that does not seem to have an article in English Wikipedia, ru: Альянс врачей. They an organisation being mentioned in recent news about Alexey Navalny. There's no information about them in English Wikipedia but there is extensive article in Russian Wikipedia. I can't find any mention of them in English Wikipedia using that specific Russian name "Альянс врачей", or a literal translation "Alliance of Doctors".
Thanks for the pointer! I've read the ru article and it comes across as a political outpost of the said organisation or their vocal supporters. While it was an interesting read for me due to my interest in the ongoing political developments around Navalny, in the spirit of the WP:Soapbox I am not sure that verbatim translation into the en space is the right way to go, unless it becomes notable with the same level of detalisation in the English language media. BACbKA (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@BACbKA: Thanks for having a look. I agree a direct translation is not ideal if the original is a bit skewed. Now that someone has started a stub we can build on it from English language sources. I've definitely heard of them elsewhere now that i know who they are. Irtapil (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 1978 smallpox in the United Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Your repeated moving the article to Last confirmed death from smallpox is against consensus on the Talk page. I suggest you move it back before you get blocked DeCausa (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@DeCausa: it wasn't 24 hours, they were a week apart.
Did you read what I posted above? “Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.” There’s no excuse for moving the article a third time clearly against consensus. DeCausa (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@DeCausa: two people isn't a consensus any more than it's an outbreak! wiki is a frustrating stagnant mess. The default is always on the side of stagnation. Irtapil (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
That’s right, you got it. WP:CONSENSUS means the status quo stays until there’s a consensus to change. One person’s “stagnation” is another’s “opinionated editor who knows better than everyone else and everyone would see that if only they weren’t so dumb and blinkered”. I don’t think Wikipedia will catch on. DeCausa (talk)
@DeCausa: but they end up fairly biased, especially for articles with not much activity. because the first snd often only people to show up are the original authors, who obviously like it now it was. or for very active articles it ends up a pointless doom spiral of endless debate, which is way more reading than the references i used for the edit. I tried looking up tiawan for some quick background, that mess is so stuck that i think i'd learn more from a britanica CD ROM. Irtapil (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@DeCausa: whereas the president of Afghanistan's page had the local translation of his name as something obscene about a donkey in Dari, and it had been there for months. this website is a mess. Irtapil (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko and Minorax: why were these deleted? none of the linked info was informative, it was all general guidelines, and i came see which apply to all these images because they've already been deleted. Irtapil (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I've split this into two separate {{help me}} questions, because it seems likely someone will have time or knowledge to help with one but not the other.
@WikiwiLimeli: Sorry, i didn't read this until today. I thought that issue was already resolved? Is this why the maritime borders version is back? I'm very sure it's best to avoid the "maritime borders" reference in the lead, there are simpler ways to describe it. What was left ambiguous in the discussion? Irtapil (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries. I thought we had consensus as well, but Horse Eye's Back kept reverting [2] and [3], claiming there wasn't consensus. I wasn't sure why, so I pinged everyone again just on the safe side. Horse added a reply very late to that thread, which you might have noticed as well. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@WikiwiLimeli: Does anybody other than the Horse Eye disagree? if not, we have a consensus and he disagrees with it, a consensus doesn't have to be unanimous?
Does anybody know why he is so obsessed with that article? He seems either not very well informed, or extremely biased, but i can't even quite worth out what his bias is? "Shared Maritime Borders" seem like a bizarre thing to bring up in the intro for a country that has heated disputes about every one of those borders.
Bizarrely the article on the Geography of Taiwan makes no mention of borders…
Oh, I misunderstood. To be clear though, I have no position on the matter regarding the exact wording used in the article Taiwan that you are discussing here. All the best, CentreLeftRight✉23:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I have a question. Is University Park any longer a CDP? As far as I can see, there is no Census data for 2020. Has the place merged with another one for Census purposes? Thank you in advance for your reply. Regards, Dionysos1988 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC) ut::
I wanted to notify you of a couple things relating the template you created Template:Uninastaliq (which is very helpful).
I updated the documentation to note that it is widely used for Punjabi in the Perso-Arabic script rather than occasionally (important since the Noto Nastaliq font includes Punjabi-specific characters).
I also wanted to ask if you would be OK with me moving the Uninastaliq template into Template:Nastaliq, and changing Template:Uninastaliq to an alias/redirect to Nastaliq. I think this would be uncontroversial as it would improve script support across the board without having to update every instance of Nastaliq to Uninastaliq. --Middle river exports (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
There are currently nearly 12,200 transclusions of Template:Nastaliq. The move would update all of these to prefer Noto Nastaliq Urdu over some of the older legacy fonts and the Microsoft system font. Many users are likely also just in the habit of typing the nastaliq template, unaware that a better option exists (this is what I was doing until I saw your template). --Middle river exports (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I have decided to merge these templates. In looking at the characters on Saraiki alphabet, ٻ looks invisible with Jameel Noori, but looks fine with uninastaliq fallback list ٻ. I would say that is reason enough to merge. Middle river exports (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed the original template seems somewhat over used, for languages that don't use Nastaliq, like Sindhi. I think the problem might be that in Hindi and Urdu the word "Nastaliq" is often used to refer to all scripts that aren't Devanagari or the Latin script? possibility combined with people using mobile devices that don't display it as a Nastaliq font. I'm not sure what to do about this other than change it to an appropriate {{lang}} template whenever i see it? Irtapil (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Irtapil. You used the {{Help me}} template, but you wanted an answer from a specific editor. If you still need help, please add your question to that editor's talk page instead, or reply to them here using the {{Reply to}} template. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.
Live articles are not personal editing spaces. If you want to do some editing with labels to help you out, copy-and-paste the article or some of its sections to your sandbox. This should be obvious but the reason why you shouldn't do that is for the time between your edits, everyone reading the live article will be seeing a WIP message from one editor. Yue🌙20:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Loafiewa: I'M USING MY SAND BOX NOW. I moved the whole table there like you said. I presume i paste it back after?
I was trying to make a minor edit to the table, i added a subheading so i could edit the table by itself. You removed that while i was working on it.
I'm not "experimenting" or vandalising I'm trying to make constructive edits to make the table more readable and you are making it much harder than it needs to be. Irtapil (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Loafiewa is not the same person as me, and I said copy-and-paste, not cut-and-paste. If you don't want your good faith edits to be mistaken for test edits and vandalism, just remember that live article spaces are public, so if you're planning to do major work on one that takes a lot of time, just copy a replica to your private sandbox first and paste the results to the live article afterwards. Obviously if you remove large chunks of a live article or leave a personal comment on it, people are going to be confused and think it's vandalism. Yue🌙06:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I put the note on the public page because I had mentioned something on the talk page and then tried to make the change myself. I didn't want to cause version conflicts if someone else tried to make the same change at the same time. Then the revert while I was working on it caused exactly that problem.
Then I tried a less messy subheading so I could still edit the table without loading the whole article, but that hopefully looked less untidy to readers, again reverted before I could finish.
Eventually I just gave up. I wanted to make a fairly simple improvement to the the clarity of the table, making the most relevant information most visible, but every attempt was abruptly obstructed.
When I look something up on Wikipedia and the information is unclear or incomplete I always try to fix it and improve it for the next person, but I always end up feeling frustrated, depressed, and completely worthless.
I'm beginning to think I should switch to reading Britanica. Articles here end up years out of date, or biased by a few obsessive editors, because even uncontroversial constructive edits get reverted by default pending "consensus" so unless someone has the time and stamima to stay and fight, their contributions just get scraped. That's not what happened this time as such, but it's the same obstructive frustration.
I guess copying the WHOLE article to my sand box might solve some of the reverts in progress problem? maybe the platform needs a convenient and obvious button for that? it would be more welcoming than it appearing as a comment on the revert for my 3rd attempt.
It's not that complicated and you've been reading way too much into this for the past two weeks: Your original edit was reverted because you removed the entire infobox and then put a personal note on a publicly accessible article. You did the equivalent of unilaterally closing a bathroom stall and leaving a note that you are in the process of fixing it, but doing no such work for hours and taking the toilet paper with you. This behaviour would invoke the same response on any other public encyclopedia.
I shouldn't have to explain why you shouldn't treat a publicly accessible article like a personal sandbox, but it seems by our fourth correspondence you still do not seem to understand common etiquette (in general, not on Wikipedia specifically) or what the very simple reason was.
If you don't want to cause edit conflicts, just use the "In use" maintenance tag, but your edits in between shouldn't be hours apart. If they are, you should consider using the "Under construction" template, but then other editors would also be encouraged by the maintenance tag to help with the reconstruction.
Don't take these kind of messages so personally; if you think someone else interpreted site policy incorrectly, just say so instead of asking them why they did it, because the answer is almost always the same as your modus operandi: to improve Wikipedia. Yue🌙06:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Removing the entire infobox was NOT by original edit! that was my frustrated third-ish attempt.
First, while i was editing, I put a short message on the page that said i was currently editing it. Someone instantly removed the message! and lost what i was working on because they removed the message while i was in the process of editing!
I just wanted to make a list slightly more legible, it would have taken minutes!
But it takes hours, because me not using the exact correct decorative template to say I'd be editing this article for the next few minutes, meant someone did exactly the opposite of what the nite was these for, and then the save glitches, and i lost the attempt to fix the silly dot point and… and that's how moving a couple of dot points takes hours … and then weeks of discussion.
Maybe I shouldn't snap at you so harshly, it's not just you, it's the whole website, any attempt to do anything is a soul crushingly frustrating experience that hurts more than any of the social media with a worse reputation for impacts on self esteem.
But the public bathroom analogy was a bit offensive, it made it hard to read too.
Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay
Golden Bay Air are holding some seats for us until 21 November
Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.
Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellingtonand we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@Irtapil: It's manual, and yes, when editors are new to a CT topic area and start reverting things, that's generally when another editors in that CT topic area might post this. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I reverted your edit. I feel i owe you an explanation because your edit note looked upset? I tried to avoid reverting because I know it can be painfully frustrating. But after starting the discussion, I worried that - if the community decided to reverse it - reversal might be very difficult without discarding subsequent edits. On reflection it should be easy enough to put the table back together, or restore any prose that got removed, and at a glance none of the removed prose seems worth debating. I just wanted to explain why i did it in that order. But a question for future reference, so I don't clash with anyone else… I thought the usual process is to keep the old version until after people have discussed it? That's what usually happens when people disagree with my edits, so I thought it was standard? But it would be good if it's not, because "revert by default" makes editing feel futile sometimes. What is the process supposed to be? Irtapil (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The stability of existing content is inherently less of a concern when dealing with extremely recent and new content, where the concept of an 'old version' isn't really applicable. It's natural for new content to get shuffled around by editors. One obvious, but unwritten behavioural rule of thumb, however, is that if an editor has put a lot of effort into a complex edit or series of edits, they are more likely to revert another editor that comes along and undoes that work. It's human nature. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
You just need to be particularly careful in this topic area, because of the WP:1RR restrictions. Don't get stressed out: at the end of the day, nothing on Wikipedia should truly impinge on your life. The admins at AE will note your unfamiliarity and take it into account. Just read all of the rules thoroughly and be cautious when editing existing content. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Fixed now. Sorry i get mixed up because some ways to reply now seem to do that automatically but others still don't. Irtapil (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear Irtapil: I believe you ran afoul of the one-revert rule with this edit. The one-revert rule prohibits more than one revert per 24 hours. A revert is defined as any edit that "undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part." This edit undid this action. This edit undid this action. It is customary to permit a person who runs afoul of the one-revert rule to self-correct. Please do so by self-reverting this edit. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Thaw was an edit i accidentally saved half way through, whose did i revert?
