2020

"Arial" is a commercial font which is only available on a limited range of systems, so what you did is probably not as helpful as you thought it would be... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AnonMoos: I am aware Arial is a commercial font, but it is more likely to be already installed on a reader's computer than any of the free fonts which contain the applicable characters. Most people won't want to install a new font to read a small detail on a page, free or not, and if they don't have Arial font, won't it just default to something else?

Which systems don't include Arial? Linux? That's surely a far smaller number of readers than the people who would already have a free font installed that contains characters like dotless ba. Irtapil (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also probably many mobile systems, to start with... AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AnonMoos: this is what it looked like before i changed the font:

it seems likely not everyone was seeing that, or it would be fixed already, and the people who see the same error seem more likely to also be windows users, or have the same glitchy font that comes ahead of Arial in the queue? Irtapil (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the lang-ar had a less streaky option Arabic: ﷽, but it was illegibly small, in a table you can increase font size, but in line with text that's not a winner. ((script|Arab|﷽)) ﷽‎ gives the same error. Irtapil (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Script/Arabic "Amiri (appears feathery on Windows; errors with combining shadda with kasra and in Rohingya [1])" ﷽ ((font|font=amiri|﷽)) that font looks fine in other programs, just goes weird for that character in chrome.Reply[reply]

i'm still not sure what you mean by "not as helpful as you thought it would be" ... how helpg=ful did you think i thought it'd be? Irtapil (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's finicky appearance-hacking that only works for some people. and so is not a general-purpose solution to the problem. AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AnonMoos: what would your idealised solution be then? do you actually have a better idea or are you just complaining that my quick fix for a small problem isn't perfect?

As far as i gather the effect of forcing Arial font displays Arial if it is present then if it's not installed it goes back to whatever it would have displayed without that setting? so it possibly helps a lot of viewers, and has no effect for others? The "feathering" mention on the help page sounds like it is likely to be just a windows thing, and Arial comes with windows, so it likely solved it for everyone who has the problem.

The problem seemed likely to be restricted to that particular obscure character, a generalised solution (e.g. editing the template font list) would likely create WAY more problems than it solved.

i could work out the offending font - Amiri - and uninstall it from my own computer, but that solves it for only ONE user, and Amiri displays other characters fine, without streaking into the toolbars.

what proportion of users would actually not have Arial? i do wonder if some people might have Arial without the full character set? but if they don't have the Arabic characters from Arial the chances of them having a specific Arabic font are even lower.

you say Arial only works for some people, but is there any stable and extensive Arabic font they are more likely to have installed? i didn't just pick the most common font in general, i picked the font with the most extensive Arabic charachar set, out of the fonts likely to be installed on an English speakers computer. the SIL fonts would work too, but they are way less common than Arial. do you actually have a better idea? if you want to add a list of all of the fonts other than Amiri to the formatting on that one character, just go do it rather than complaining that i didn't. i even worked out which don't was causing the problem, if you want to add a solution for the tiny proportion of people who don't have serial, just go do it. but they likely weren't even getting the same glitch, so it's a bit pointless.

Irtapil (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

old ((script|Arab|﷽)) ﷽‎

new ((font|font=arial|((lang|ar|﷽)))) ﷽

no lang tag ((font|font=arial|﷽)))) ﷽

no lang tag amiri ((font|font=amiri|﷽)))) ﷽

Irtapil (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

those all display identically on my android, so, the solution does nothing, but there was also no problem to solve. if you want a solution that applies to people who do not have the problem, then that's a fairly eccentric approach...

if you actually do have a better idea i am keen to hear it. i often use arial because pages use have obscure characters, and some fonts will have these but not connect them properly, so they look completely different. i add the appropriate lang tag lang|ar or lang|ur etc. as well and as far as i know, this means that if the user is one of the 1% of internet users who do not have Arial installed or will default back to the fonts associated with that lang tag. so, if you have a better solution please do share. i could add additional fonts, but most of what i would add is already attached to those Lang tags, so that's a bit pointless. Irtapil (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Also probably many mobile systems, to start with... AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)" well the solution does nothing, see above, but they also don't have the problem. Irtapil (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rasm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lateef (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

is this the right way to do a list of fonts for characters that aren't displaying properly in the default? Arabic: ◌ٔ  ((lang-ar|((font|font=tahoma,amiri,arial|size=175%| ◌ٔ  )))) Irtapil (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do here, but the ((font)) template's |font= parameter must be a single font, not a list. This works:

Arabic: ◌ٔ ((lang-ar|((font|font=tahoma|size=175%| ◌ٔ ))))

If you want to have three fonts, you'll need three copies of the template, one for each of the fonts. Huon (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you @Huon:, sorry i didn't quite explain my intention well, i meant it to show in any of the fonts on that list, not all of them. I've seen it done somewhere before, with formatting table cells, i'm not sure if it works in font template. Irtapil (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there's an easy way to format something as "pick the one of these three fonts that works best". If it's possible at all, you'd probably need some rather fancy HTML. Huon (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

what's going on here? i moved the table to another page (my user page) and it didn't keep doing it.

To me the image looks like a case of too many templates. There is a hard limit for the number of templates transcluded on one page, and if you exceed that limit, any further templates just don't work any more. A little more context would be helpful her: Where did the table come from, what's the diff of the edit you are asking about, and what is "it" that the table didn't keep doing? Huon (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thankyou @Huon: a hard limit would explain it. is there somewhere i can get more info on that? it was from the urdu alphabet page, but i removed it now. Irtapil (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is Help:Template#Expand limits and Wikipedia:Template limits. Apparently what's limited is not the number but the ultimate size. Huon (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Huon: size in what sense? would this mean switching from templates to an alternative, like style formatting in tables, doesn't help? Irtapil (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not an expert, but the pages linked above say that something called "Post-expand include size" is the measure that's limited. I'd read that as "the amount of text and/or code that is put into the page through the template". For example, ((red|Hello world!)) is turned into <span style="color: red;">Hello world!</span> - that's 45 characters, so it counts for 45 bytes against the maximum post-expand include size of 2,048,000 bytes. You could put that template some 50,000 times on a page. If a template generates not just 45 bytes but, say, 1000, then you can have it 2,048 times. Note that non-Latin characters may take more than one byte each. Style formatting in the tables isn't expanded and thus doesn't count against the limit at all, so that may indeed serve as an alternative if possible. Huon (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for belated reply, but the official Wikipedia policy governing font-face specification is here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Font family

Also, you can specify a list of fonts (with the last on the list as the fallback default) in HTML code, but I'm not sure how or if this carries over into Wikipedia templates. See this example from further down on the linked page: AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<span style="font-family:Gentium Plus, Charis SIL, Doulos SIL, serif">

