Jump to content

User talk:Avishai11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! Avishai11 (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help! - click this button if you need any help first, it's great, and has lots of links!


 Requesting immediate archiving...

Question from Mili Loves Ukraine (00:16, 18 August 2024)

[edit]

Dear Avishai / Shalom lekha (I'm sure you are Israeli) I would like to ask youu how to start a new article. I know this does not consern editing in a direct manner, but perhaps you have more experience in this field than I. Please confirm as to weather you are from Israel; I would love to know; you see, my native tongue is Hebrew.

                          Thanks in advance, Mili Loves Ukraine.

GREETINGS!!! --Mili Loves Ukraine (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom @Mili Loves Ukraine,
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am so sorry for the late reply. Things have been pretty crazy in my life in the past 2 months, so I am sincerely sorry. I have noticed you have left Wikipedia, so you probably won't receive this message. If you are looking for info about how to start a new article, please see WP:NEW. If you ever have any more questions, or need help starting an article, or want to come back to Wikipedia, just message me. I will help you. Thank you for your contributions.
Best,
Avishai
@Avishai11
Avishai11 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BlessedFire (03:19, 6 September 2024)

[edit]

Hello is there a way to show all of my edit views instead of a few because I really want to see all my views of all my edits. --BlessedFire (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BlessedFire,
I assume you are talking about finding how many people viewed your edits, and that feature does not exist. You cannot view whoever viewed your edits because you edit towards the same article as other people, so you can't isolate just your edits. I hope this was clarifying. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me. Happy editing!
Warm regards,
Avishai
@Avishai11
Avishai11 (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Surbhijsm (10:45, 23 September 2024)

[edit]

hii --Surbhijsm (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hii Avishai11 (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Wickramji (17:31, 26 September 2024)

[edit]

In a Wikipedia article on the University of the Wet Indies there is a list of notable persons. I was the first person to be appointed Professor of West Indian Literature at the University of the West Indies and a Wikipedia article about me refers to me as arguably the leading critic of West Indian Literature. I would like to insert my name thus: "Professor Emeritus Kenneth Ramchand, the First Professor of West Indian Literature of the University of the West Indies.” I would be grateful if you could make this addition for me. --Wickramji (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wickramji,
Please request this on the article's talk page and state the reason why you wish to change your description. Thank you! If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me!
Warm regards,
Avishai
@Avishai11
Avishai11 (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-40

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Tech News: 2024-41

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-42

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-43

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Growth News, October 2024

[edit]

Trizek_(WMF), 15:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Wikiakgec (17:35, 27 October 2024)

[edit]

Hi Avishai I would like to create an article on IMU - CET examination. i just want to provide information related to it. I am not a paid editor. Kindly Guide me. --Wikiakgec (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikiakgec,
In order to create an article, an article needs to meet the notability requirements laid out in WP:NOTABILITY. If you are sure your proposed article's topic meets those guidelines, please visit WP:NEW. I hope this was clarifying. If you have any more questions, please feel free to contact me!
Warm regards,
Avishai
@Avishai11
Avishai11 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Avishai Wikiakgec (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiakgec You're welcome!
Warm regards,
Avishai
@Avishai11
Avishai11 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:TheSlaveryGirl

[edit]

There is nothing you can do to help them. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, I know, it was the default! Wait, can you turn on Extended Protected for the page? Or block/ban them? Thank you for your help!!! Avishai11 (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already done. It's someone with nothing better to do. Look at their edits, next time, and report them--no need to revert or whatever, just leave that to the admins. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies Great!
Warm regards,
Avishai Avishai11 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-44

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

[edit]

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Tech News: 2024-45

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-46

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thank you for the barnstar. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn you are very welcome - you totally deserve it!!! Avishai - @Avishai11 Avishai11 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask how you noticed? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn I saw your profile on the Teahouse, and I clicked on it, and I clicked on Contributions! Great work! @Avishai11 Avishai11 (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Checkuser policy

[edit]