I'm not sure what you want me to do? I'm reluctant to attempt to "self revert" because you're accusing me of already having reverted something in that page? and we're only supposed to "revert" once per 24 hours? I really don't want to get locked out of that topic. If you want something reverted, why don't you use up one of your reverts top do it? Irtapil (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
DoneDiff. For the record, the policy is explicit in saying that "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). . ." You really should become familiar with the sanctions in place. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
It didn't seem like a "self revert" should count, but it doesn't seem like others should have either. You are counting a lot of things as "reverts" that do not seem justified. I know it counts as a "revert" if you replicate what a revert would do even without using the "undo" or "restore" buttons, but none of the edits I have made to that page were intentionally identical to a previous version.
I first saw this late last night, so I didn't look closely at what you linked. My first response was because while I was editing yesterday, I thought I'd had trouble saving my edits, but when you said that I thought maybe there'd been someone else editing the page at the same time as me and they'd misinterpreted my conflicting edits as an edit war.
But looking now, the first pair are nearly 3 weeks apart, and match by literally only one word, a key word, but that really doesn't fit any reasonable definition of a "revert". Most of what I added isn't even in the same field of the infobox.
The second pair are an entire MONTH apart, in the field I was unaware had even been previously filled. If I had been deliberately reverting that I would have included the references.
Also, if you objected to these edits so passionately, why didn't you say something on the talk page for the article where i was actively asking for feedback, instead of jumping to arbitration?
OK. I'm going to try to explain this to you step by step. I am not trying to be rude, but I am feeling a bit impatient about this, so please cut me some slack.
Let's start with what a revert is. It is the undoing of another editor's actions. While restoring the prior version of a page is certainly one way to revert, it is not the only way to revert.
Now, how did you revert? First, you added Israel to the "accused" parameter of the infobox. You did that in this edit right here. The timestamp is 22:12, 22 November 2023. How did you reverse another editor's action? Well, because at 19:32 on 5 November 2023, I had already re-removed the perpetrator field from the infobox with the comment: "see the previous RfC and discussion on Talk with consensus to remove perpetrator field" after TimeEngineer added it.
After being reverted on 5 November 2023, TimeEngineer opened a thread on 7 November 2023 at the Talk page. That thread can be found here; it's called "Perpetrator". In it, TimeEngineer asks: Can we put "disputed", with or without footnotes as the perpetrator in the infobox?. There are responses from חוקרת, Selfstudier, and myself. We refer to a previous discussion where a decision was reached to leave this field blank in light of the "perpetrator" being disputed. I linked to the prior discussion.
Now, let's talk about that prior discussion. Because the discussion has now been archived, it can be found here. Note that the discussion is about "Including Israel as a possible culprit at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion." Note that Generalrelative says I suggest simply cutting the "Accused" parameter from the infobox for now.. Note that DeCausa says: Infoboxes are for simple, known facts...the slightest complexity and they al;most always go horribly wrong. "Probably", "disputed" etc etc. It cries out for not trying to cover the responsibility issue in the infobox at the moment - leave it to the article text. Silence is golden.. This discussion occurred from 23 October to 31 October, when the last comment by Elmmapleoakpine was It appears that this is resolved but for what it is worth, I think the lead of the article handles this appropriately now. In the context of that discussion, at 04:57, 23 October 2023, Generalrelative removed the "Accused" parameter, with the edit summary: Rm contested "Accused" parameter for now. See emerging consensus at NPOVN.
Then, you made the above-referenced revert (22:12, 22 November 2023) by re-adding Israel into the infobox as a possible culprit. I reverted you at 23:42, 22 November 2023 with the edit summary Removed perp and accused fields from infobox, discussed a million times. 25 minutes later, at 00:07, 23 November 2023, you re-added Israel into the infobox as a possible culprit again, with the edit summary i think my correction glitched in my previous attempt to save this. This was your second edit in less than 24 hours that reversed the action of another editor. What was the action? Removal of Israel as a possible culprit from the infobox. What was reversal of this action? Insertion of Israel as a possible culprit into the infobox.
Then, at 00:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC), I sent you a message (above) asking that you please self-revert, because you had made 2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of WP:1RR applicable to this particular topic. You did not self-revert, so I filed a complaint on the noticeboard.
In summary: (1) initially, Israel was included as a possible culprit in the infobox; (2) after community discussion, the culprit/accused/perpetrator fields were removed from the infobox altogether; (3) TimeEngineer re-added them, and was reverted; (4) TimeEngineer opened a Talk page thread, and was pointed to the prior discussion; (5) you re-inserted Israel as a possible culprit; (6) I reverted you; (7) you re-inserted Israel as a possible culprit; (8) I asked you to self-revert; (9) you did not; and (10) I filed a complaint on the noticeboard. --Orgullomoore (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Or at least thar seems to be part of it, the link you gave was for my own edit of the talk page. I saw you mentioned disputed had been discussed before, but I didn't see you comment anything after my first comment. Irtapil (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
It's fine. I believe you that you were mistaken. I think you should have quickly reverted. It's problematic for you to be editing in a contentious topic and not know what reverting or self-reverting is. I think you are in for a very rough ride if you continue to edit in this arena without understanding the relevant policies. This is very different than editing cat or dog or fingernail or Christmas tree. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
If there is a page relevant to the topic but not currently flagged as such, how do I add it? A notice comes up when I edit most pages about the topic, how does that get there? Irtapil (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This section is merely to inform you of the discussion at the noticeboard. Since you are aware of it, in that sense it is resolved. The discussion at the noticeboard is still open (last time I checked). I have added a comment that I am not opposed to it being closed so long as you read (and understand and have the ability to follow) the rules that we all have to abide by when editing contentious topics. --Orgullomoore (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to add comments there, you can. If you don't have any comments to add, my advice would be to add the page to your watchlist and sit back until there is a result. Though I don't have a crystal ball, my guess is they are going to tell you to learn the rules, give you a warning, tell you not to do that again, and close it out. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Just a notification that I've closed this with the comment "Irtapil is advised to self-revert when asked to unless they are confident that no violation occurred." I also would endorse the other comments made here about making sure to learn the rules so we don't have issues again. Galobtter (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Did the arbitration get set off after the "request to self revert"? I hadn't checked my notifications very diligently, so i wasn't very understand with of timeline. Irtapil (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
@Galobtter: Is there an efficient way to check for coincidental partial resemblance to prior versions? It seemed unfair for that to count as a "revert", how am I supposed to avoid that? Irtapil (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Unintentional violations are generally fine. That's the reason the admins at the request mostly agreed to not take any action - because it's not clear that the edit you made was revert. Galobtter (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
I have removed the Gaza text you inserted into Christmas tree. Firstly, it is not notable enough in itself for any mention within Christmas_tree#Public Christmas trees. Compare to Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree. Secondly, you had no cites to lay any evidence for the text. Someone else added a cite, to an article barely mentioning a tree and YMCA, but mentioning much from a decidedly non-neutral stance. Thirdly, the timing and content makes this insertion of yours seem motivated by the ongoing conflict, as if you want to bring that struggle into this article.
I don't have current knowledge of the applicable warning templates, so I can't point you to the various WP articles on correct editing. Spreading conflict (especially "bitter and long-standing real-world conflict") to advance a particular viewpoint within Wikipedia is a no-go.
If you feel removing the Middle East conflict from Christmas tree was wrong, you can ask for opinions from people more knowledgeable about WP policies. They might be able to explain better than I. Shenme (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
You're right that I made some mistake with the link. Sorry! I don't have time to sort it out now, but I'll be more careful next time! —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 09:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
moved - deletion discussion that might be of interest to you
moved to my own talk page.
Deletion discussion that might be of interest to you articles on this theme keep popping up, I think the best approach is to "keep but improve"? Trying to delete them for being a weak / flawed idea just means new bad articles keep appearing. A better approach would be trying to write a good article that puts the accusation in a proper perspective / context. Particularly given what that hyperbolic accusation is currently being used to justify. Irtapil (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
you shouldn't select people you think will agree with you and not select people who you think will oppose you. you should be transparent about your selection criteria to the extents its even necessary to individually invite users to participate. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
ok, that makes sense. I assumed it only applied to doing that en masse, but I understand now.
I thought I'd seen other talk page messages almost exactly that one, so I had assumed it was ok. If I see stuff like that again should I report it, or warn them not to, or what?
And what did you mean by "already been pinged"? Who did that and how does that work in an unbiased way?
By "I understand now" I mean I understand for things like RfC, but the rules for "canvasing" in arbitration seem extremely broad. I can see why you're not supposed to directly solicit people to support a specific case, but some extremely broad and indirect definitions of it seem to apply. It makes it extremely difficult to do anything about … even vaguely alluding to the problem is probably forbidden? This is impossible.
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. I don't think I've ever warned someone with an NPOV template before, but your edits here go too far; saying things like "the entire population of Gaza has been captured" is extremely partisan, and you need to tone it back particularly when you are putting things in Wikivoice.BilledMammal (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I just meant the number of people that the thing was done to. I wanted to show the scale of the event somewhere. The prisoners colum was the "best fit" (or least bad fit).
The blockade page was originally linked in the "massacres" table, which I didn't name "massacres", I kept trying to give it less emotive - less "partisan"? - names, but it kept changing back to massacres, so I eventually gave up.
In the "massacres" table the 2 million fit in the "population" column (separate to casualties or captured). But the blockade disappeared from that table, along with a lot of other events that also had their own wiki pages. And that table seems have been renamed now to match what is left.
The blockade is one of the most important events in the war and needs to be listed SOMEWHERE. So, I listed it in major engagements and tried to work with the colmms that were already there. The prisoners colum was the closest available option? That set of columns was where number of people went on that table."Civilian casualties" would have been MORE hyperbolic? And adding a whole new column for "blockaded" makes a big table even bigger for just one row (since you objected to listing stages).
But I didn't think "prisoners" or "captives" was very controversial because globally it is a very widely held view point that the population of Gaza has been imprisoned to some degree for about 17 years. Obviously their situation is very different to the hostages, or the people in Israeli prisons, but the whole population of the Gaza Strip are captives to an extent. If you think this is a fringe point of view, I strongly suggest you actively seek out some more diverse points of view.
I get the impression that your own pattern of editing on that page indicates quite extreme bias. (But I've not checked systematically.)
This war does make me very angry. But I do my best to listen to other points of view and I try and write wiki articles in a balanced and neutral way. Whereas, you don't seem to be trying very much at all to do either of those?
I really think you need to try listening to some other perspectives. Not necessarily mine, but globally. Try to seek out views you disagree with and actually listen to them. I think you are very unaware of your own biases. Everyone is biased, but you don't seem to realise that everyone includes you? Irtapil (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome to email me but talking to me is unlikely to result in much; if you want to appeal the better person to discuss this with is the blocking admin. BilledMammal (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Note that these aren't exhaustive; I haven't looked at every edit you've made to the article in the last few days. BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Added additional detail of what each edit reverted BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you please explain how this counts as multiple reverts and what you want done to fix it? I have only seen this now, so the undo will probably not work. Irtapil (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
1pn on the 14th to 10pn on the 15 is way more than 24 hours?
are you saying that's two pairs and you want one of each broken?
it seems unlikely i did as many as you are implying so close together, I'm paranoid about the silly revert rule.
I don't recall any of those changes matching a previous version? can you show me the version they match?
I thought that section was called "hostages AND prisoners"? before it was just hostages? so the before and after of my exit are you linked are equally close, by including one of them each?
But I'll undo that change anyway, since it at least solves that pair easily?
Directly undoing it restore two subheadings that are inappropriate, headings that I put there for a few hours while editing the page, I'm going to put a commented-out note of what those titles should be, this seems like the best balance of over complying and under complying.
again, please clarify which part of this you think is a revert, and show me the old version it matches.
I can't see anything on there where another human editor would be likely to be changing it in the opposite direction to what I changed?
I think you might be confused by my own self reverts in that? I've been trying to integrate a few forked drafts from my user space, and add new data from the event pages. So things have changed back and forward a bit, but I'm only edit waring with myself.