Dear User:Irtapil, thank you for your message on my talk page. I understand that you put a lot of work into editing the Urdu alphabet article. I glanced at your version and although I do not see anything that stands out as problematic, perhaps User:Fowler&fowler does. I would recommend waiting for him to respond there and see what he has to say before you consider reverting, although the choice is ultimately yours. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. @Anupam: Sorry i didn't see this till after my most recent message on your page. I can see bits F&F might have objected to, i got interrupted while working on the page and thus there were a few messy/unfinished tables sitting there for a few days. I want to try and fix these issues, so there's something optimal to discuss. But while i was working on that F&F repeated the reversion to the much shorter and poorly references version from 6 months ago (not Wikipedia quality because large sections of it were based on a small number of sources). By "the choice is ultimately yours" do you mean it would not be unreasonable to undo the reversion and keep working on it? I nearly did that, but i know "edit wars" are very much frowned upon. Is there a right place to save and work on an alternate version for discussion? Irtapil (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elsewhere they say content being there for 3 weeks counts as reason for it to stay, but the stuff that was in the Urdu Alphabet page much longer, and cintributed to by about 20 other editors, doesn't qualify? Irtapil (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Irtapil, here's a workaround that might be of interest for you. Ethnologue's primary links haven't changed, so you can actually look at older versions via the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. So current links are behind a hard paywall, e.g. Urdu. But if you go before Oct 2019 here, you will have full access to older versions (occasionally there is a soft paywall, so you just have to click around a bit until you an unlocked view). Language family pages are still free.[1] –Austronesier (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the paywall new? Are the pages linked prominently supposed to be the free summaries? should i point it out if i come across paywalled things in an infobox? Irtapil (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The soft paywall (5 views per month) was introduced c. 2 yrs ago, the hard paywall with the outlandish subscription prices end of last year. AFAIK all pages evoked by infobox parameter "ref" are now hidden behind a hard paywall for IPs from industrialized coutries. So they are accessible for some readers, for many others not. A few editors already talked about it, but we ended up with a "wait-and-see" attitude.

Paywalled sources are not per se tabu, in fact WP is against WP:FUTONBIAS, but Ethnologue is actually meant as an auxilliary source, so the paywall really brings the promiment position of Ethnologue into a questionable position. The Ethnologue reference can certainly remain there but not as a primary index. I hope more editors will join the discussion in the project talk page. –Austronesier (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, non free sources have their place, hence my suggestion being adding another rather than replacing them. A big part of the point of Wikipedia is to make the i formation in difficult to access resources, accessible to a wider audience. Irtapil (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why "futon"? what's the furniture connection? (i double checked the page you linked and there's no explanation, the sock puppet page had a photo of an actual sock puppet LOL.) Is it an acronym or a reference to "couch surfing"?

I suppose i may as well ask a general question while i'm at it, Where can i find good quality freely available linguistic sources? is there a "PubMed Central for linguistics"?

Irtapil (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please learn how to format the first message of a new section. On the first level, paragraphs are separated by empty lines. It goes like this:

Comment 1. Paragraph 1.

Comment 1. Paragraph 2. ~~~~
:Comment 2. Paragraph 1.
:Comment 2. Paragraph 2. ~~~~
::Comment 3. Paragraph 1.
::Comment 3. Paragraph 2. ~~~~

Nardog (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nardog: why do you care do much? Irtapil (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because attribution is essential. If you don't get indentation and signatures right, people wouldn't be able to know who said what. And that would be detrimental to the purpose of a talk page, which is not only to discuss content and policy but to provide record of what was discussed and how decisions were made for others to see. Nardog (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ah, now i'm confused, i thought you were objecting to me indenting first post, but that doesn't make attribution ambiguous. so what were you objecting to? Irtapil (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course it does. Indentation indicates subordination. If you're not replying you shouldn't indent. Nardog (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

While working on article Islamic advice literature I realized that word 'Qisas' is appearing in different meaning at Qisas Al-Anbiya it comes as story/anecdote telling (alternative spelling Kissa). And in article named Qisas seems to come as revenge. Need support in creating proper disambiguation page and links so reader do not end up in unexpected pages.

Of course article Islamic advice literature too needs support in update and expansion since lot of scholarly references are available in books and google scholar too.

Thanks in advance and greetings

Bookku (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Bookku: sorry, i'm not very knowledgeable about this. But i'll see if i can find you some links of where to find the answers. Irtapil (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ways to ask general questions about editing Wikipedia:

• you can ask questions at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse
• you can write ((help me)) on your own talk page with the question to attract an answer from someone who knows.

specific places for help with that question:

• you can suggest that page for expansion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam

• if the article has content but not many references you can add ((more citations needed)) to the top of the article.(but it looks like the article is short but well referenced, so suggesting it for expansion on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam is probably more suitable.)
• help on redirects. Wikipedia:Redirect#How_to_make_a_redirect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#How_to_make_a_redirect

• help on disambiguation pages Help:Disambiguation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Disambiguation

Irtapil (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
30		Informal romanizations of Cyrillic (talk)	Add sources
13		Khowar alphabet (talk)	Add sources
4,363		Sanskrit (talk)	Add sources
418		Languages of Asia (talk)	Add sources
48		Alay (talk)	Add sources
46		Gyaru-moji (talk)	Add sources
23		Persian Inscriptions on Indian Monuments (talk)	Cleanup
78		Ho language (talk)	Cleanup
87		Sylheti Nagri (talk)	Cleanup
68		Martian language (talk)	Expand
420		Romanization (talk)	Expand
9,115		Mahabharata (talk)	Expand
132		Algerian Arabic (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
18		Miguxês (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
91		Denglisch (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
48		Ktav Ashuri (talk)	Merge
167		Arabic calligraphy (talk)	Merge
362		Near-open front unrounded vowel (talk)	Merge
8		Modern Indian Language (talk)	Wikify
8		Peter Benjamin Graham (talk)	Wikify
5		2017 Ebrahim Raisi presidential campaign (talk)	Wikify
2		Baba Shah Esfahani (talk)	Orphan
2		Goharshad Ghazvini (talk)	Orphan
2		Hassan Mourad (talk)	Orphan
34		Kurdish coffee (talk)	Stub
16		Že (talk)	Stub
2		Asperula crassula (talk)	Stub
531		Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India (talk)	Stub
35		Warang Citi (talk)	Stub
10		Mary International Airport (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anything interesting I am still allowed to work on?

