Hello, Shofet tsaddiq, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Thank you for this welcome! I have tried a new image on shrimp that I hope you will like. If not, maybe we can come to an agreement about a new image? I have opened a discussion on the talk page. Thank you again for kind welcome.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
I know you are champing at the bit to make your contributions, and that is a good thing. But there is a flip side. If we jump into waters deeper than we are ready for, we lose our energy just as quickly, and drop out. I don't want that to happen to you. The trick to avoiding doing that is to start with small edits here and there, to make your user's page, to tell us what your interests are and why you are on Wikipedia, to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines, and, in general, to start unobtrusively. This is my advice, spoken from experience. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk»22:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this advice. I am happy to discuss more on the talk page if you think there is some problem with my edits I will try to fix it. I will make a user's page, thank you.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic writing takes time. It is better to ramp up on unobtrusive pages. It is not something you can learn by prolifically editing highly trafficked articles, though editing them occasionally for small fixes is a good way as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have urged you already to take it easy. That means in particular to not start edit warring as you just did on Pilaf. There are two primary spellings for the rice dish in the English language. In American English it is pilaf. In British and Commonwealth English it is pilau. WP has to give both. It does so on pajamas, for example. I have given the detailed etymology as well as the two spellings in the Etymology section. It is cited to the premier historical dictionary of the English Language, the OED, which is not the same thing as a Learner's Dictionary. If something is cited in the main body of an article it is typically not cited in the lead. That is why it was not cited, though I could easily cite it again. All the other spellings are not English language spellings. Please reinstate my last version. Fowler&fowler«Talk»22:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think you have me confused with the editor who added the content. You are making something simple into a protracted problem - the use of pilau as a synonym for pilaf requires a more substantial explanation because pilau is used also for the Afghan dish pilau which is not the same as paella (to take an obvious example). The issue is that this was impossible to decipher from reading the article, a situation that is not helped by blaming the existing problems of the article on new editors. The problems were already there when I started editing. I also don't know which version you would want me to reinstate, I thought this was added by the IP. Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
February 2019
Your recent editing history at Shawarma 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 BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. IamNotU (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your thread has been archived
Hi Shofet tsaddiq! You created a thread called CAPTCHA for citations? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
You guys are real idiots. What will this block accomplished for this project in the long run? If you are going to block accounts for adding legitimate sourced content, I won't add content. How many productive editors have you turned into prolific vandals? How many people have walked away from an experience with you thinking I will never add my content to this project again? Should you even be allowed to edit, much less block others? Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shofet tsaddiq, I don't quite understand what's going on here, or why you were blocked. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with your edits. An administrator seems to think you are the same person as another user with the name "هکمت", as well as another user named "Zephrine", and a long list of other user accounts, which you can find here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zephrine. Do you know anything about this? Maybe there's been some misunderstanding? --IamNotU (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shofet tsaddiq: since you haven't denied anything, I have to think you are a sockpuppet. Instead of cursing out the admins who confirmed your status, you need to think about how you managed to create some 50 sockpuppets, about how much time you have wasted of others, including my own. You need to question your arrogance that continues blithely to insist that your point of view is the correct one, and that if you were not here, no one else would be making improvements to the article. You need to do some soul searching. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FF, I know you mean well to give this advice to me, so I do not take this personal, but you do not know what you are talking about. Why would I deny anything? Most likely many of those accounts are not connected. I do not read Japanese language, will you for make these translations from Japanese wikia? I see activity in areas with very few edits and have no overlapping between me, Zephrine or this other accounts. Asian languages here are very common. I have more then one account but I don't use them illegimately and I am not Zephrine. I have no obligation to tell you more about who I am to deny something for you or why I believe this.Shofet tsaddiq (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've given a more earnest answer to my post than you did to the admin's block. Why don't you make an unblock request and say some of the same things there? New WP users such as you shouldn't be so cynical. Honestly, are you a new user? You don't have to tell me, but it would help your case if you came clean on that. You could share that confidentially with the blocking admin in an email. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Otr500 were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Notability is evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The The American Ethnic Cookbook for Students has a recipe for "Armenian Nutmeg Cake" not attributed to anyone, the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America, Volume 1 contains content on "Rose Baboian's Armenian-American Cook Book: Simplified Armenian Near East Recipes" with some content. The rest of the sources are primary from various pages in The "Art of Armenian Cooking" by the subject, and an obituary. This is not enough to pass any specific notability guidelines.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rose Baboian and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rose Baboian, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Shofet tsaddiq!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Otr500 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Rose Baboian, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Hello, Shofet tsaddiq. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rose Baboian".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