Unless you're mad keen on President Mahmud Abas and think Fatah need a Palestine flag? In which case, please raise it on the talk page. Last I heard they denied being still connected to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades? and I presume that's who's supposed to be l listed.
That was me having an accidental edit war with a copyright bot, it removed an image that wasn't allowed to be used in that context, and left the template empty, I got confused and readded the image, then it removed it again and I worked out what was going on. I can't revert that because the bot already ate it again, but I really don't think that am accidental fight with a baffling bot counts.
As I said elsewhere, please stop pinging me; I do watch these discussions.
As I said above, I can’t dig through diffs now, but I’ll respond to the queries when I get the chance, probably later today or tomorrow. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Stop being so fussy with talk pages, adjust your notifications settings or something. I pinged you twice when you're accusing me, seemingly rather spitefully, of breaking a rule that i obsessively try to avoid breaking. Irtapil (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm making a reasonable request; to not ping me to discussions that I am already participating in or that you have already pinged me to. Please just accept the reasonable request rather than making an issue out of it.
Regarding 13:12, 14 January 2024, it was the switch from Fatah to Al-Aqsa Martyrs.
Regarding 18:32, 14 January 2024, it was the splitting of the line for the blockade; line 146
Regarding 20:14, 15 January 2024, it was the column regarding "Palestinian Factions", that you appear to be in a protracted disagreement about.
Please note that a revert isn't just reinstating a previous version; it's any action that undoes, in whole or in part, a previous action by another editor. For example, if they say "Palestinian Factions" and you change it to something else, that's a revert - particularly if there is ongoing disagreement about what wording to use.
I note that you have since made another 1RR violation; 11:05, 16 January 2024. Making a 1RR violation while a request to self-revert a 1RR violation isn't a good look; I won't ask you to revert this one because it's a reasonable change, and I wouldn't even have brought it up outside this context, but I would suggest you be more careful in the future.
While I am commenting here I wanted to repeat my question from the article talk page that you haven't got around to answering yet; have you been copying content from the Arabic article? BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll try to avoid pinging you, it happens automatically on some versions of the site but I'll try to remember to delete the tag when that happens.
Honestly, I'm kinda OCD about the WP:1RR. I'm very careful to avoid breaking it. But I have been trying to keep the page updated to keep in line with changing info on the linked pages, this involves some unintentional back and forward. If you think some of the info is wrong and have sourced to support that, please discuss it on the talk page for the relevant event page.
Regarding Regarding 13:12, 14 January 2024, it was the switch from Fatah to Al-Aqsa Martyrs. Look carefully at the changes please. Al-Aqsa Martyrs appears automatically for Fatah in one of the templates.
I have commented on the talk page for that template that these two are not synonymous, and the connection is controversial. But I have been using the template (copied from the other pages) sometimes because it is the way to get the Al-Aqsa Martyrs militant group to appear with their insignia, the Fatah flag is different and doesn't show the golden dome of the Al Aqsa mosque complex.
If you really want it to say "Fatah" can you please provide a source to say that Fatah are currently at war with Israel? That is a rather controversial assertion. Fatah control the Palestinian Authority, which is opposed to most of these groups. The PA got kicked out of Gaza when the IDF did. (that's the short version, it's messy).
Regarding 20:14, 15 January 2024, it was the column regarding "Palestinian Factions", that you appear to be in a protracted disagreement about.
I'm fairly sure that wasn't s revert? I made sure i named it something different to what they previously objected to.
But I'll try to fix it today. Who was I "in a protracted disagreement about" it with? I'll ask them what their objection was rather than guessing a third time.
If your have substantive objections to any of these edits, can you please explain them so I can address them better rather than just undo for the sake of undo?
"Regarding 18:32" - It's merged now, what is the point of objecting now? To demonstrate a pattern of 1RR violations and with that evidence request that you are more careful going forwards.
in a protracted disagreement about was based on your edit summary; perhaps it was just a one off? Regardless, please keep in mind that even if you don't change it to a previous form you are still performing a revert because you are undoing their change to the current form.
Fatah was just an example of a revert that I found while looking at a small sample of your recent edits; please keep in mind that it doesn't matter whether your revert is right - with very few exceptions every revert will count towards 1RR. The reverts that I did disagree with were putting two rows for the blockade, and calling the hostages "prisoners"; I think I've gone into detail elsewhere about why I disagree with those.
This is a revert because you removed "hostages", undoing my edit. As I said, it isn't something that I would have raised except we were already discussing 1RR violations, and you made that revert while I was waiting for a response from you about those violations. I changed it from "captured" to better align with the sources; "captured" can be legal, "taken hostage" can not.
I have just noticed, Fatah was something I added myself from the main page.
Fatah Al‑Aqsa Martyrs [1]{{citation needed| reason = Can an Arabic speaker speak check the source? This was on the main page as "Fatah". It probably refers to [[Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades]]. They were originally the militant wing of Fata, but Fatah no longer publicly endorse them. so this should say "Al-Aqsa Martyrs" - the page about them already details the controversy about alleged continued links to Fatah. |date=January 2024}}
Removing "hostages" is not a revert, unless your can find me a version where there were previously numbers but no words there.
And you won't find that, because I copied those numbers from the event page myself, including the words you deleted.
"Captured" was from the page for the event is where i copied the number from, discuss it on that talk page of you find it inappropriate.
The table already has a column heading that you prefer, you don't need to duplicate it in the cells. You really, honestly, think we need to add things identical to the column heading in a table you are complaining is already to crowded?
Removing "hostages" is not a revert, unless your can find me a version where there were previously numbers but no words there. I don't think you fully understand what a revert is; it is undoing the actions of another editor. By removing hostages you undid my actions, even if the result wasn't something that perfectly aligned to a previous version. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Additional 1RR violation
Between 22:47, 18 January 2024 and 00:25, 19 January 2024 you made a number of reverts, most significantly 23:23, 18 January 2024, where you reverted the "outcome" and "Hamas and their allies" cells to very close to the versions you previously added:
Outcome:
Partially lifted {{efn|name=Holodomor| partially lifted on 20 October 2023, but still more severe than <!-- link page on prior blockade -->prior to October 2023. }} →
Ongoing; partially lifted on 2023-10-20, but still stricter than the [[Blockade of the Gaza Strip|blockade implemented after Hamas took over the strip in 2007]]. →
Ongoing {{efn| name = Winston | partially eased on 2023-10-20,{{cn}} but still more severe than the pre-existing [[Blockade of the Gaza Strip|blackade]]. }}
Hamas and their allies
{{flagicon|Gaza}} Entire population of the Gaza Strip →
{{flagicon|Gaza}} [[Gaza]] →
{{flagicon|Gaza}} Entire [[Gaza Strip]] <br>{{citation needed| reason = how many people is that? }}
Now, you've made a number of reverts re-adding content I've removed - primarily empty columns - such as 10:42, 19 January 2024. Please self-revert these reverts, to bring yourself back into compliance with 1RR.
Then, give me an answer, what remedy were you seeking? How did you want me to resolve your complaint? What was your goal in posting that on my talk page? Irtapil (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
12:42, 19 January 2024 is an additional revert, specifically of 03:44, 19 January 2024. Making further reverts (and thus further 1RR violations), while a request to self-revert a 1RR violation is outstanding, is very inappropriate. Please stop doing so, and make whatever self-reverts are necessary to bring yourself back into compliance with 1RR. BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Stop trying to intimidate people with pseudo-Legalese.
I already reduced that to one column, I restored the data your deleted and integrated it into the one column. I was already doing my best to restore a lot of the changes you made, to try to create a compromise version. Despite you suddenly removing a lot of things without consulting anyone else. Anyone else world simply rollback! You are responding to my attempt to compromise and cooperate, by pointing out edits you supposedly object to, spuriously calling them "reverts" based on one or two similar words, and then telling me you don't actually want me to self revert them? So why object if you don't want them undone? What are you trying to achieve by this? Irtapil (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
if you weren't asking me to undo the supposed extra revert of removing "hostages" where it appeared redundantly, what DID you want? if even you agree the redundant word didn't belong there, how does it count as a "revert"? Irtapil (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
"while a request to self-revert a 1RR violation is outstanding"? i "self reverted" everything to the best of my ability as soon as you explained what you wanted! and when i did comply, you then told me you didn't actually want me to self revert it? what do you want?
If you don't want me to in do any of these changes, why are you listing them at me?
I made ONE real revert, restoring the huge amount of content you deleted without consulting any other editors. I did it in stages trying to preserve anything useful you might have added, most people would have just done a rollback.
Do not redo your deleting spree without consulting multiple other editors about each bit you want to remove.
1. please explain what you want done, those are three different versions. I'll take it out if the footnote so it takes up half the page again if you insist? but, WHY do you want that?
2. I'll remove the cite note if that is your problem, but Gaza usually refers to Gaza City, the blockade definitely was applied to the entire Gaza Strip, I'm not restoring the inaccurate geography without a good explanation?
In general, what I am asking you is to be much more careful with your edits. A revert is a revert, regardless of whether it is right or wrong - I brought up the in-cell "hostage" one only because, while waiting for you to respond to my 08:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) request to-self revert, you made that revert. What you should have done is responded to the request before making any additional edits, and have been extra-cautious for the next 24 hours to ensure you don't further violate 1RR.
It may be helpful to read WP:3RR if you have not already.
I made ONE real revert, restoring the huge amount of content you deleted without consulting any other editors. I did it in stages trying to preserve anything useful you might have added, most people would have just done a rollback.
No; you made two, and that was the second. Please self-revert that second revert.
I am careful, your claims of alleged reverts are extremely spurious. As somebody already agreed in the discussion where several other people have concerns about you. I have self reverted then ask anyway.
I UNDID THE FIRST ONE TWO DAYS AGO! I did that one first.
1. DONE because it was the simplest way resolve the first half of your complaint
at 21:09 on 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Not only was it done more than 24 hours before the actual revert (the one real revert where i undid your deletion spree), it was UNDONE two days before i did the actual revert (undoing your deletion spree)!
So even if i re did it in the process last night, while up all night honestly trying to integrate some sort of compromise version, there is a two day gap!
A month ago I asked this at WP:AE. I'll ask the same here. If you've been asked to self-revert with an explanation, do it, and if you discover after the fact there was no violation then we can handle the false report.
BilledMammal, I appreciate that you're trying to avoid going to AE, but two days of hostile discussion isn't going to help, and it's just going to make sure you two will never agree on anything in the future. If they're not receptive and you're certain there was a violation, go to AE.
Irtapil, if you get the impression that your own pattern of editing on that page indicates quite extreme bias then take your evidence to AE and cut the hostility. Content, not contributor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't see that at the time, but I'll definitely commit to the gentleman's agreement now.
In regards to Irtapil, I get the feeling that they don't fully understand what a revert is, and while I've been trying to explain it to them I'm not sure I'm doing a good job at doing so - in such cases I try very hard to avoid going to AE unless it becomes truly necessary, because I feel that if I can just manage to explain it to them the entire situation will be neatly resolved with minimal drama and no sanctions.
With that said, I was starting to feel that this was a case where I needed to go to AE; my plan was to take them there if they didn't self-revert the next time they edit (with a little extra time because I understand if they want to do other things first); I will stick to that plan. BilledMammal (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I have self reverted almost everything as soon as I understood what they would consider a self revert.
I left one real exception, which being only one seems to not break 1RR (especially given I left only one in a window of much more than 24 hours).
The other one seems to have been a self revert in the first place, as far as I can tell. And if it wasn't, I want to talk to the editor who I reverted so I can understand what they were trying to do, it involved a template that has some unpredictable behaviour.
Edit history of my talk page this week. Red = discussion with Billed Mammal about alleged 1RR violations. Other colours = each colour is a different user.
I think I am repeating myself, but responding here because you linked this in the arbitration?
I'm having following what you are referring to when you cross link things between multiple pages. e.g. "A month ago I asked this at WP:AE" the edit didn't seem to be in the page, it might be archived or hidden by a hat note?