Irtapil (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don’t be like that. You’re a great editor and nothing that’s happened has changed that! Ayenaee (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Indiyaa in Meitei script 2020-05-30 09-07.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Indiyaa in Meitei script 2020-05-30 09-07.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|cc-by-sa-4.0)) (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:User Mtei requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Meitei Mayek script requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Urdu alphabet, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Persian, Alif and Naskh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:User Mtei requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Meitei Mayek script requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya Irtapil. Thanks for your fine work at Rasm. Do you know how to do/pass a picture in the right hand corner? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JorgeLaArdilla: It depends what you want it in the corner of (table, section, or whole page)?

To align an image to the right you add "right" between two pipes "|" like this

[[File:File.png|40px|thumb|right|caption text]]

If you want the picture in the top right of a section you put that between the heading and the text of the section. Any text following that line of code will go to the left of the image (if the reader's screen is wide enough).

Which image do you want in which corner? (and which page, if you don't mean Rasm?)

Irtapil (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi how are you ? can you help us with this article Stay safe Regards Mevlut Bin Omar (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sorry @Mevlut Bin Omar: it seems i'm too late, the article has already been deleted. But i don't know who that is, so it's unlikely i could have helped. Irtapil (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Urdu alphabet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindustani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no requirement that each sentence have an inline citation. I agree that having a bunch of citations at the end of a paragraph makes it hard to distinguish individual sources, but that does not mean that the prior sentences are unsourced. Tagging them doesn't help anything. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ivar the Boneful: reminder Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

Irtapil (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ivar the Boneful: did you even look at the third edit you reverted? i wasn't using the citation needed template, i found something more specific. Irtapil (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((help me|why does this image distort it when i try to add an updated cropped version?))

• i tried to crop an image and it distorted weirdly.
• i tried again and the new version looked wrong but the previous version looked ok.
• i reverted to the previous version and that looked wrong, but… see screencap below.

Hm, I took a look and was unable to duplicate the error! The image does not appear distorted to me no matter which version I'm looking at. This might be something local to your computer. I'll leave the help me box up for now since I don't know what might be causing it. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can second being unable to reproduce what's in your screenshot—that's pretty weird. My only guess is that your browser is doing something funky, so you could either try restarting it or viewing the image on another one. Double checking it myself, the current revision seems to look good regarding the white border.

If you're curious to know an alternative way to crop an image, then you can look into CropTool, which is a gadget for Wikimedia Commons (note you can also just use its website). Let me know if you have any further questions, and happy editing! Perryprog (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
5		Mari Abad (talk)	Add sources
54		Ng (Arabic letter) (talk)	Add sources
690		Persian alphabet (talk)	Add sources
1,973		Mustelidae (talk)	Add sources
385		African French (talk)	Add sources
770		Australian Government (talk)	Add sources
154		North–South divide in Taiwan (talk)	Cleanup
74		Phonological history of English close front vowels (talk)	Cleanup
1,136		Gender inequality (talk)	Cleanup
9		Quid (encyclopedia) (talk)	Expand
1,409		Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic (talk)	Expand
45,633		COVID-19 pandemic (talk)	Expand
10		Urdu in Aurangabad (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
81		Donkey vote (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
17		Washuk District (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
29,794		Coronavirus disease 2019 (talk)	Merge
116		Western religions (talk)	Merge
4,214		Latin script (talk)	Merge
58		Vampires in popular culture (talk)	Wikify
65		Migration to Xinjiang (talk)	Wikify
131		Phonological history of English consonant clusters (talk)	Wikify
5		The SARS Network (talk)	Orphan
2		Anna-Lise Williamson (talk)	Orphan
48		Colonial roots of gender inequality in Africa (talk)	Orphan
30		Annie Raja (talk)	Stub
66		Polecat–ferret hybrid (talk)	Stub
209		Semantic Scholar (talk)	Stub
5		Ningbo East railway station (talk)	Stub
178		Mogens Jensen (politician) (talk)	Stub
13		Anbil Dharmalingam Agricultural College and Research Institute (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2021

Taiwan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. STSC (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Irtapil. I reverted one of your edits on Talk:Taiwan. Actually, it the discussion was already archived. As the page has a lot of frequent discussions, the bot also archives frequently (60 days). However, it is best to avoid reinstating old discussions. I would suggest you start a new discussion and link to the older one to provide a context.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DreamLinker: but someone on that talk page got angry at me for starting a new discussion on an old topic, like you just suggested? Irtapil (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nehme1499 and HitomiAkane: This refers partly to a topic from User_talk:HitomiAkane/Archive_1, but it seemed more appropriate to put it on my own talk page? You were talking about some inaccurate transliterations in arz: and i think I've possibly found another, but i know hardly any Arabic so i don't know weather it actually is inaccurate. This looks like a problem, but i'm way out of my depth, so tagging @Nehme1499: who spotted a similar problem and seemed to come up with a decent plan to repair it. There are a huge number of articles in arz.wikipedia.org that use the Arabic spelling Arabic: ايسلاند for the English word "island" in the title, or the body. All of these pages (or at least the dozen or so i checked) had the same author arz:مستخدم:HitomiAkane and no other human editors. This struck me as weird, because that is one of the very few words i know in Arabic, and the article on Islands in general is under that title arz:جزيره in Egyptian wiki. The transliteration was often in place names, but even in place names things like Island (or Lake or Mountain) get translated, with fairly rare exceptions Loch Ness vs Lake Geneva. The transliterstion of island also uses the Arabic dotted ya ي unicode character, whereas the spelling of the name of Masri Wiki uses the ی terminally undotted Farsi version of Ya. There are no matches to this spelling with the ی undotted Ya. I'm not sure how i could go about finding a suitable speaker of the dialect to give an informed second opinion? I got the impression user:Nehme1499 speaks Lebanese? Irtapil (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. The issue is that in Lebanese we strictly use characters in exactly the same way they are used in Arabic (so without the terminal ی, or the use of other characters like ڤ present in the farsi alphabet). So, I don't have in-depth knowledge of writing systems in Arabic dialects that don't strictly follow the Arabic alphabet. For me, what should be done is simple: if the title is a "given name", like Grand Island, then Island should be transliterated into ايسلاند. If island is used to indicate the geographical entity, like Quinchao Island, then we should use جزيره (or whatever the correct word for "island" is in Egyptian Arabic). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Nehme1499:

Do you know where i could find an appropriate person to talk to? or a right place to mention it?

The different unicode character thing mostly just indicated to me that all of the usages of that spelling were the same user with the same keyboard (without having to check the edit history for all of the pages).

A few were names of football clubs and i've noticed from Bayern Munich "Fußball-Club Bayern München" that which words get translated in that can be a bit weird (Bayern is the German name for Bavaria, but in German Munich is München). Are there any football clubs with Island in the name that might be on there with multiple editors to compare?