Please do not edit the policy directly; take any proposed changes to the talk page. I will be removing your new shortcuts; they are not needed, and can be confusing. Risker (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[NOTE: Sorry for the super long message!]
Hi @Risker,
It's a pleasure meeting you. I hope you are doing great! I hope not to come off as rude, but did you actually read my edits? All of them were not policy changes. Check the history. The only other way you could mean "do not edit the policy directly" would be saying that I can't/shouldn't edit the policy, no matter what (even minor edits), without approval. That's not Wikipedia policy (which you should be very familiar with, sitting on the Arb Committee). There are so many other policies that statement would violate if so. For starters, a classic WP:OWNERSHIP, discouraging Wikipedia:BOLD, and not doing WP:GF. Plus, if we weren't allowed to make minor edits to policies, it would have a super high protection level. It doesn't; it has autoconfirmed.
For "take any proposed changes to the talk page", we all know (and it literally says it when you edit the page): minor edits or non-policy changes (which I did) do NOT require consensus or "approval". Do you disagree?
On "I will be removing your new shortcuts": this is a helpful edit that you decided, unilaterally, scrolling through Wikipedia, decided to revert, not thinking about for probably more than 2 minutes, decided to do, but it was very rude. I added helpful shortcuts! And there is room in the box. We have so many strange or "confusing" shortcuts, like Wikipedia:CHAR/A, that's very confusing. We have H:SPCHAR (which goes to WP:SEARCH). There was no reason for your removals.
About "they are not needed": respectfully, that's actually not for you to decide. Sorry, but it isn't. Please actually cite ANY applicable policy. ANY. None, right?
Regarding "and can be confusing": Do you call WP:CHE for WP:CHECKUSER CONFUSING? How is that confusing? Most editors would probably agree: it's not. If you need help understanding why it isn't confusing: the first 3 letters of CheckUser are: CHE. Hence WP:CHE. And you call WP:CHK NOT CONFUSING? What? WP:CHK is very confusing, much more than WP:CHE.
Also, "shortcut not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion (as I would have expected you to know) per WP:SPEEDY. Your deletion was against all of Wikipedia's deletion policies. Let's go through CSD codes as well as the general and redirects deletion codes:
"G1. Patent nonsense
This applies to pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. It does not cover poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism, hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, or poorly translated material. In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply. It also does not apply to pages in the user namespace." There's no way this could be seen as that. The text was completely coherent and understandable.
"G2. Test pages
This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself, pages in the user namespace, or valid but unused or duplicate templates." These redirects were definitely NOT "tests".
"G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes
Further information: Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes
This applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including files intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable if it is clear that they are describing a hoax." Not possible.
"G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion
This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion." Not possible.
"G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, or in violation of general sanctions
This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, as well as pages created in violation of general sanctions, and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions." I wasn't blocked or banned, was I?
"G6. Technical deletions
This is for uncontroversial maintenance, including:
  • Deleting redirects or other pages which prevent page moves. Administrators should be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect or page holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history. An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it." [Note: There was more criteria, but that would be much longer.] There was NO WAY this counts as "uncontroversial". No one would agree with that assessment.
"G7. Author requests deletion
If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request. If an author requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the closing admin may interpret that request as agreement with the deletion rationale." Question: Did I request deletion? Answer: No, I didn't.
"G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page
Examples include, but are not limited to:
"G9. Office actions
Main page: Wikipedia:Office actions