"If you've been asked to self-revert with an explanation, do it, and if you discover after the fact there was no violation then we can handle the false report." I self reverted everything as soon as I got an explanation.
The Fatah related revert was awaiting an explanation, I asked whose edit I reverted and I had not yet seen an answer. But it is possible that I didn't see the answer amongst the very many messages I received here.
I took a while to respond to the message on "01:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)" I was trying to focus on some of what other people had said to me. When I was about to respond i saw the Arbitration notice.
But when @BilledMammal sent that last list, they were very well aware that those edits on 19th were part of one multi-step revert that came after @BilledMammal making their own ~60 step edit to the page, several of which were deletions, which thus count as reverts.
A rule of "self revert when asked and dispute later" would be far too easily abused, where there was any ambiguity i did self revert, but one revert in the span of ten days is not ambiguous.
Please clarify which you think remain outstanding? I see only one remaining real revert in the span of several days, so not a violation of 1RR. If there is a second one (or others), then I've missed it entirely accidentally, so please explain as clearly as possible what you would like me to do to fix it?
The one remaining real revert is the one where I said I partially self reverted my original revert. I made some attempt to address your concerns even though leaving it entirely my way wouldn't have been a 1RR violation.
The only one I haven't self reverted at all was the Fatah one, which was a self revert in the first place. If I'm wrong about that being a self revert already, you really need to show me whose edit I reverted so I can talk to them about it. The {{armed forces}} template involved has some unpredictable behaviour so I need to talk to them about what they were trying to achieve.
Thank you for trying; I understand the rules can be frustrating and confusing, but they're much of the reason that this topic area is slightly-functional (as opposed to non-functional). (And sorry SFR, I know I said otherwise, but I'm not quite willing to give up on a non-AE resolution just yet...) BilledMammal (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this till today, I got several messages at once.
Responding now after having a close look at the edit history of the page.
Those are all part of ONE multi step revert, the one I was keeping in the span of several days.
If multi step reverts do not count as one revert then you have much more to answer for in the preceding 60+ edits you made in quick succession that day. Almost all of which removed content.
And if
If it counts as a revert to do this
Number + captives
Number + captives ➡️
Number + hostages ➡️
Number + no word
… then the 20% of the page you removed in dozens of edits that day definitely counts as more than one revert, I very much regret trying to work with your suggestions and cooperate, I really should have just done a hard rollback, one simple edit, like any other editor would have done.
I was looking for a good ref (in English, text not audio, an uncontroversial website, not paywalled, etc.) There wasn't a ref there already, so i figured it wasn't urgent. It's "one side says" but i was looking for "the BBC says that one side says" and probably the vastly different other side of the story as "and Reuters says that the other side says". But i probably should have left it off till after i found a good ref, and just put a "citation needed" on the implied same day ending.
The invasion seems to have shortened retrospectively? which seems very weird? I'm sure a few weeks ago most battles had ends listed around 8 / 9 / 10 October? But they've shrunk now to all 7 / 8 October?
As it turns out, I'm responsible for most of the changes of the battle dates.
I'm aware of four fronts of the invasion that are currently called battles.
Re'im, as far as I am aware, has been considered a one-day battle since the fog of war settled.
Sderot had an end date of 9 October. I added a "citation needed" tag to that date in December and ultimately changed it to 8 October this month based on the prepoderance of the evidence in the body of the article. There was nothing I could find suggesting it continued into the 9th.
Sufa retained an incorrect end date of 10 October from when it was created. The date is the subject of the first discussion on the article's talk page, where consensus was established to remove it. In December, an editor changed the end date to 27 October based on a self-published (social media) source, which I removed per WP:SELFPUBLISH.
Zikim is a very long and convoluted story, but eventually there was consensus to describe it as an "initial battle" on the 7th and "intermittent clashes" thereafter. Amid a major expansion of the article, I changed it to solely 7 October after it became evident the "intermittent clashes" were not considered by RS to be part of the same battle.
As for the main article, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, an editor recently expressed doubt that the listed end date of 9 October was verifiable. After a review of the sources, I agreed with his reasoning and adjusted the infobox to the 8th.
If there are other dates that concern you, let me know and I will be sure to take a look at them.
I like your suggestion of linking that West Bank article City by City. I'm currently a bit scared to edit the page. But when i get time I'll include that in what I sketch out in the talk page.
I think the "initial attacks" were a thing that happened on 7 October (extending to the 8th at most), I actually even opened a move request yesterday to call it that on the basis of "that is what the thing is called".
Some of those became longer battles, some were quickly repelled.
The longer battles were a thing that followed the initial attack?
It does sound like "intermittent clashes" explain disputed dates. The radio interview with Osama Hamdan from Hamas in Lebanon mentioned something like "sent reinforcements" or a second wave. It was on an African radio station with an impossible to navigate website. We can probably find him saying similar things to a much mod popular source, like the BBC or Al Jazeera. His wiki page is out of date so I'm not sure of his current role, he is one of their most prominent spokespersons and possibly the most articulate in English. I'm not sure if I've seen or heard interviews from any others in English? Looking for him will give more detail and context than the usual "Hamas says" stories.
Also look at Times of Israel and Haaretz - if you find anything pay-walled I can send a gift link. The Israeli sources currently in the Battle of Sufa article are possibly not the best.
I'll try to follow up more of this later … if i don't end up exiled by a platypus.
Left it off for now, pending some refs that say it's relevant rather than just that it happened. There will probably be some, but I'll leave it off till after I find them.
I added it mostly to test the sorting still worked after I merged those columns. It was the first West Bank event I thought of.
Afaict, your edit of 09:42, 13 January 2024 at the Hamas apartheid Rfc screwed up the appearance of bullet items in the Survey section of the § Mention of apartheid RfC. It's late here, so I can't go into detail, but see WP:THREAD and Help:List#List basics for proper threading and indentation after a bullet item. When you replied to Homerethegreat's 16:02, 17 December comment, which started with a single asterisk in the left column, you must reply with *: in the left column, not ::. I believe this is responsible for all of the messed-up bullets from that point on, although I haven't had time to test it to prove it, so if I'm mistaken, I apologize. I hope this is enough info for you to figure it out; if not, ping me tomorrow and I'll try to help. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I fixed it up in this edit, Please read those two links to be sure you understand how to reply to a bulleted item, or how to reply to a reply to a bulleted item (quick tip: column one gets an asterisk, then the right number of colons; adding blank lines between comments may screw it up). Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I'm busy on another page now, but that sounds fine. I know how they're supposed to work but i use a couple of different devices and one of them has been playing up lately producing some strange glitches and mangled replies. Irtapil (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
actually, i can't quite see what i did wrong there, that's not the usual glitches i was thinking of, can your clarify a bit? Irtapil (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
It seems your fix involved adding bullets? It looked like only the top level comments in the thread had bullets? i was just copying the trend. Mobile versions only allow placing bullets after colons, so it would be tricky to replicate exactly what you did sometimes. Irtapil (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
To be clear: a standard bullet is the filled-in circle like you see in unicode character U+2022, here: • My edit didn't add any bullet characters, it removed them. An asterisk character (* probably on your keyboard as shift + 8) is what Wikipedia uses to generate a bullet character, but it only works if it is the first thing on the line; I did add one asterisk in column one of several different lines of your edit, replacing one colon on each line, and that fixed the problem. So, adding the asterisks, made the extra bullets disappear. Does that make sense?
Tbh, I don't do much mobile editing, and that uses a different interface, so Im not sure I can help you with that part. It would be good to reiterate your question at the Wikipedia:Help desk, where you will find experienced editors who do have a background in mobile editing. If you do that, please provide a link back to this conversation, as that will help them help you. Starting off with template {{Courtesy link}} would be a good way to go. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I meant you were typing * in the code to make it show a bullet?
I've not touched a keyboard in years, my main computer is an MS Surface, not being able to easily switch to Hebrew or Arabic keyboard would be annoying, it's very easy on a touch screen keyboard.
Hi again, Irtapil. In your hatnote at the top, you asked what you could do to give back to foreign Wikipedia communities. One thing you can do, is browse the list of their featured articles, that is, the very best articles they have, that are awarded a Featured Article badge (which will, of course, have a different name in their language, like Articles de qualité in French Wikipedia), and find one or two that interest you, that do not have a corresponding article at English Wikipedia. How can you do this? Fortunately, there's a tool for that: it's called, Not in the other language. As an example, I ran this tool for French, and here are the first 100 articles in French Wikipedia that are Articles de qualité that do not exist on en-wiki. I found fr:Emploi des personnes autistes in the list, which might be Employment of people with autism in English Wikipedia. (Note: the last three words of that proposed title are one of dozens of possible different versions, depending on whether one chooses person-first, identity-first, and other varieties. This is a complex topic that doesn't need to be decided here; just wanted to flag it in case you decide to create this article, that there may be a titling issue that needs to be addressed.) If that topic interests you, you could translate that one. If not, there are plenty of others.
Also, if you have a particular topic are you are interested in, you can specify a category to the tool; for example, if you are interested in the Mexican Revolution, you could ask the tool to list articles present in Spanish Wikipedia about the Mexican Revolution that are absent from English Wikipedia; there are 96 such articles. You could pick any one that interests you, and translate into English (or ask someone to translate it). The Querétaro conspiracy [es] would make a great new article here, and looks interesting and important. Hope this helps, and let me know if you need help using the tool for some other language. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know any other languages well enough to translate. I can read a lot is scripts well enough to spot if "native names" are plausible or missing bits (e.g. a couple of years ago the president of Afghanistan had an interesting string of obscenities in that field that had been there for the better part of a year), but that is about the level of my usefulness in language skills.
I can possibly find and match articles that already exist? if there are any tools to help with that? But not translate things that don't exist.
How do i invite translators? '(or ask someone to translate it)" is a thing i often want a tool for when my curious adventures into the other wikis find things that are not here.
Would you like to take a shot at Simple English Wikipedia?
Hey Irtapil! We have crossed paths a few times in the past and I actually noticed your hatnote this morning and I wanted to see if you would be interested in helping out on Simple English Wikipedia. Simple English is a version of the English Wikipedia, but it is made in Basic English, so everyone can understand it. The targeted audience is people who are just learning English (English is not first language), children, and adults with learning disabilities.
Coincidental, I found Simple English Wikipedia fairly recently and you may be really interested in helping out. I’ve been writing basically all the articles related to the Red Sea Crisis as well as a couple of related with the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, including starting the article entirely for the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower as well as the article for the Battle of Re'im. I know you have an interest in the realm of the ongoing Middle East conflict, so I wanted to see if you would like to help out. On Simple English Wikipedia, I started a list of military operations during 2024, which has a couple of articles in need of improvements.
It is entirely up to you, but since you are interested in the ongoing conflicts as well as helping out on other branches of Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia may be for you! Anyway, that concludes my message and keep up the good work! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter thanks for the suggestion, I'm not sure, maybe.
"simple" is not a language i am fluent in … I'm really more prone to over complicated? Tables I can do though, is simple English compatible with over complicated tables?
I found simple English wiki a while ago, I had kind of mixed feelings. I liked the idea of being accessible to second language speakers, but the back story to the particular dialect sounded a bit "New Speak"?
As far as I am aware, it is compatible with English Wiki tables. Tables work the same there as they do here (same source-code editing wise). The only thing I notice is honestly the lack of connecting articles. For example, on the Israel-Hamas war article, Simple English duplicated the infobox as well as the campaignbox for the war. But, 95% of the campaignbox separate articles that exist on English Wiki just haven't been created yet. Like the List of military engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article on English Wiki actually hasn't been made on Simple English Wiki. Things like that. I noticed that a whole lot, since I've been basically creating the articles as I go for the Red Sea Crisis (including ships, battles, and even some military branches).