Irtapil (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really know of Egyptian wikipedia editors. Maybe you can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt, though it doesn't seem to be super active. I've found this football club called Canvey Island F.C.; the Farsi wiki (rightly) uses ایسلند. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User_arz-N

@Irtapil: Thank you for pinging me, First of all, and as @Nehme1499: mentioned, it was inaccurate transliterations for the word (Island) in those articles, I'll try to fix them all as soon as possible, the second issue that Masri Wiki uses the ی terminally undotted Ya as all Egyptian write it that way, in addition to another set of characters explained here to expand our options when translating, thank you all, HitomiAkane (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Is there a standard way to request translations? or is sunshine responding to this able to do this?

• article translation request ru: Альянс врачей

I'm looking for someone to translate an article from Russian Wikipedia that does not seem to have an article in English Wikipedia, ru: Альянс врачей. They an organisation being mentioned in recent news about Alexey Navalny. There's no information about them in English Wikipedia but there is extensive article in Russian Wikipedia. I can't find any mention of them in English Wikipedia using that specific Russian name "Альянс врачей", or a literal translation "Alliance of Doctors".

Irtapil (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Irtapil - Please have a look at the procedures at WP:TRANSLATETOHERE . CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll try Wikipedia:Translators_available#Russian-to-English. Irtapil (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft: == article translation request [[:ru: Альянс врачей]] ==

I found you on the list: Wikipedia:Translators_available#Russian-to-English.

I'm looking for someone to translate an article from Russian Wikipedia that does not seem to have an article in English Wikipedia, ru: Альянс врачей. They an organisation being mentioned in recent news about Alexey Navalny. There's no information about them in English Wikipedia but there is extensive article in Russian Wikipedia. I can't find any mention of them in English Wikipedia using that specific Russian name "Альянс врачей", or a literal translation "Alliance of Doctors".

Irtapil (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I've read the ru article and it comes across as a political outpost of the said organisation or their vocal supporters. While it was an interesting read for me due to my interest in the ongoing political developments around Navalny, in the spirit of the WP:Soapbox I am not sure that verbatim translation into the en space is the right way to go, unless it becomes notable with the same level of detalisation in the English language media. BACbKA (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BACbKA: Thanks for having a look. I agree a direct translation is not ideal if the original is a bit skewed. Now that someone has started a stub we can build on it from English language sources. I've definitely heard of them elsewhere now that i know who they are. Irtapil (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started the basics, Alliance of Doctors, will add more later. Brandmeister^talk 18:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It's strange it wasn't there already. Irtapil (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at 1978 smallpox in the United Kingdom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your repeated moving the article to Last confirmed death from smallpox is against consensus on the Talk page. I suggest you move it back before you get blocked DeCausa (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DeCausa: it wasn't 24 hours, they were a week apart.

Did you read what I posted above? “Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.” There’s no excuse for moving the article a third time clearly against consensus. DeCausa (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DeCausa: two people isn't a consensus any more than it's an outbreak! wiki is a frustrating stagnant mess. The default is always on the side of stagnation. Irtapil (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That’s right, you got it. WP:CONSENSUS means the status quo stays until there’s a consensus to change. One person’s “stagnation” is another’s “opinionated editor who knows better than everyone else and everyone would see that if only they weren’t so dumb and blinkered”. I don’t think Wikipedia will catch on. DeCausa (talk)

@DeCausa: but they end up fairly biased, especially for articles with not much activity. because the first snd often only people to show up are the original authors, who obviously like it now it was. or for very active articles it ends up a pointless doom spiral of endless debate, which is way more reading than the references i used for the edit. I tried looking up tiawan for some quick background, that mess is so stuck that i think i'd learn more from a britanica CD ROM. Irtapil (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DeCausa: whereas the president of Afghanistan's page had the local translation of his name as something obscene about a donkey in Dari, and it had been there for months. this website is a mess. Irtapil (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ha...I’ve been on WP for 10 years and the one thing I’ve learned is that everything that could be said about WP has already been said. WP:NOTPERFECT, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. DeCausa (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Graham Beards (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2001:8004:2778:2757:B189:7FA4:7045:D87A (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irtapil (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2001:8004:2778:2757:E488:800C:1124:D29C (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what on earth was this? Irtapil (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Irtapil. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Asdiapod (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re Commons - Notification about possible deletion

Affected:

• File:Annotation 2020-06-10 015951.png

And also:

• File:Annotation 2020-06-09 153036.png
• File:Annotation 2020-06-09 153020.png
• File:ArLam Mirza isolated 2020-05-13 222028.png
• File:Isolated gol hey 2020-04-01 023315.png
• File:Urdu in 17 fonts 2020-03-23 011739.png
• File:Farsi fonts 2020-03-22 2035 close.png
• File:Urdu alphabet in 11 fonts.png
• File:Scheherazade 2020-03-10 045143.png
• File:Scheherazade Annotation 2020-03-10 044952.png
• File:Scheherazade 2020-03-10 044918.png
• File:Lateef unicode U+FDFD 2020-03-09 025349.png
• File:Screenshot to show font displayed on my device 20200308-123619.png

Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EugeneZelenko and Minorax:

WHY!?

that discussion page gives no reason except a link to the general policy.

also, why didn't i get a notification on wiki main page? i only saw this now, and it's obviously too late now!

Irtapil (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please check your notification settings. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EugeneZelenko: that only answers one of the questions. Irtapil (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EugeneZelenko and Minorax: why were these deleted? none of the linked info was informative, it was all general guidelines, and i came see which apply to all these images because they've already been deleted. Irtapil (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

maybe I'll try ((help me)) … Irtapil (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i previously tried asking specific users (see section above) .

I've split this into two separate ((help me)) questions, because it seems likely someone will have time or knowledge to help with one but not the other.

deletions from wiki commons

((help me))

Please read deletion request to find out reason for deletion. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EugeneZelenko: i did! it just listed the files and linked the generic policy. it didn't say which applied. if i missed something, please paste a quote? Irtapil (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

notifications from other wikis

((help me))

For example, I see notification about this discussion in Alerts, so cross-wiki notifications works at least for me. Please explore Notification section in Special:Preferences. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EugeneZelenko: i hasn't even asked the question yet. Irtapil (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022

@Irtapil: Hello, just wondering whether it's good to go ahead & finalize our wording in this discussion or whether you're still on the fence or plan on proposing changes. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WikiwiLimeli: Sorry, i didn't read this until today. I thought that issue was already resolved? Is this why the maritime borders version is back? I'm very sure it's best to avoid the "maritime borders" reference in the lead, there are simpler ways to describe it. What was left ambiguous in the discussion? Irtapil (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. I thought we had consensus as well, but Horse Eye's Back kept reverting [2] and [3], claiming there wasn't consensus. I wasn't sure why, so I pinged everyone again just on the safe side. Horse added a reply very late to that thread, which you might have noticed as well. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WikiwiLimeli: Does anybody other than the Horse Eye disagree? if not, we have a consensus and he disagrees with it, a consensus doesn't have to be unanimous?