In exceptional circumstances, the Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedy-delete a page. Deletions of this type must not be reversed without permission from the Foundation." Are you a WMF staff member? I don't believe so.
"G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose
Examples of "attack pages" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met. Other pages violating the Biographies of living persons policy might be eligible for deletion under the conditions stipulated at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, although in most cases a deletion discussion should be initiated instead.
Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion. For example, a term used on the target page to refer to its subject is often a plausible redirect – see Wikipedia:RNEUTRAL." Definitely not an attack page, or an intimidation page. Also, see the very last sentence. Perfect for this situation, isn't it?
"G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
Main page: Wikipedia:Spam
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc." Please answer: was the redirect advertising something? Or promoting something? NO.
"G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement
Main page:
Wikipedia:Copyright violations
This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations for other instructions." Not applicable!
"G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions
Further information: Wikipedia:Articles for creation
This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:
  1. Draft namespace,
  2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
  3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text." Was it in the draftspace?
"G14. Unnecessary disambiguation pages
This applies to the following disambiguation pages and redirects:
  • Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page.
  • Regardless of title, disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages.
  • A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)." Not a disambiguation.
SO, I've proved that there was absolutely no policy allowing the SPEEDY deletion of those redirects.
Now, I'm going to prove that there was no reason for deletion even under the non-CSD criteria:
  1. "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia." Not applicable.
  2. "The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted." Nope.
  3. "The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects." Were the redirects offensive to you? Or to anyone?
  4. "The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)" NO.
  5. "The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)" I'm pretty sure "CHE" to "CHECKUSER" makes perfect sense.
  6. "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024." Were the redirects pointing to the article space?
  7. "If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism." I don't remember the direct being broken, do you?
  8. "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)" Not a synonym. Or in another language. Or an impossible typo!
  9. "If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves." Not applicable.
  10. "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Could it have been?
Now, we've determined you had no right to delete the redirects, remove them from the list of shortcuts, and to use the edit summary(s) so improperly.
I sincerely hope we can find a solution together before something else happens. I really don't want to get anyone else involved in this. I actually don't, that wasn't a threat, I swear. But I will if this isn't solved soon, we may need to see a third-party(s). I look forward to your reading your response soon. I hope you have a great rest of your day!
Warm regards,
Avishai
@Avishai11
Avishai11 (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you mean well, Avishai11. The bottom line is that you are not in a position to understand the policies you are trying to edit. That is okay, you simply haven't been here long enough to know that the CheckUser policy has been carefully crafted over almost 20 years to read the way that it is. The policy doesn't really apply to you, except in that you could request that a checkuser look at a suspected sockpuppet that you've come across. Over that nearly 20 years of the policy's existence, many editors who are not checkusers or do not have sufficient experience have tried to "improve" it, only to be promptly reverted because their seemingly minor changes have definitely impacted the content and effect of the policy. This is actually common to a lot of other policies, as well. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest even minor modifications to a policy on the talk page of the policy. What some people consider minor edits turn out to be massively changing to the meaning of a policy. It is expected by the community that only very experienced editors who work with a particular policy regularly will make even minor changes, and often even experienced editors will discuss minor changes on the talk page of the policy. An editor with 600 live edits is not the best person to be editing policy.