Also, I know what you mean on the "New Speak" style. That said, it is like the 15th largest Wiki produced by Wikimedia, so it must have some decent value. The mainpage on Simple English got viewed over 500,000 times in the last 30 days per the Wiki view checker. Honestly, I'm enjoying the editing since maybe 50% of the articles I want to link to don't exist yet, so I get to create them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)22:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
No blank space between text and efn or ref tags
Please do not insert blank space between article content and explanatory notes or ref tags, as you did in this edit at 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Examples:
Oh, I see someone already mentioned this above, and I probably should have replied there, but it was up the page and I didn't notice it before. They linked WP:CITEFOOT for you, which contains the guideance about this. Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Maybe I need to have a closer look in that style guide. I looked at it briefly when they linked it, and to me it really looks like it's referring to paragraphs? I see why it is best to leave no gap in paragraphs
we definitely don't want stranded citations or footnotes linwrapping around under a paragraph.
and having a short penultimate line looks fine when the last line is a single word.
But in tables and info boxes it causes a lot of trouble, or at least looks very messy sometimes.
in the example that I think you are referring to, the table has several columns that are just numbers and references (or it should be that way, see the section #BilledMammal above re redundant words matching column headings)
If there is a space then the references wrap neatly below, and are stillclearly in the same cell. The columns all end up much narrower and the whole table fits more neatly on narrow screens, particularly for cells with long numbers of a few references.
I hoped the "+" was an exception? Or numbers were? But it seems you are saying they are not?
Is there a style guide compliant way to get the game look? to solve that issue? (it's a problem on many pages I work on)
Don't overthink it. Some guidelines or info pages have complicated explanations or exceptions, but this is not one of them. It's very simple, has no exceptions that I know of, and it's this: keep the <ref> tag (or {{efn}}) tag) butted right up against the content it follows, no intervening spaces, full stop. Forget all about paragraphs, table cells, and everything else. If you see a blank space in any article anywhere between content words and the ref or efn tag immediately after it, feel free to remove the blank space, if you want to. But don't insert a blank there, it's never appropriate. If you have refs in a table cell by itself, then you don't have content before the ref tag, so obviously this doesn't apply, because there's no "between", there's just the reference. Don't know about any plus sign, so cannot respond to that part. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Reading above it seems that you're a bit unsure about what counts as a revert. Please take a moment to review WP:REVERT and WP:1RR, specifically Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by method? But I have self reverted all of the accused 1RR violations so far, as soon as I understood which part of the edit in question was supposedly a revert and what it was the complaint thought constituted self reverting the alleged revert. See edit history of the page in question, the edit notes all tag the person who pointed out the alleged revert.
Most edits they pointed out (that I DID self revert already) had only one word in common (in an edit that changed several connected things), or had only a vaguely similar meaning.
Never resembling any previous version of a page on any way would make editing completely impossible. And I am beginning to getting the impression that making editing impossible is the goal of the complainant above?
The only cases I refused to self revert were
one genuine revert out of the >3 day period in question, one per >3 days obviously doesn't violate 1RR (it is also the only one I believe fits a reasonable and workable definition of what a revert actually is, i.e. a definition that doesn't make it nearly impossible to do any editing at all)
one aspect of one edit that would have reintroduced a link to a disambiguation page, but you have successfully triggered my OCD about 1RR so I'm going to go add that disambiguation link back too, I already readded all other aspects of that revert, see edit history for the page
one (which I think was on different day to the only genuine revert) which, as far as I can tell, was a self revert in the first place, it was me correcting an error that I had made myself. The edit they linked was me self reverting the page to the version before I introduced the error, reintroducing my own error would not improve the page? And the accused revert was self reverting that error to before I made the error doesn't count because self reverts don't count. But if you can find a different editor who added Fatah to the October 7 attackers? I'll self revet that too, tagging them and ask them for a reliable source.
The thing I am asking them above is why they are going on a hunt for things that technically count as reverts, and bringing them to me as actuations, despite sometimes seemingly having no genuine objection to the impact of the edit, even saying that they didn't tell me to self revert one of them, if they don't actually have spme substantive objection to the edit, why complain? What remedy are they seeking for an edit they don't seem to genuinely object to?
One example
I copied data from another page that said "20 captured" (and similar data for a few other events)
they changed "captured" to "hostages"
This was a long word that exactly matched the column heading in a table that has only numbers in that section, other than my recently copied data
I removed the word "hostages" so those cells also had just numbers like the outriggers in that section
The complainant insisted this counted as a "revert" but when i self reverted it, reading the word hostages everywhere I had removed it, aAthey responded by saying they hadn't told me that they hadn't actually told me to re-add the word hostages. So what did they want? What was their purpose in complaining that my good faith edit that improved the page was a revert?
If you can find a different editor who added Fatah to the October 7 attackers I'll self revet that too, tagging them and ask them for a reliable source.
Al Aqsa Martyrs were probably imvolved but Fatah is more controversial, I get the impression they're doing a bit of Putin / Wagner thing denying any association
it's not implausible Fatah are directly connected, Hmas have requested a Fatah leader in the hostage exchanges.
this request from Hmas world be inckuded on the page if the above complaint wasn't (as far as I can tell) systematically removing any and all reference to Palestinian prisoners in Israel from that page, along with a huge amount of other things.
There's a whole lot there, so for now I'm just going to address a couple points. First, method means that any way you edit a page, whether it be using the undo link, rollback, twinkle, redwarn, ultraviolet, a manual edit, or any other way.
Second, Never resembling any previous version of a page on any way would make editing completely impossible. And I am beginning to getting the impression that making editing impossible is the goal of the complainant above? The point is for the articles to be the result of consensus. Because of the long history of edit warring in the topic Arbcom has levied 1RR on the entire topic to force people to discuss, rather than revert. Generally, once something has become the stable (which varies in time, I've seen people say two weeks to six months in different discussions) it's not seen as a revert to change it. In many of the new articles about the current conflict there is no stable version.
And finally, again, stop commenting on what you think about other editors' motives. If you believe there has been disruptive editing take it to WP:AE or WP:ANI and present diffs of the disruption with a concise explanation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I see what you mean by commenting on motives, and how that might come across, but I didn't want to take it straight to a separate arbitration without giving them a chance to explain.
I say "separate" because the the editor was already being discussed in Arbitration raised by another user. It was a general discussion about a potential patern of behaviour. I raised a few of my concerns there.
One of the motives I was wondering about was the possibility that trying to catch me on a technicality was retaliation for concerns I had raised there.
I have been worried by that editor foot a couple of months but not been sure what to do about it.
I have been worried by that editor foot a couple of months but not been sure what to do about it. I am very worried by how much that user is deleting from pages related to the war. I didn't want to accuse to openly, or generally jump to conclusions, without looking at it in detail and I hadn't had the time to do that yet.
The one edit I was refusing to undo Was a multi step revert I did which restored content they had removed.
They reduced the overall size of the page by about 20% in a series of over 60 separate edits (counted just then) over the course of (from memory) about ten hours.
Nobody else has agreed to this being necessary. They raised some of it with me and I disagreed, nobody else responded. They did nothing to solicit other responses like tagging other recent editors or lodging a fornal RfC. They just unilaterally deleted a vast amount of the page, including every section of the page.
I restored what they removed. They have raised WP:ONUS but it was way to much to feasibly discuss in a timely manner. If such large unilaterally made changes were left too long - and during that time subsequent edits were made by other users - I worried that it would quickly become unfeasible to reintegrate forked versions.
I restored what they removed. They have raised WP:ONUS but it was way to much to feasibly discuss in a timely manner. If such large unilaterally made changes were left too long - and during that time subsequent edits were made by other users - I worried that it would quickly become unfeasible to reintegrate forked versions. restoring anything
I did it one section at a time to have a closer look at it as I went, and to reduce the risk of both technical errors and my own human error.
A lot of it was structural rather than content (e.g. columns of tables that were recently constructed and not yet filled), but I've still not had a chance to closely examine whether they did remove any meaningful content.
I did however notice this morning that the pages shows no airstrikes in Gaza after 15 December, which is obviously not very realistic? But I have not had a chance yet to see if anything was added there that then got deleted. Irtapil (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm had a weird glitch and it sent a bit early and I'm not sure if it sent at all. If it did send it was mostly finished. Irtapil (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to be so verbose, I got a bit side tracked on a tangent about a thing I find interesting. But not much of really needed a response? I don't have time right now, I will read later. Irtapil (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, I have been wondering how to do that (I think I might have even asked somewhere and neglected to check for replies). I was about to ask you how to do it, but I should probably just read the links?
But can your suggest any strategies for if I'm planning to be frequently copying between the user-space page and the real article? strategies to prevent errors in coping the draft category to the main page or vice versa?
Out of those two {{ draft categories }} seems better for that, but it looks like it still needs to be buried in the footer? which is a bit easy to miss.
Is there anything I can put at the very top of the page where I'm less likely to forget to reapply it to the draft or accidentally copy it to the real page? If it is at the very top I can put the whole draft under a top level heading to avoid accidentally copying that bit back and forward.
Sorry, I've reread your comment several times and still can't figure out what you're asking. Could you clarify what you're trying to achieve? {{Draft categories}} can be placed at the top of the article, if that's what you mean. Alternatively, you could use an {{mbox}} or wrap wikitext in WP:PRE tags? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I noticed a bot already beat me to it on the few I've managed to look at so far? How thorough is the bot? Can I rely on it for anything over a few weeks old?
Hello @Irtapil. Please refrain from introducing content to articles with [citation needed] tags in place of actual references, as you did here and here.
In these cases, you included comments on where you thought the appropriate references would be found, but if you don't want to locate the citations yourself, it's not reasonable to put the WP:BURDEN on other editors.
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
From my experiences with you I know you're editing in good faith, but without context, others may consider this to be a form of disruptive editing. Per WP:EXCUSE,
These templates do not give a user free rein to make whatever claims they want without citing a source. By continuing to add uncited claims to articles with a "Citation needed" template, you are actually showing that you are well aware that your claims require verification, but simply don't care.
@SaintPaulOfTarsus most of those things are cases where I know citations exist, the cite needed often explains where to find them, or even has a link l that just needs formatting. It's usually sitting open on another device. Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll have a closer look at the two you link after I save this. Part of why I do it this way is the device I use doesn't cope well with switching windows.
Link any others you spot so I can fix them myself.
I usually intend to compete it myself, but I very frequently get interrupted, so incase I do I leave a note. Like "this is from Haarets list of the victims" (a widely cited source that's very easy to find). There is usually enough info to find the source, or even a full URL.
Like on Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades I added a missing bit of info that pointed to another wiki page, with a CN dating there'd be a suitable citation in the linked page, and someone has competed it a few hours later
A lot of them are like that, transferring info from another page, where it might be on a lead or infobox without a directly linked citation. Or the citation directly attached will be a <ref name = "useless generic name"/> copying that will leave a big red error message. So I save what I'm doing while I dig for the full one, but leave a note for someone to pick up where I left off if I get interrupted before I finish.
Often there's even a full URL in the cite note. The automated citation tools aren't available on some platforms, and don't it manually leads to errors. Some people have been putting bare URLs in ref tags, and that's a problem because they don't even show up properly. Whereas CN flags it clearly for someone to follow up ASAP.
It seems from "By continuing to add uncited claims to articles with a "Citation needed" template, you are actually showing that you are well aware that your claims require verification, but simply don't care." that a CN with a URL in it is completely fine? and a CN with enough info that the ref i had in mind is the top Google hit (e.g. "Haaretz list of the dead") is not too bad?
But do you mean "burden of proof" or "burden of effort"? WP:BURDEN describes "burden of proof", but the examples you link in those edits look more like a "burden of effort" problem?
"If I am just linking another page that contains enough citations to support the claim, would I be better to just link it and leave off the CN? e.g. just add "The battle included one all female tank battalion." and skip {{citation needed| reason = there are several in the linked article, also discussed in the talk page.}} It that a better save point?
