User talk:Iljhgtn/Archive 2024

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/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. Schwede 66 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)