Does anybody know why he is so obsessed with that article? He seems either not very well informed, or extremely biased, but i can't even quite worth out what his bias is? "Shared Maritime Borders" seem like a bizarre thing to bring up in the intro for a country that has heated disputes about every one of those borders.

Bizarrely the article on the Geography of Taiwan makes no mention of borders…

Irtapil (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HorseEyesBack is probably the only one disagreeing, as usual. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

actually, has he made an identical revert three times? @Kkevinn6: [4]@CentreLeftRight: [5] or maybe just twice? i think @CentreLeftRight: was making a minor correction to the compromise version that seemed to fit most people's input. Irtapil (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not my edit. Author of that change is on the right, not left. CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CentreLeftRight: well Horse eye definitely didn't add it, i think it was added in a previous edit but you made edits to other bits in between? Irtapil (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I misunderstood. To be clear though, I have no position on the matter regarding the exact wording used in the article Taiwan that you are discussing here. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I have a question. Is University Park any longer a CDP? As far as I can see, there is no Census data for 2020. Has the place merged with another one for Census purposes? Thank you in advance for your reply. Regards, Dionysos1988 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC) ut::Reply[reply]

@Dionysos1988: i have no idea, i think you might have the wrong user? Irtapil (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I wanted to notify you of a couple things relating the template you created Template:Uninastaliq (which is very helpful).

I updated the documentation to note that it is widely used for Punjabi in the Perso-Arabic script rather than occasionally (important since the Noto Nastaliq font includes Punjabi-specific characters).

I also wanted to ask if you would be OK with me moving the Uninastaliq template into Template:Nastaliq, and changing Template:Uninastaliq to an alias/redirect to Nastaliq. I think this would be uncontroversial as it would improve script support across the board without having to update every instance of Nastaliq to Uninastaliq. --Middle river exports (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Middle river exports what would the impact of the move be? Irtapil (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are currently nearly 12,200 transclusions of Template:Nastaliq. The move would update all of these to prefer Noto Nastaliq Urdu over some of the older legacy fonts and the Microsoft system font. Many users are likely also just in the habit of typing the nastaliq template, unaware that a better option exists (this is what I was doing until I saw your template). --Middle river exports (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have decided to merge these templates. In looking at the characters on Saraiki alphabet, ٻ looks invisible with Jameel Noori, but looks fine with uninastaliq fallback list ٻ. I would say that is reason enough to merge. Middle river exports (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed the original template seems somewhat over used, for languages that don't use Nastaliq, like Sindhi. I think the problem might be that in Hindi and Urdu the word "Nastaliq" is often used to refer to all scripts that aren't Devanagari or the Latin script? possibility combined with people using mobile devices that don't display it as a Nastaliq font. I'm not sure what to do about this other than change it to an appropriate ((lang)) template whenever i see it? Irtapil (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Middle river exports: thanks, that sounds like a good idea. Irtapil (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Irtapil. You used the ((Help me)) template, but you wanted an answer from a specific editor. If you still need help, please add your question to that editor's talk page instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.

an edit i made before i liked in tonight was reverted, but was clearly "good faith"? so a block seems a bit much? Irtapil (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it seems to be part of a huge range 2001:8004:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 blocked by User:Guerillero - can't you make that a bit more specific? Irtapil (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i also asked about it on their page User_talk:Guerillero#why_was_my_ip_address_blocked? Irtapil (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023

Live articles are not personal editing spaces. If you want to do some editing with labels to help you out, copy-and-paste the article or some of its sections to your sandbox. This should be obvious but the reason why you shouldn't do that is for the time between your edits, everyone reading the live article will be seeing a WIP message from one editor. Yue🌙 20:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this automatic or pasted from somewhere? Why is it suddenly appearing now? Irtapil (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a templated message from T:DSA to ensure editors are aware. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But what triggers it? I've been editing pages on this topic for weeks.

- Is it just something you pasted manually?

- Were the other pages i edited new and not on the topic list yet?

- Is it which pages I edited or the types of edits?

- Is it because i reverted something?

- What would have happened if I reverted your revert before I saw this?

(Sorry I'm not good at paragraphing)

Also, sorry I've not addressed some of the other messages yet, I'll get to it soon.

Irtapil (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Irtapil: It's manual, and yes, when editors are new to a CT topic area and start reverting things, that's generally when another editors in that CT topic area might post this. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I reverted your edit. I feel i owe you an explanation because your edit note looked upset? I tried to avoid reverting because I know it can be painfully frustrating. But after starting the discussion, I worried that - if the community decided to reverse it - reversal might be very difficult without discarding subsequent edits. On reflection it should be easy enough to put the table back together, or restore any prose that got removed, and at a glance none of the removed prose seems worth debating. I just wanted to explain why i did it in that order. But a question for future reference, so I don't clash with anyone else… I thought the usual process is to keep the old version until after people have discussed it? That's what usually happens when people disagree with my edits, so I thought it was standard? But it would be good if it's not, because "revert by default" makes editing feel futile sometimes. What is the process supposed to be? Irtapil (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The stability of existing content is inherently less of a concern when dealing with extremely recent and new content, where the concept of an 'old version' isn't really applicable. It's natural for new content to get shuffled around by editors. One obvious, but unwritten behavioural rule of thumb, however, is that if an editor has put a lot of effort into a complex edit or series of edits, they are more likely to revert another editor that comes along and undoes that work. It's human nature. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iskandar323: I thought I understood, but now i seem to be in trouble? and I'm very stressed. Irtapil (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You just need to be particularly careful in this topic area, because of the WP:1RR restrictions. Don't get stressed out: at the end of the day, nothing on Wikipedia should truly impinge on your life. The admins at AE will note your unfamiliarity and take it into account. Just read all of the rules thoroughly and be cautious when editing existing content. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

notes to self

• Template:Contentious topics
• Template:Contentious topics/alert
• ((Contentious topics))
• ((Contentious topics/alert))

FYI, you didn't sign here. Feel free to delete this message. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed now. Sorry i get mixed up because some ways to reply now seem to do that automatically but others still don't. Irtapil (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Irtapil: I believe you ran afoul of the one-revert rule with this edit. The one-revert rule prohibits more than one revert per 24 hours. A revert is defined as any edit that "undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part." This edit undid this action. This edit undid this action. It is customary to permit a person who runs afoul of the one-revert rule to self-correct. Please do so by self-reverting this edit. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thaw was an edit i accidentally saved half way through, whose did i revert?