Would a commented out note be better than CN? or is the only polite option to just cut and paste any "this needs following up" type comments to the talk page?
Another thing I've been doing - if I get interrupted or need to switch devices - is save whatever I've got, then immediately undo it, then undo-the-undo and finish what I was doing when I get the opportunity to do or properly. This seems like it solves most of the problems, but I worry it creates some very messy edit histories that might be annoying people?
I have been trying to draft in user-space pages as much as possible, but copying back and forward causes other problems, e.g. #Content categories on user pages (see above).
One of my devices had the same error, but works now.
But it was still working on one of my devices before I did the fix, so I'm not sure if that will have fixed it for everyone.
I think the problem was I tried to show a table in the reply box, but that led to some weird code, because it added ":::" which isn't viable when editing a reply.
The AE thread has a place for you to respond, which you've already done (but by asking this same question). You should respond there with more explanations of what you thought you were doing and why what you did should be allowed - or say that you now see why it caused a problem or violation. You can ping other respondents when replying to their postings, but you do it in your own response area, not theirs. Note the limits (described at the top of the AE page) regarding length and number of diffs. You may ask for permission to exceed those limits.
Contacting others is possibly problematic, since it may fall into the category of canvasing. Directly asking others for support for your position would definitely fall into that category. Asking for help understanding the rules, policies, or how you can resolve the complaint is probably not, but you need to be very selective in who you ask, since the person might then be considered involved.
As to the marking as -helped, I can only guess that Bbb23 intended to respond, but got pulled away before they could. Or that they saw the response by ScottishFinnishRadish on the AE page and considered it good enough. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)09:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the canvassing and involved bits. Those were both things I definitely risked screwing up. I thought canvassing only applied to RfC.
I may have already tripped over the involved, somebody is being accused of something similar in the section next to mine, but I've not asked them to support mine, I just commented on theirs, and mentioned theirs use as "the person being accused of the same thing in the below".
I'll double check what SFR said, i think they only answered one of the three.
But then I can't fix any of the stuff that people are pointing out there, the actual non-imaginary things I did poorly, mostly raised by @SaintPaulOfTarsus - I wish Saint had raised more of those things here first.
I've had zero chance to fix some of those raised first in Arbitration, and inadequate chance to fix the stuff they did raise in advance, because all my attention has been taken up by numerous trivialities that might technically count as reverts if viewed very imaginatively.
But I'm also very worried about the impact BilledMammal could be having on wiki's overall coverage of this war, by deleting large amounts of material (on at least one page, possibly others) and by intimidating anyone who disagrees with them until they "take a break from this topic area for a while" or get banned on a technicality.
The deletion has stopped for a while on the page I am watching closely, after I raised my concerns more openly than I had previously, but I've really not had time to look closely at other pages yet.
It probably isn't productive responding here, but I just want to reiterate that the "large amounts of material" I deleted was primarily empty columns.
You probably also don't want my advice, but I strongly recommend you cut down as much as you can of your response at the AE board. Admin's are probably going to see the ~2300 words you have written, including several hundred after Seraphimblade asked you to trim your comment, and consider your failure to follow the restrictions of that board as evidence of competence issues.
Is there an efficient way to do a word count on this?
I thought i over but counting is kinda tricky as is copying into a word processor.
Does it include responses?
For how to assess the length of your comment, the normal method is to copy it into a word processor. However, if for various reasons that isn't an option, you can use an online tool like this one, or you can use Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck.
For the latter, just copy your content into a new page after installing the tool and use the tool there. Note that it doesn't count indented content - content that is lead with :, #, or * - so its count may be a little low. You can tell what it has counted because it highlights that content in yellow.
I saw User:Irtapil/Arby Sup Info after you accidentally pinged me to it, and I just wanted to clarify something for you:
You say Do I understand correctly that this isn't in the 500?
The content in that section would count towards the 500. If you don't want any further guidance from me, please say so or just revert my comments here. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The content in that section would count towards the 500.
"I just want to reiterate that the "large amounts of material" I deleted was primarily empty columns." We have addressed that in detail already in numerous places.
I was NOT willing to take your word for it and leave your massive changes to the article in place, because of the very large amount of other material that had disappeared from the article over the past few months, with what I saw as inadequate discussion. Most of this was NOT "empty columns".
I actually redid your deletions of most of the things that actually were just empty columns, I left a few that I could see we would be able to fill from linked articles, but I haven't had the time to fill them yet, because you have kept me very busy lately.
In another case I swapped the column you deleted for a different nearly-empty column, I kept the column that I think we will more likely to get refillable data for. I deleted the count of military dead in airstrikes (we'll never find good data for that) and replaced it with "notable casualties" because there's several strikes where a specific leader was confirmed dead.
Thanks. I'll just go with the word processor option.
If I copy the preview I don't have to worry about it counting the code etc. copy pasting from that is a bit fussy on a tablet, but it is probably the least fuss option.
When I get to somewhere in the vicinity of the limit … you have given me rather a long list.
I think I've deduced what you were getting at. Me jumping in on conversations you had with other people?
I'll stop doing that so much. But I am worried about how you seem to be intimidating or harassing
other users.
The page we were working on ended up just you and me. Everyone else seemed to have given up. I thought it might just be that stuff was getting deleted so much that contributing felt futile.
Then I saw a possible pattern of people avoiding the working on pages about Palestine after interactions with you, and that worried me more. Even those you didn't manage to get banned got scared off or exhausted and just gave up.
You seem to be possibly doing this so much that you're having a not insignificant effect on skewing the bias in English wiki.
That surprised me, that wasn't at all what I was expecting. I had forgotten even doing that.
I looked to see if you were working on other wikis because you said you thought Arabic Wiki was biased.
I had assumed this was an uninformed opinion, but then I realised maybe the assumptions I make about you sometimes are not fair? For all I know maybe you're a fluent in Arabic and Farsi, even if that seems unlikely based on the sources you cite.
So I was mainly looking to see whether you work on any wikis in any other languages, particularly Arabic, I just noticed the commons stuff when I was doing that and was curious.
I was interested in that news story at the time, but I "historically" avoided controversial topics on wiki, and the stress didn't seem worth it for that, because I didn't feel I had anything of value to add to it on wiki at the time.
Sorry if it seemed creepy? I do try to avoid prying even when things are public, that's why I was reluctant to check very thoroughly if you've been warned about contentious topics before and just gave a "first warning, sorry if I got it wrong" message. But your contributions on another part of Wikipedia seemed very "public" so not weird to comment on. Sorry I got it wrong.
This does, however, seem quite hypocritical. Given how deeply you are digging into my edit history. e.g. The page you found from the 5 January that you didn't even seem to know had no consensus on not being deleted?
I suck at this. But the "canvassing" rule makes it impossible to discuss properly, I feel very much at a disadvantage there. I got a friend who knows nothing about Wikipedia to just read through everything for me, and she actually has some good insights, I wish I'd done that a week ago.
@Selfstudier Even if / when the total block ban is lifted I think I'm gonna stay away from all of English wiki for a while. They don't even speak English here, they speak in Wikipedia policy codes? Irtapil (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You get used to it eventually. Doing some wikiwork on something that interests you without all the contentious topic issues is the way to go.Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that what I used to be working on is obscure details about Arabic and related writing systems. I'm far from fluent, but weird details of the script interest me.
But - despite the fact that most of English Wikipedia wouldn't care enough to fight about that - it is probably in the scope of "definited broadly"?
I spotted that Asraf Ghani's "native name" had been a string of what seemed to be obscenities, and nobody had fixed it for months. I wonder if any lazy journalists used it for anything? I didn't know what it said, but I knew it definitely didn't say his name. Trying to work out what it meant was only partly successful and what I deduced was closest is definitely not repeatable.
Am I allowed to talk to other editors about it? e.g. link it on their talk page? Are there any rules on that kind of thing? 22:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The character limit doesn't seem enough to respond to B's very long list?
Should Scottish finish Radish really have been the one playing arbitratior when he'd already been discussing it on my talk page, including taking to the accuser.
That seems very "involved"? It seems like he should have been able to give a statement but not least the arbitration team?
That seems very unfair when even the slightest hint of seeking help on my part was deemed "canvassing"?
I don't know if I'm even supposed to ask this here, but I feel a a really distinct disadvantage here.
The relevant policy is WP:INVOLVED. This falls under One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved.Galobtter (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I never actually got around to the cite needed bit i mentioned in the heading.
Can I respond to that here? I'm having terrible trouble with the word count.
Is the word count in total? Or do I get 500 to respond to each statement by other users?
A lot of what was raised seems unrelated to tie initial complaint and I don't think I've had a fair chance to self correct before it got brought up in Arbitration Enforcement. Some of it I hadn't even heard about before Arbitration Enforcement, as far as I am aware, things aren't supposed to be raised for the first time in Enforcement?
I did raise some issues about BilledMammal on the notice board last week, which i had mentioned to them but maybe not given them adequate time to address, but that's a different system?
Moved this from arby because i need to name the thing shorter. I hope asking here is ok, somebody above said it was ok to all people for advice on rules etc. #Question about Arbitration Enforcement
Is there an efficient way to do a word count on this?
I am way over but counting is tricky is there a good tool? I can copy into a word processor, is that the simplest option?
Does the word limit include responses?
The word limit is difficult, because a lot of the issues raised are things I don't feel i have been given a fair opportunity to self correct, including a lot of BilledMammal's list of the alleged 1RR violations, and some other issues raised by SaintPaulOfTarsus that don't relate to the original complaint and include a lot of things that I don't think I've had a fair opportunity to self correct, a few were never mentioned before Arby.
What on Earth is "Arby"? Do you mean AE? If you're talking about the request there, there is a word counter tool listed in the instructions at the top of the page, or a simple search engine query will find a whole bunch of online word counter utilities. Like I said, you can go over a little if it's genuinely necessary, but the current length is beyond what anyone is going to be willing to read. You need to condense it down to the most salient information, not a blow-by-blow. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe that abbreviation is only obvious to Aussies? Sorry I probably missed a lot of the details because I was a bit panicked and overwhelmed. That really does seem to be the accuser's goal.
Which are the points that are highest priority if I can't cover it all?
I tried, i succeeded for a while, and then I failed. They said I could only have 500 got both issues. There is really three issues, the 1RR, the cite notes, and BilledMammal.
I probably should have just tried to be brave and reported them earlier, but I really didn't know how to do that, and even the most timmid attempts got accusations of canvassing. The problem is a pattern of behaviour on multiple pages against multiple people, and that's impossible to address without "canvassing"?
Am I correct that arbitrarators shouldn't be involved? Should Scottish Radish be arbitrarator when he was one of the people already on my talk page? That doesn't seem like what an arbitrator is supposed to be? Irtapil (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
it seems like if he was already involved he should be allowed to give a statement, but not allowed to be arbitration?
@Seraphimblade @Galobtter Did you see the 590 word version? The topic ban caught me by sudden surprise (and I ended up completely blocked for a week because I didn't realise what was gong on). I thought there'd be some further discussion after I abridged my statement?
I was waiting to hear back from @Seraphimblade about 500 for each of the two topics, but @Galobtter said to just try the first 500 and then we'd discuss if I could have more, and the other person said if I didn't fix it they'd have to topic ban me.
So I rushed a massively re-written short version and waited for the next step of discussion. But there was no discussion? It looks like SFR just topic banned me before anyone else even saw the much shorter version?
It wasn't my decision to topic ban you, so it doesn't really matter if I saw it. If SFR decided a topic ban was warranted, you'll need to discuss it with him, not me, or use the normal appeal process if you think the decision was erroneous. Please do not ping me about this again. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't feel ready to do an appeal because I don't really understand what happened. Why did everyone else say anything if SFR was going to just do that unilaterally? What was the point of any of that? Irtapil (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
That 1199972170 edit of the UNRWA October 7 controversy article I have done was undid by someone saying non-ECP. I had to search what did he mean... :) When I finally logged in with my account I have found out that you have already restored it the next day.