The shortcuts and redirects you are suggesting on various pages are not particularly plausible, and in some cases are quite problematic due to historical reasons of which you are not aware. Deleting the redirect pages is housekeeping (G6); the shortcuts aren't appropriate for use in the places to which you have redirected, so the redirect pages are no longer needed and could potentially prevent someone else from using that redirect for something more plausible.

I suggest you spend the next year editing content and applying the existing policies before you start trying to reword policies to your preferred form. Try to get your percentage of edits to content higher than your percentage of edits to any other namespace; the way to understand Wikipedia is to edit its content. Perhaps you might want to subscribe to SuggestBot to get ideas on articles you can edit. Risker (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Thank you for your faith in me. That might not sound right, sorry - I genuinely am thankful that you aren't a mean person! Thanks! I am also so sorry for making you read all of that. However, I still have many issues with your message. "The bottom line is that you are not in a position to understand the policies you are trying to edit." First of all, I fully understand the CheckUser policy and most other Wikipedia policies (that aren't extremely technical, such as specifically the steps to delete pages or how to build and publish bots, nor do I need to) don't try to gaslight me (respectfully). Secondly, I wasn't editing the policy's CONTENT. However, if I'm missing the point, I'm sorry. I've been here, learning, for over 4 1/2 years. There's still things for me to learn; everyone can learn new things. I did know that the CheckUser policy was created in 2005, around 19 years ago. I could say that off of the top of my head. You are correct in that the CheckUser policy does NOT currently apply to me (except that I could request a CheckUser to investigate a suspected sockpuppet). Also, if you look at what the CheckUser policy looked like in 2005, or even 2008, or 2011, or even in 2020 (there were still HUGE changes from 2020). I consider myself a semi-experienced editor (not as much as you, of course!), and I used to be (until around 20 hours ago) a mentor in Wikipedia's Mentorship Program. I was qualified then, and I promptly (except when I had a family issue and needed to take a 2 week break this summer) answered all of their questions, and helped them. Some of my (former) mentors even have 400, 500, and even 700 edits! Even more than me! They have created many new articles with my help. Do you think I should be a mentor? Back to the main point, as of right now, my main issues aren't with your reverts of the shortcuts, my problem is with your deletion of the shortcuts. I actually was writing a message to answer a question at the Help Desk when I got the notice that it was deleted from my watchlist. I USE it, and I think it would be helpful for some people, at least. So, I was wondering if you could "revive" the shortcuts. I also just want to say that I really, truly appreciate you taking the time to explain your side to me. Also, I am unaware of your "historical reasons". What does that even mean? From what I saw, nothing was created on those pages. If I'm wrong, please explain. Plus, if someone DID want to create something with that redirect, they would be welcome to do so. I would like to use the redirects for something useful, too. And how exactly aren't they appropriate? Please, explain. Now onto your last paragraph. I have spent many years editing and learning. 4 1/2 years, to be exact. You've definitely had a LOT more experience than me, but I have a strong amount (not enough to do an RFA, but I don't want that right now, I know I need to learn more myself). Also, I actually enjoy working "behind the scenes" as well as on the "front-end". It just so happens I prefer helping other people edit. That's ok; many admins and editors prefer this as well. I like keeping Wikipedia "tidy and organized". I look forward to your reply. @Avishai11 Avishai11 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker: Just checking in, did you read this? Best, @Avishai11 Avishai11 (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it, Avishai11. I am kind of at a loss that someone who had 42 edits over 4 months in 2020-21, then two years without a single edit, then 564 edits this year (which included a two month break) really wants to claim 4-1/2 years' experience editing. I just don't know what to say to that at all. What I do know is that when I look at Pinhoe railway station, you deliberately ignored the hatnote that says "use dd/mm/yy dates", which is the usual standard for articles involving British topics, and completely changed the dating protocol to "mm/dd/yy" which is the usual standard for American topics. It would be nice if you returned that to the correct format. Incidentally, "station master" is the normal usage; "stationmaster" is a secondary way of spelling things. In looking through your contributions, I can see that you have tried your hand at a lot of things: categorization, article deficiency tagging, some PRODs, and of course a few other things, with mixed feedback or results. It's normal that it takes a while for an editor to find their niche. But you're doing a lot of what we could call "maintenance work" without doing much content improvement. No, I don't expect you to be writing fully-fledged articles; I admire your restraint in that. But I'd expect to see you doing some of the tasks that are recommended by the Growth Team as good tasks for low-experience editors. I think you would be familiar with them, as you had previously volunteered as a Growth Team mentor. The irony is that I still do several of those very tasks even now, almost 20 years after I created my account. It is a good way to keep in touch with the real purpose of Wikipedia, which is its content. I really urge you to try out some of those tasks, because it will get you better rooted into what we really do here. (At less than 700 edits, you are a low experience editor, no matter when you created your account. It's not a slight. The majority of Wikipedia accounts have fewer than 100 edits, often spread out over a decade or more.)

I won't be reviving the shortcuts; it's very bad when every user feels empowered to add their own favourite ways of getting to a page, because then we'd have hundreds, if not thousands, of shortcuts to every Wikipedia-space page. Instead, make your case for the shortcut on the talk page of the page to which you want to attach it. This is a place where others in the community can also chime in, and a consensus can be reached. Lots of people have a subpage in their userspace with links to pages they find useful, or alternately they just keep them on their userpage.