. Irtapil (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You re-inserted the "accused" field in the infobox. If it was an accident, then you should self-revert. --Orgullomoore (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iskandar323: i thought i understood what you said above but now i seem to be in trouble? Irtapil (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you want me to do? I'm reluctant to attempt to "self revert" because you're accusing me of already having reverted something in that page? and we're only supposed to "revert" once per 24 hours? I really don't want to get locked out of that topic. If you want something reverted, why don't you use up one of your reverts top do it? Irtapil (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Diff. For the record, the policy is explicit in saying that "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). . ." You really should become familiar with the sanctions in place. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It didn't seem like a "self revert" should count, but it doesn't seem like others should have either. You are counting a lot of things as "reverts" that do not seem justified. I know it counts as a "revert" if you replicate what a revert would do even without using the "undo" or "restore" buttons, but none of the edits I have made to that page were intentionally identical to a previous version.

I first saw this late last night, so I didn't look closely at what you linked. My first response was because while I was editing yesterday, I thought I'd had trouble saving my edits, but when you said that I thought maybe there'd been someone else editing the page at the same time as me and they'd misinterpreted my conflicting edits as an edit war.

But looking now, the first pair are nearly 3 weeks apart, and match by literally only one word, a key word, but that really doesn't fit any reasonable definition of a "revert". Most of what I added isn't even in the same field of the infobox.

The second pair are an entire MONTH apart, in the field I was unaware had even been previously filled. If I had been deliberately reverting that I would have included the references.

Also, if you objected to these edits so passionately, why didn't you say something on the talk page for the article where i was actively asking for feedback, instead of jumping to arbitration?

Irtapil (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did. You can see my comment right above yours here. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that's just a link to my own edit adding the first comment Irtapil (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I'm going to try to explain this to you step by step. I am not trying to be rude, but I am feeling a bit impatient about this, so please cut me some slack.

Let's start with what a revert is. It is the undoing of another editor's actions. While restoring the prior version of a page is certainly one way to revert, it is not the only way to revert.

Now, how did you revert? First, you added Israel to the "accused" parameter of the infobox. You did that in this edit right here. The timestamp is 22:12, 22 November 2023. How did you reverse another editor's action? Well, because at 19:32 on 5 November 2023, I had already re-removed the perpetrator field from the infobox with the comment: "see the previous RfC and discussion on Talk with consensus to remove perpetrator field" after TimeEngineer added it.

After being reverted on 5 November 2023, TimeEngineer opened a thread on 7 November 2023 at the Talk page. That thread can be found here; it's called "Perpetrator". In it, TimeEngineer asks: Can we put "disputed", with or without footnotes as the perpetrator in the infobox?. There are responses from חוקרת, Selfstudier, and myself. We refer to a previous discussion where a decision was reached to leave this field blank in light of the "perpetrator" being disputed. I linked to the prior discussion.

Now, let's talk about that prior discussion. Because the discussion has now been archived, it can be found here. Note that the discussion is about "Including Israel as a possible culprit at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion." Note that Generalrelative says I suggest simply cutting the "Accused" parameter from the infobox for now.. Note that DeCausa says: Infoboxes are for simple, known facts...the slightest complexity and they al;most always go horribly wrong. "Probably", "disputed" etc etc. It cries out for not trying to cover the responsibility issue in the infobox at the moment - leave it to the article text. Silence is golden.. This discussion occurred from 23 October to 31 October, when the last comment by Elmmapleoakpine was It appears that this is resolved but for what it is worth, I think the lead of the article handles this appropriately now. In the context of that discussion, at 04:57, 23 October 2023, Generalrelative removed the "Accused" parameter, with the edit summary: Rm contested "Accused" parameter for now. See emerging consensus at NPOVN.

Then, you made the above-referenced revert (22:12, 22 November 2023) by re-adding Israel into the infobox as a possible culprit. I reverted you at 23:42, 22 November 2023‎ with the edit summary Removed perp and accused fields from infobox, discussed a million times. 25 minutes later, at 00:07, 23 November 2023, you re-added Israel into the infobox as a possible culprit again, with the edit summary i think my correction glitched in my previous attempt to save this. This was your second edit in less than 24 hours that reversed the action of another editor. What was the action? Removal of Israel as a possible culprit from the infobox. What was reversal of this action? Insertion of Israel as a possible culprit into the infobox.

Then, at 00:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC), I sent you a message (above) asking that you please self-revert, because you had made 2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of WP:1RR applicable to this particular topic. You did not self-revert, so I filed a complaint on the noticeboard.

In summary: (1) initially, Israel was included as a possible culprit in the infobox; (2) after community discussion, the culprit/accused/perpetrator fields were removed from the infobox altogether; (3) TimeEngineer re-added them, and was reverted; (4) TimeEngineer opened a Talk page thread, and was pointed to the prior discussion; (5) you re-inserted Israel as a possible culprit; (6) I reverted you; (7) you re-inserted Israel as a possible culprit; (8) I asked you to self-revert; (9) you did not; and (10) I filed a complaint on the noticeboard. --Orgullomoore (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just meant you linked the wrong thing? Irtapil (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, but if you click the link, right above your comment you can see mine, right? --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no, somebody archived it and broke the link. Irtapil (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right... but you can search the archive. Anyway, I'm just going to back away and let the chips fall where they may on this. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it was appropriate for that section to be archived so quickly. Irtapil (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or at least thar seems to be part of it, the link you gave was for my own edit of the talk page. I saw you mentioned disputed had been discussed before, but I didn't see you comment anything after my first comment. Irtapil (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's fine. I believe you that you were mistaken. I think you should have quickly reverted. It's problematic for you to be editing in a contentious topic and not know what reverting or self-reverting is. I think you are in for a very rough ride if you continue to edit in this arena without understanding the relevant policies. This is very different than editing cat or dog or fingernail or Christmas tree. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Orgullomoore: How do I add things to the list of pages relevant to the conflict? Irtapil (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont understand the question. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is a page relevant to the topic but not currently flagged as such, how do I add it? A notice comes up when I edit most pages about the topic, how does that get there? Irtapil (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request page protection and the admin will add it. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Irtapil. Thank you. --Orgullomoore (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is this resolved above? Irtapil (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is merely to inform you of the discussion at the noticeboard. Since you are aware of it, in that sense it is resolved. The discussion at the noticeboard is still open (last time I checked). I have added a comment that I am not opposed to it being closed so long as you read (and understand and have the ability to follow) the rules that we all have to abide by when editing contentious topics. --Orgullomoore (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anything i need to do about the open discussion? Irtapil (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to add comments there, you can. If you don't have any comments to add, my advice would be to add the page to your watchlist and sit back until there is a result. Though I don't have a crystal ball, my guess is they are going to tell you to learn the rules, give you a warning, tell you not to do that again, and close it out. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a notification that I've closed this with the comment "Irtapil is advised to self-revert when asked to unless they are confident that no violation occurred." I also would endorse the other comments made here about making sure to learn the rules so we don't have issues again. Galobtter (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Is there a link to the archived discussion? It might be helpful for me to read. Irtapil (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archived discussion --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks. Irtapil (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did the arbitration get set off after the "request to self revert"? I hadn't checked my notifications very diligently, so i wasn't very understand with of timeline. Irtapil (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a page explaining the self revert rule? Irtapil (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikipedia:Glossary#Self-revert
• WP:3RR
• WP:3RRNO
• Help:Reverting
• Wikipedia:Reverting