Thank you!
How did you stumbled on this? I hope you do not have to just go through all of the history. Is there some tool for such rescuers? IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I try to keep an eye out for stuff disappearing from articles about the war. It was deleted by someone who has removed A LOT of stuff from multiple articles, so it stood out as warranting further investigation as soon as I saw it on the edit list.
My efforts on this are pretty sporadic though, I could definitely use some help. WAY too much stuff is just disappearing with no discussion, we've ended up with huge chunks of the story missing.
We possibly even need to go all the way back to the October and look for some of the biggest chunks that might warrant restoration. But keeping an eye out for anything new is a start.
Well the edit is now gone, but not entirely. Links to Gaza–Israel conflict and Israel–Hamas war have stayed. Not that big a contribution, but providing satisfaction of some kind anyway.
If there would be need for help with reverting, I might be able to help (just not with articles under extended protection). Seems Wikipedia is quite a collaborative issue, even more than one could have thought (such as me).
Please don't draw an editor who is topic banned into discussions about the things they are topic banned from. It is the opposite of helpful. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
You have already been blocked for topic ban violations and have an open appeal below. You should be treading very carefully at this point. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
If it comes to events leading to the Israel–Hamas war, I have just stumbled on October 2022 Palestinian reconciliation agreement of the Algiers 2022 Arab League summit. Interesting as seems things of deacades of this conflict were on track for something groundbreaking on a scale of almost 20 years - just a yeat earlier. And interesting how little number of articles mention or link this agreement.
...and I started to patrol in the search of removals, with some success (unfortunately) - this time not in the area of aforementioned topic. Well as I cannot edit articles with extended protection and the ones related to this war in particulare often have it, there is not much I can do. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi IHaveBecauseOfLocks, please stop continuing to post on this page about issues related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As you, the IP user in this section, and Irtapil themselves have noted at the top of the page, they have been tbanned from editing or commenting on this topic broadly construed. If they answer you, even in error, they may be blocked from editing at all. You’re welcome to post on any other topics here, just not this one. Thanks Ayenaee (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
TBAN = Topic ban, means you’re banned from editing pages on a specific subject very WP:broadly construed, in this case the Palestinian-Israel conflict broadly construed which includes not mentioning the topic on your user space - like here. You can still edit any other articles on en.wiki as long as they’re nowhere near the banned topic.
Block, means you’re blocked from editing anything on en-wiki (except your talk page and then only to discuss the block). The talk page exception can be taken away if you abuse it.
Both bans and blocks can be applied for a specific number of days or indefinitely. In this case the ban was applied first, for an indefinite period Then when the ban was breached by mistake, a block was applied for 7 days. If further breaches of the ban happen then longer blocks can be applied, until the block can also become indefinite. So you’re partially right, the 7-day block has run out, but the the ban still applies. Indefinitely doesn’t mean forever. It can be lifted but for that to happen certain criteria need to be met, the most obvious one is not to edit or discuss anything in the banned topic. That’s why Irtapil can’t answer your messages, and why I asked you not to post on those topics here. You may post on any other topic. Ayenaee (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
If you need help on something within the banned topic you’re welcome to ask me on my talk page. Full Disclosure: I tend to normally be on the other side from Irtapil in discussions on the banned topics. I haven’t looked at your user page, but from your posts here that might apply to you as well. I’m fine with that and would give you whatever assistance you need in good faith. I believe the encyclopedia is advanced by having editors with a broad range of opinions, as long as they edit within the rules. So I will do what I can to assist any editor irrespective of "side". But I understand if you feel more comfortable approaching someone else. Any Admin will answer wiki related questions as will the TeaHouse. Ayenaee (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban. on the page List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Topic ban violations were entirely accidental. The first I noticed of the topic ban was when I was completely blocked. I have found the whole arbitration process extremely stressful, and I know I handled it rather poorly. But rules on things like "canvassing" have made it very hard to seek advice or support and left me feeling isolated and overwhelmed. In retrospect checking talk page messages diligently in case of news should have been obvious, but I think taking an hour or two to see a new messages is an oversight that definitely warrants a second chance. Addendum I was watching the arbitration itself more than my talk page, and when I double checked just then, nobody at all had commented there for 13 hours between me revising my statement as instructed and the block. I really didn't expect it to suddenly finish before anyone even commented on my revision? Irtapil (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm not terribly convinced, as at the time they weren't editing with the Android app. They would have received at least four alerts, likely with accompanying emails, and a couple notifications. I pinged them in the AE close, left them the topic ban notice, then left two warning messages about their violations.
When you put it that way. (I have seen notifications on my 'droid, now you mention it.) I am unconvinced. I'll defer to someone with more working brain cells. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Irtapil, we’re often on different sides of debates, but I have encountered you as an honest editor trying to follow the rules. I’m offering you my advice if you wish to utilise it. We wouldn’t discuss content but I think I can talk you through how you got to where you are from a rules perspective and what you can do to get out of the hole. I understand your comment about feeling isolated because of the canvassing restriction, I’ve felt that way myself. Talking to me or anyone else about how to get the ban lifted and not get further blocks should be ok as long as you make NO mention of the issues covered by the ban. Even now I think you can talk about this (ban lifting, no further blocking, but NOT the banned topic) on your talk page (I don’t think your access to this page has been taken away). If you’d rather consult with others I fully understand. Just know that I want you to remain on the project because I have found you to be someone honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia. Ayenaee (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being indecisive about whether to respond to the eMail or respond here.
The intro to the eMail was a bit confronting, but good to know.
What is the advantage of eMail? So far I have no real objection to it, I'm just answering here because here is where I am now (sorry that's such a weirdly convoluted sentence.)
No problem. I didn’t think the email was confrontational, I just meant to agree ground rules, but accept that you did. And that’s the reason why I thought using email might be useful. We will need to confront (in a constructive criticism way) each other. My understanding of how one needs to work on Wikipedia peacefully and yours differ. So we should debate it vigorously. I thought you might want privacy for that, given that this page is public. But I’m more than happy to continue here if you prefer. The confronting in the email was only to confirm for the community that we wouldn’t be using email for nefarious reasons. Now that I look at it it’s probably my first advice: Other editors can’t read minds or intentions so make sure anything that might be misinterpreted is made clear up front. Ayenaee (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I try to observe the Sabbath and it’s coming in where I am. So you’re welcome to email me or respond here, but I’ll only answer tomorrow at about the same time. In the meantime:
Leave DFO alone. I know why they used the emoji, and why you’re questioning it, but it’s not important. His reason for denying the unblock is correct (one of the things we can discuss) and we can use the week constructively.
Take time to Wp:Cool and go smell the roses (whatever that means for you).
@Ayenaee Yeah, I should have just ignored the emoji. That's part of why I stayed away from here a few days. I figured I should just leave things alone for a while. Irtapil (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Irtapil, I hope you’re doing well. A couple of housekeeping things:
Have you decided which medium you want to use to chat with me (here or email)?
The message you’ve put at the top of the page, can I change it for you? It doesn’t serve the longer term goal of having the ban lifted.
Irtapil, Are you going to answer these? Or would you rather just contact me whenever you want advice? Me being proactive about it doesn’t seem to be working for you? Ayenaee (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ayenaee Please don't edit my talk page. I like my current system. But if you could link me the info on how to set up a proper archive that would be good please, I probably will need that eventually, possibly soon. Pages start glitching if they get too big. Irtapil (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The goal of that green message isn't getting the ban lifted.
The goal is to tell others that I am banned, and how it happened.
If it's massively reducing my chances of getting the topic ban lifted I'll consider changing it? but if it's just not helping I would prefer to leave it there.
It's partly so people don't ask me things I'm not allowed to answer, but also to warn them not to get themselves into the same mess.
People kept just disappearing. If I'd realised why sooner I might have avoided it better. There are a few things I would have done differently if I'd realised how many other people B has reported for alleged 1RR violations. I definitely would have done that one big revert in a single step, just restoring the version before B made such huge changes, instead of over-complicating it with multiple steps trying to come up with a "compromise version" to preserve some of what B had been trying to do. That attempt to compromise just made things much worse?
The eMail was "confronting" not "confrontational", a situation thing, not a you thing, if that makes any sense? and if that is the situation I definitely would much prefer to know up front, so thank you for telling me, even though it did scare me off a bit."
“We wouldn’t be using email for nefarious reasons" - I didn't mean to imply anything, I was just honestly a bit confused, if it wasn't confidential I couldn't see why to do it that way and I figured I must be missing something important. But it could be preferable to not make a public spectacle of it, even if it's not completely private.
I am a bit worried by "so we should debate it vigorously" because I'm not really looking for that, but whatever you mean by that probably works better by eMail.
@Ayenaee eMail probably does work better. But I was having a bit of trouble with my eMail. Your eMail got to me via a tangled mess of auto-forwards that I set up years ago, it took me quite a while to work out what was going on. I eventually just made a new separate gMail address to use for Wikipedia stuff, but I don't think I actually attached it to my account here yet. Irtapil (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ayenaee I think I finally fixed the eMail address mess now. I'll eMail you using the new one, to re-make the connection. If I reply to the forwarded one after changing that it might make a big mess, depending on how they work it. Irtapil (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, User:Irtapil. Thanks for your responses. To avoid confusion (for me at least) I think it’s better if I respond to all your comments above in one block, so here goes:
1. Archiving
I definitely won’t do any edits on your user pages unless you ask. To archive your talk page into one big archive either:
Do it manually: Create a page called User talk:Irtapil\Archive 1, and then cut and copy whatever you want to archive to that page, or
Do it automatically: Copy and edit the following code into the top of your talk page:
If you haven’t already created the "Archive 1" page it will do it for you. The main parameter is the one called "age" which tells it how long to wait after the conversation ends to archive in hours. So the current 720 hours = 30 days. You seem to be setting your page up by year? By fiddling with the parameters you can get it to create archives by year or month. Go to Help:Archiving a talk page for more detail. You’re welcome to ask me for help when you set it up.
2. Comments on applying 1RR
Please strike the part of your above message where you talk about "B", "if I’d realized…1RR violations". I know you didn’t mean it to, but it reads like a personal attack on B, and everyone knows who you’re talking about. I understand why you tried to compromise in this roundabout way, but yes, it was the wrong way. And it didn’t have anything to do with BilledMammal in particular, anyone working in the CTOP area would have reported you for the 1RR breach. You meant well, and in some meta-way I think what you did was in the spirit of seeking consensus. But it was against the letter of the one revert rule. If you’re going to edit in CTOP you need to show that you can apply the letter of the rules. As one of the AE commentators said, if you had done a full revert and then added back the things that were good from what you reverted, you would have achieved the same thing AND remained within the rule. The way you did it caused confusion. A real life example I experienced today: The robots (traffic lights) where I live often don’t work. When this happens at a 4-way intersection, the law is that you take it in turns to cross giving way to the right. I was in a happy mood today so I gestured to someone on the left to go before me. I meant well, but everyone knows the rule and my kind gesture caused anger because I confused the other drivers by not following the rule. In Wiki terms although I did what I did in IRL:AGF, I broke the policy IRL:1RR (1 at a time from the Right Rule 🤣) which caused IRL:CONFUSION. If a cop had seen the incident they should have taken points off my license even if they believed I was just trying to be nice.