I know it may sound a bit rich that I'm urging you to work on content when I've done so little in recent times. I was, however, "seconded" to a global committee for 2.5 years, and have only come "home" to English Wikipedia in the last couple of months. My first priority was taking care of a very large backlog in the checkuser/administrator area. I'm just now really starting to sink my teeth back into content. I'm starting the way that I often recommend to new editors: just keep hitting "random article", reading each one, and making minor improvements if needed. Eventually, we stumble into an article that needs more serious work, whether copy-editing or improving references or rewriting entirely. I encourage you to keep working on the encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:!!! requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor

[edit]

I've removed you from the list of mentors. You are insufficiently experienced to be a mentor, and you do not meet the criteria.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:BUTTON requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're making things worse for yourself. I just deleted the MfD you created. If you wish to contest the speedy deletion, nominating it for deletion and then opposing your own nomination is disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:HEBU requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

[edit]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

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) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-47

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2024-48

[edit]
The winner this Translation of the week is

Please be bold and help translate this article!


Wang Su-bok was a singer from North Korea, who was the most popular singer in Japanese-occupied Korea in 1935. She was credited as a ground-breaking female artist, whose work led the way for the modern K-pop phenomenon.

(Please update the interwiki links on Wikidata of your language version of the article after each week's translation is finished so that all languages are linked to each other.)


About · Nominate/Review · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-48

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2024-49

[edit]
The winner this Translation of the week is

Please be bold and help translate this article!


Storm Filomena was an extratropical cyclone in early January 2021 that was most notable for bringing unusually heavy snowfall to parts of Spain, with Madrid recording its heaviest snowfall in over a century, and with Portugal being hit less severely. The eighth named storm of the 2020–21 European windstorm season, Filomena formed over the Atlantic Ocean close to the Canary Islands on 7 January, subsequently taking a slow track north-eastwards towards the Iberian Peninsula and then eastwards across the Mediterranean Sea.

(Please update the interwiki links on Wikidata of your language version of the article after each week's translation is finished so that all languages are linked to each other.)


About · Nominate/Review · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-49

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


Wikipedia translation of the week: 2024-50

[edit]
The winner this Translation of the week is

Please be bold and help translate this article!


Syrian literature is modern fiction written or orally performed in Arabic by writers from Syria since the independence of the Syrian Arab Republic in 1946. It is part of the historically and geographically wider Arabic literature. The modern states of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel as well as the Palestinian autonomous areas only came into being in the mid-20th century. Therefore, Syrian literature has since been referred to by literary scholarship as the national literature of the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as the works created in Arabic by Syrian writers in the diaspora. This literature has been influenced by the country's political history, the literature of other Arabic-speaking countries and, especially in its early days, by French literature.

(Please update the interwiki links on Wikidata of your language version of the article after each week's translation is finished so that all languages are linked to each other.)


About · Nominate/Review · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-50

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

[edit]

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2024-51

[edit]
The winner this Translation of the week is

Please be bold and help translate this article!


The Mars ocean theory states that nearly a third of the surface of Mars was covered by an ocean of liquid water early in the planet's geologic history. This primordial ocean, dubbed Paleo-Ocean or Oceanus Borealis (/oʊˈsiːənəs ˌbɒriˈælɪs/ oh-SEE-ə-nəs BORR-ee-AL-iss), would have filled the basin Vastitas Borealis in the northern hemisphere, a region that lies 4–5 km (2.5–3 miles) below the mean planetary elevation, at a time period of approximately 4.1–3.8 billion years ago. Evidence for this ocean includes geographic features resembling ancient shorelines, and the chemical properties of the Martian soil and atmosphere

(Please update the interwiki links on Wikidata of your language version of the article after each week's translation is finished so that all languages are linked to each other.)


About · Nominate/Review · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-51

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia translation of the week: 2024-52

[edit]
The winner this Translation of the week is

Please be bold and help translate this article!


In August 2023, major floods occurred in large part of Slovenia and neighbouring areas of Austria and Croatia due to heavy rain. Amongst others, the level of rivers Sava, Mur and Drava was exceptionally high. Several settlements and transport links in Slovene Littoral, Upper Carniola and Slovenian Carinthia were flooded. Due to the amount of rain, the streams in Idrija, Cerkno and Škofja Loka Hills overflowed.

(Please update the interwiki links on Wikidata of your language version of the article after each week's translation is finished so that all languages are linked to each other.)


About · Nominate/Review · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

[edit]