--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks. Irtapil (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Galobtter: Is there an efficient way to check for coincidental partial resemblance to prior versions? It seemed unfair for that to count as a "revert", how am I supposed to avoid that? Irtapil (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unintentional violations are generally fine. That's the reason the admins at the request mostly agreed to not take any action - because it's not clear that the edit you made was revert. Galobtter (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a relief. Defining "revert" that broadly would be near impossible to avoid doing by accident. Irtapil (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the Gaza text you inserted into Christmas tree. Firstly, it is not notable enough in itself for any mention within Christmas_tree#Public Christmas trees. Compare to Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree. Secondly, you had no cites to lay any evidence for the text. Someone else added a cite, to an article barely mentioning a tree and YMCA, but mentioning much from a decidedly non-neutral stance. Thirdly, the timing and content makes this insertion of yours seem motivated by the ongoing conflict, as if you want to bring that struggle into this article.

I don't have current knowledge of the applicable warning templates, so I can't point you to the various WP articles on correct editing. Spreading conflict (especially "bitter and long-standing real-world conflict") to advance a particular viewpoint within Wikipedia is a no-go.

If you feel removing the Middle East conflict from Christmas tree was wrong, you can ask for opinions from people more knowledgeable about WP policies. They might be able to explain better than I. Shenme (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems you often draft your comments on article talk pages as hidden text before making them. Could you avoid doing this, as it causes the pages to show up on watchlists?

Instead, I would suggest you use your sandbox or another user space page. BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BilledMammal

Sorry I've been having trouble with my computers today and needed to switch devices a few times.

I have been drafting in my userspace. I actually thought that was what someone might be annoyed at when I saw I had a talk page message.

I thought drafting in my userspace might mean people get tagged on user space pages? If copy stuff in context, which is necessary for a long discussion. I copied it unfinished whenever I need to switch devices.

I thought commenting stuff out might annoy people less.

Getting tagged in userspace pages is annoying and confusing? Whereaswatch list notifications on an already very active i thought the commenting out thing would annoy people less?

If there is a way to turn off all tagging in a userspace page up switch to doing that.

Irtapil (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BilledMammal

Also I have a bad habit I am trying to break, leaving unfinished edits open in lost tabs. I'm trying to break that habit by switching to a "save as I go" approach. Otherwise I end up losing my work, or when I try to save it clashes with other edits that happened while I had it open. But that's more on main pages than talk pages. Irtapil (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you don't sign your draft comment while you are working on it nobody will be tagged; alternatively, you can use ((noping|BilledMammal)) to avoid pinging people.

Trouble with watchlist notifications is that they get people to look at the page, only to discover that there are no real changes to see; if they use the diff they might even get half way through your comment before realizing its still a draft, which is an even bigger waste of time. BilledMammal (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So a quick search and replace to break any signatures "~~ ~~" would stop anyone getting pinged to my user space? I was doing that already so they didn't timestamp the time I saved the draft. So that's probably the best solution? and it's a lot quicker than commenting out. Irtapil (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commenting out drafts made them invisible to my view. Were you reading direct from track changes to find new replies more easily? and missing the < ! - - at the start?

For very active discussions, it can be tricky to reintegrate drafts from my user space back to the discussion without overwriting comments other people made in between. For those very active discussions, would "DRAFT REPLY I'LL FINISH LATER" at the top (possibly with colourful emojis pointing at it) work? it would be easier to see than the < ! - - combo? Just for very active discussions where reintegrating a draft would be particularly tricky and people are probably getting constant watchlist notifications already?

Often i get interrupted by tech difficulties or offline events.

Irtapil (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BilledMammal

Does linking someone's talk page tag them?

e.g. User talk:BilledMammal

Irtapil (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2024

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

What is the BEST way to make long lists of footnotes collapsing / hidden by default? Something that…

• is compatible with ((notelist)) and ((notefoot)) etc.
• works well under class = "wikitable sortable"
• works on most devices
• doesn't cause accessibility problems

Thanks in advance. Irtapil (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long lists of footnotes should not be collapsed or hidden by default. If you want more help, change the ((help me-helped)) back into a ((help me)), stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not hidden by default? Irtapil (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Irtapil! What was the purpose on leaving a hidden comment on Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, as you did here? (See WP:HIDDEN for appropriate uses of hidden text.) Should the comment be deleted, or made visible? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 12:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry - see above: #Drafting on article talk pages - somebody already asked that, and I explained there. I thought they had already deleted them? Irtapil (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@St.nerol

Actually, now I'm confused, that's a different page, and the "here" links to somewhere that doesn't seem to show any hidden comments?

The "why" will be the same answer as above, but i thought i only did that on one page.

Can you try again with the link, please?

Irtapil (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right that I made some mistake with the link. Sorry! I don't have time to sort it out now, but I'll be more careful next time! —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 09:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you mean this? Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel # what sort of victory? - I think I intended to finish that as a visible comment as soon as I found an agreeable device, but it seems I got side tracked and forgot. Let me know if you find others. Irtapil (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@(St.nerol)

I'll switch to drafting in my user space.

Does linking someone's talk page tag them?

e.g. User talk:(St.nerol)

Irtapil (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@(St.nerol)

I think i deleted that now?

Is there any easy for me to search if there are any others I might have forgotten about?

Irtapil (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that I know of! It sounds like a better idea to draft in user space. :) —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 09:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

moved to my own talk page.

Deletion discussion that might be of interest to you articles on this theme keep popping up, I think the best approach is to "keep but improve"? Trying to delete them for being a weak / flawed idea just means new bad articles keep appearing. A better approach would be trying to write a good article that puts the accusation in a proper perspective / context. Particularly given what that hyperbolic accusation is currently being used to justify. Irtapil (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) This is canvassing. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He'd already been pinged there as having participated in the last AFD, but yes it is. nableezy - 05:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nableezy @Orgullomoore

But i see stuff that looks almost identical to this all the time, what did I do differently that makes it wrong?