3. Top message
In terms of your green message I understand why you put it there. There’s nothing wrong with having a message with those purposes. But, again whether you meant it or not, it sounds like an angry message where you’re disagreeing with the outcome of the AE. One of the necessary (but not sufficient by itself) things you need to do to get the ban lifted is to acknowledge and take ownership of the things you did which got you banned. I, and I think most commentators, accept 100% that you have always edited in good faith. But because you didn’t follow the rules the administrators reviewed what you did and judged it as being disruptive (and definitely against the ARBCOM sanctions in this CTOP). The top message as it reads now doesn’t do that. My version would be: "Hi, I am topic banned from editing or commenting on Palestine-Israelcontentious topic articles broadly construed, because of well meant but badly executed breaches of the one revert rule applicable to contentious topics. Please don’t post anything here related to that as I won’t be able to answer. I would advise you to read the policies I’ve linked here so that you can avoid similar mistakes. Any other posts are welcome. Irtapil" Or anything similar that doesn’t sound angry - your anger is valid but shouldn’t appear so explicitly on your page. I also wouldn’t link to the messages on this page. They involve too much discussion of what’s wrong. Whereas linking to the actual policies tell the people you want to warn how to follow the rules correctly.
4. My original email message
I understand that you felt my email (rather than me) was confronting. I also think I wrote it badly because I was being over-formal, and I think you may be reading too much into it. So to put it differently:
I don’t think what we’re talking about is confidential, but discussing what went wrong could be something private to be discussed by email
The stuff about informing the Wikipedia community why we were using email is because generally debates should take place in wiki, so I’d want them to know that we’d still follow the ban rules in our emails, and all the change in venue was, was to allow a bit of privacy
And the "debate it vigorously" was (my) overkill way of saying that if you didn’t agree with something I say then we should discuss it. My words aren’t gospel and we both learn if we discuss things that don’t sense when they’re first expressed (as we’re doing here).
@Ayenaee When looking at your pages I found a few things I strongly agree with, like the "no loss of knowledge" bit. Did you get my email? I sent it to the address the original seemed to come from. Irtapil (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I received one email but it didn’t say anything about what you disagreed with. I’ve answered it confirming that the address is correct. I’m happy to discuss the disagreements. Ayenaee (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Striking someehing through means that you no longer agree with that the thing you struck. I only meant you to strike the part of the one sentence reading "…if I'd realised how many other people B has reported for alleged 1RR violations." because that could be read as a personal attack on the person you’re talking about. The rest of the paragraph is fine, actually good, because you’re acknowledging that the extended editing wasn’t appropriate. Ayenaee (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Do it manually: Create a page called User talk:Irtapil\Archive 1, and then cut and copy whatever you want to archive to that page, Thanks that sounds nice and simple. I'll do that if it gets so big that it gets glitchy.
Hi Irtapil, I prepared some material while you were thinking about how we could best communicate. I wiki coded it (as a table, I think in tables) and I don't think it’s personal so I’m putting it here. I think it’s important that you eat, sleep and dream the topics I cover. As BM pointed out, in GF and correctly, your first edit after your block expired was a breach of the ban. We don’t want that. So spend lots of time reviewing wiki policy before editing more. Anything you’re unsure of, please ask me, here or on email. You shouldn’t edit until you understand this stuff deeply. There are other things we should discuss related to the ban, but this the ground material you need to master first:
Stop editing for a while, even during a topic banning discussion. Do something else that that soothes you (I garden and play with my dogs). Remove yourself from the source of agitation and do other things which bring you happiness.
Your health and mental wellbeing are much more important than Wikipedia
While Blocked
Edit the English Wikipedia IN ANY WAY. Don’t edit it while logged out as an IP user, don’t create another user name to evade the block, don’t ask anyone to edit for you.
Edit your user talk page only on issues related to your block.
You can be permanently blocked for trying to evade your block yourself or asking others to edit for you
Edit any other Wikipedia sister project including commons
You are only blocked on the English Wikipedia.
While topic banned
Edit any article or part of an article, or participate in any discussion, on the English Wikipedia which falls within the banned topic very widely defined. Remember "widely defined" might mean that articles or parts of articles which seem to be outside the ban might be considered within it. If you’re unsure whether or not you can edit something, assume you can’t. Some examples tailored to your interests (not exhaustive):
Palestine, Palestinians, Gaza, West Bank, Gaza/West Bank Government
Israel, Israelis, Israeli Government
Muslims, Islam, Al-Aqsa
Jews, Judaism, Zionism, Hebrew, Yiddish
Arab or Muslim languages, Arabic, Urdu
Middle East (ME), ME countries or geography, ME wars, ME related attacks on other countries, 9/11, Muslim countries outside ME
Any sections of non-Muslim countries’ articles that discuss their opinions of banned issues
Any science or medical articles or parts of articles relating to discoveries, inventions or practices arising from people or countries in the ME
Any pages related to these page: categories, talk pages, AfDs, merges, moves etc. etc. etc…
etc.
etc.
etc.
...
Edit those articles or parts of articles in the English Wikipedia in your other areas of interest outside the topic ban widely defined
Even making a mistake in this regard can get you blocked for longer periods or indefinitely
Edit any article on any topic on any other Wikipedia sister project including commons. But remember the reasons you were topic banned on en.wiki and don't repeat them elsewhere.
You are only topic banned on the English Wikipedia.
General Editing
Revert, even if you’re allowed to
Apply 0RR and take any issues you have to the talk page. If consensus is against you move on. If a user is obstructive take it to AN/I or AE. But think very hard if it’s worth the emotional effort before doing this, and consider that the process can turn on you, and you can get sanctioned instead of the editor you’re reporting. It’s better to stay off the drama boards, always but especially when you’re banned. Remember changing anything inserted by another editor counts as a revert even if you don’t edit all that editors insertions.
Go further than required to avoid mistakes
Add any content requiring citation directly into article space without a corresponding citation
Edit the content in your sandbox or draft space which allows you longer to find citations. Only move it to article space together with citations, even if this is more complicated on your device.
For the time (even where short) while the uncited content exists on Wikipedia it causes other editors to be confused and angry especially in contentious topic areas.
Edit anything, including discussions, anywhere just because: 1. Someone else you like / don’t like is editing it, or 2. Someone else asked you to get involved
Always have your own reason for participation or editing
(1) can be seen as harrasment and (2) as meat puppeting
Comment in any way on another user or what you believe their motives are, or attack them in any personal way. This always applies, but especially if you don’t like there edits or them personally, or you feel you may be losing an argument
Always assume good faith, and address the content, policy, or issue under consideration, not other editors
Assuming an editor is doing something wrong, or calling them out for their behavior (anywhere except AN/AE) breaches the policies relating to assuming good faith on the behalf of other editors, and not attacking other editors personally
Get involved in background processes (AN/I, AE, AfD, etc.) unless you are really involved. Especially don’t get involved in any process against another editor unless you are directly involved, and don’t bring other issues you might have with an editor into that process
Stay away from drama boards
It’s always better to sort out issues one-on-one than too publicly drag someone through the mud
Uncertain of rule application
1. Edit anyway in the way you think is right 2. Ask or prompt other editors to get involved. 3. Ask other editors who might get involved for advice
Ask a trusted user who you now is not and does not want get involved for advice. Once they give you advice they can no longer participate in the issue
(1) will probably lead to errors because rule applications can be complex, and (2) and (3) are canvassing
Getting unbanned
Ask for an unban too soon
Wait until time has passed and emotions have cooled, show that you can edit successfully in other parts of Wikipedia, prepare a good concise justification as to why the community can trust you again. SFR noted at the AE that he normally imposes CTOP TBANs for 3-6 months and 500-100 edits to allow the banned editor to gain more experience before editing CTOPs again. I think the 6 month / 1000 edit count guidance should be your target, with a review at 3 months / 500 edit count to determine if that can be shortened. Note that the process for unbanning is different from unblocking, but we can discuss that nearer the time.
if your request doesn’t cover the issues required by policies it will be rejected, wasting your and admin time
Don’t Edit anywhere unless
You have read several times, questioned and understood how to apply the following policies and guidelines:
WP:5 Pillars Wikipedia has rules all aiming to grow Wikipedia collaboratively
WP:Original Research Only use secondary sources, primary sources (like original research) only allowed in limited circumstances
WP:BRDWP:0RR, WP:1RR, WP:3RR: Normally 3RR applies, and 1RR in CTOPs. I recommend 0RR (except in cases which are listed as exceptions to 3RR — obvious WP:Vandalism, WP:Copyright Violation, breaches of WP:BLP and WP:CHILDPROTECT etc. — so cases where the wiki or a person need immediate protection). This applies to BRD as well and is the most difficult aspect of 0RR. See how I define my version of BRD = BD[R] in the User:Ayenaee#Pledges section of my user page. It is difficult to not revert something you disagree with, but it often leads to a better outcome. 0RR also means you don’t have to worry about breaching 1RR or 3RR, but you should know the rules well enough to know when you would be breaching them anyway.
WP:AGF Always assume other actors are acting in good faith, and act in good faith yourself. If you think there is a breach of AGF (which can only become apparent over many interactions and time) do not cast aspersions or make personal attacks, take it to AN/I or AE and present your case neutrally. If the result is against you, move on, don’t make negative comments about the mechanism.
WP:Hounding: Don’t follow editors around because you don’t like them or suspect them of wrongdoing. Don’t constantly focus on their edits even when you are legitimately on the same pages. If you suspect wrongdoing take it to AN/I or AE, you’re not the wiki-police.
@Ayenaee Thank you for that, some of the biggest points I knew already but it's reassuring to have even those here in writing from someone else. I'll have a closer look at it later, there is almost definitely a lot in there that I hadn't thought of as well. Irtapil (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
When I found the edit you're referring to, it took me a while to work out why I'd done it. it turned out i had done it before I realised I was unlocked. I was copying categories from here to places where I am not topic banned, and while I was blocked I'd got in the habit of able-to-edit = allowed-to-edit, so I must have got confused and saved the wrong page. The tail end of a page looks identical on a few different wiki projects, but after I noticed that error I started carefully checking the url before saving.
So thank you for warning me, thank you for realizing it wasn't malicious, and sorry i didn't pay attention to this message earlier.
Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Djong (ship) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
It seems you often draft your comments on article talk pages as hidden text before making them. Could you avoid doing this, as it causes the pages to show up on watchlists?
Sorry I've been having trouble with my computers today and needed to switch devices a few times.
I have been drafting in my userspace. I actually thought that was what someone might be annoyed at when I saw I had a talk page message.
I thought drafting in my userspace might mean people get tagged on user space pages? If copy stuff in context, which is necessary for a long discussion. I copied it unfinished whenever I need to switch devices.
I thought commenting stuff out might annoy people less.
Getting tagged in userspace pages is annoying and confusing? Whereaswatch list notifications on an already very active i thought the commenting out thing would annoy people less?
If there is a way to turn off all tagging in a userspace page up switch to doing that.
Also I have a bad habit I am trying to break, leaving unfinished edits open in lost tabs. I'm trying to break that habit by switching to a "save as I go" approach. Otherwise I end up losing my work, or when I try to save it clashes with other edits that happened while I had it open. But that's more on main pages than talk pages. Irtapil (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
If you don't sign your draft comment while you are working on it nobody will be tagged; alternatively, you can use {{noping|BilledMammal}} to avoid pinging people.
Trouble with watchlist notifications is that they get people to look at the page, only to discover that there are no real changes to see; if they use the diff they might even get half way through your comment before realizing its still a draft, which is an even bigger waste of time. BilledMammal (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
So a quick search and replace to break any signatures "~~ ~~" would stop anyone getting pinged to my user space? I was doing that already so they didn't timestamp the time I saved the draft. So that's probably the best solution? and it's a lot quicker than commenting out. Irtapil (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Commenting out drafts made them invisible to my view. Were you reading direct from track changes to find new replies more easily? and missing the < ! - - at the start?
For very active discussions, it can be tricky to reintegrate drafts from my user space back to the discussion without overwriting comments other people made in between. For those very active discussions, would "DRAFT REPLY I'LL FINISH LATER" at the top (possibly with colourful emojis pointing at it) work? it would be easier to see than the < ! - - combo? Just for very active discussions where reintegrating a draft would be particularly tricky and people are probably getting constant watchlist notifications already?
Often i get interrupted by tech difficulties or offline events.