I thought the canvassing thing was about spamming numerous people?

Irtapil (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you shouldn't select people you think will agree with you and not select people who you think will oppose you. you should be transparent about your selection criteria to the extents its even necessary to individually invite users to participate. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Orgullomoore

ok, that makes sense. I assumed it only applied to doing that en masse, but I understand now.

I thought I'd seen other talk page messages almost exactly that one, so I had assumed it was ok. If I see stuff like that again should I report it, or warn them not to, or what?

And what did you mean by "already been pinged"? Who did that and how does that work in an unbiased way?

Irtapil (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By "I understand now" I mean I understand for things like RfC, but the rules for "canvasing" in arbitration seem extremely broad. I can see why you're not supposed to directly solicit people to support a specific case, but some extremely broad and indirect definitions of it seem to apply. It makes it extremely difficult to do anything about … even vaguely alluding to the problem is probably forbidden? This is impossible.

Irtapil (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JJMC89 bot @JJMC89 How are we supposed to use our user space to draft things if your robot deletes chunks of the drafts? Irtapil (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. I don't think I've ever warned someone with an NPOV template before, but your edits here go too far; saying things like "the entire population of Gaza has been captured" is extremely partisan, and you need to tone it back particularly when you are putting things in Wikivoice. BilledMammal (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BilledMammal

I just meant the number of people that the thing was done to. I wanted to show the scale of the event somewhere. The prisoners colum was the "best fit" (or least bad fit).

The blockade page was originally linked in the "massacres" table, which I didn't name "massacres", I kept trying to give it less emotive - less "partisan"? - names, but it kept changing back to massacres, so I eventually gave up.

In the "massacres" table the 2 million fit in the "population" column (separate to casualties or captured). But the blockade disappeared from that table, along with a lot of other events that also had their own wiki pages. And that table seems have been renamed now to match what is left.

The blockade is one of the most important events in the war and needs to be listed SOMEWHERE. So, I listed it in major engagements and tried to work with the colmms that were already there. The prisoners colum was the closest available option? That set of columns was where number of people went on that table."Civilian casualties" would have been MORE hyperbolic? And adding a whole new column for "blockaded" makes a big table even bigger for just one row (since you objected to listing stages).

But I didn't think "prisoners" or "captives" was very controversial because globally it is a very widely held view point that the population of Gaza has been imprisoned to some degree for about 17 years. Obviously their situation is very different to the hostages, or the people in Israeli prisons, but the whole population of the Gaza Strip are captives to an extent. If you think this is a fringe point of view, I strongly suggest you actively seek out some more diverse points of view.

I get the impression that your own pattern of editing on that page indicates quite extreme bias. (But I've not checked systematically.)

This war does make me very angry. But I do my best to listen to other points of view and I try and write wiki articles in a balanced and neutral way. Whereas, you don't seem to be trying very much at all to do either of those?

Irtapil (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BilledMammal

Are you editing subheadings on here? Irtapil (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry it auto tahd omm mobile. But doesn't auto sign. Irtapil (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No? BilledMammal (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really think you need to try listening to some other perspectives. Not necessarily mine, but globally. Try to seek out views you disagree with and actually listen to them. I think you are very unaware of your own biases. Everyone is biased, but you don't seem to realise that everyone includes you? Irtapil (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:1RR at List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

You've violated WP:1RR a number of times at this article. Please self-revert the edits that you are still capable of self-reverting.

1. 22:20, 15 January 2024 - Partial revert of 04:34, 30 December 2023
2. 20:14, 15 January 2024 - Partial revert of 16:12, 15 January 2024
3. 18:32, 14 January 2024 - Partial revert of 16:33, 14 January 2024
4. 13:12, 14 January 2024 - Partial revert of 19:09, 5 January 2024

Note that these aren't exhaustive; I haven't looked at every edit you've made to the article in the last few days. BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Added additional detail of what each edit reverted BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please explain how this counts as multiple reverts and what you want done to fix it? I have only seen this now, so the undo will probably not work. Irtapil (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1pn on the 14th to 10pn on the 15 is way more than 24 hours?

are you saying that's two pairs and you want one of each broken?

it seems unlikely i did as many as you are implying so close together, I'm paranoid about the silly revert rule.

Irtapil (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't recall any of those changes matching a previous version? can you show me the version they match?

I thought that section was called "hostages AND prisoners"? before it was just hostages? so the before and after of my exit are you linked are equally close, by including one of them each?

But I'll undo that change anyway, since it at least solves that pair easily?

Directly undoing it restore two subheadings that are inappropriate, headings that I put there for a few hours while editing the page, I'm going to put a commented-out note of what those titles should be, this seems like the best balance of over complying and under complying.

Irtapil (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. DONE because it was the simplest way resolve the first half of your complaint, BUT

2. THIS is not a revert. Please show me the version you think that is a "revert" to?

Irtapil (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe it was a revert if I'm mixed up with the title on the other table?

Show me the version that you think edit 2 is a "revert" to?

Irtapil (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BilledMammal

3. 18:32, 14 January 2024

Please clearly identify which lines you think are reverted?

For the first one I just reverted everything, to be on the safe side, but if I revert everything in that edit, it will be a big mess.

Irtapil (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can’t dig through diffs now, but I’ll respond when I get the chance. BilledMammal (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BilledMammal

• 13:12, 14 January 2024

again, please clarify which part of this you think is a revert, and show me the old version it matches.

I can't see anything on there where another human editor would be likely to be changing it in the opposite direction to what I changed?

I think you might be confused by my own self reverts in that? I've been trying to integrate a few forked drafts from my user space, and add new data from the event pages. So things have changed back and forward a bit, but I'm only edit waring with myself.

Unless you're mad keen on President Mahmud Abas and think Fatah need a Palestine flag? In which case, please raise it on the talk page. Last I heard they denied being still connected to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades? and I presume that's who's supposed to be l listed.

If it is this bit

((flagicon image|Popular Resistance Committees logo.png|size=20px))

That was me having an accidental edit war with a copyright bot, it removed an image that wasn't allowed to be used in that context, and left the template empty, I got confused and readded the image, then it removed it again and I worked out what was going on. I can't revert that because the bot already ate it again, but I really don't think that am accidental fight with a baffling bot counts.

But it looks like that was before the bot.

Irtapil (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said elsewhere, please stop pinging me; I do watch these discussions.

As I said above, I can’t dig through diffs now, but I’ll respond to the queries when I get the chance, probably later today or tomorrow. BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop being so fussy with talk pages, adjust your notifications settings or something. I pinged you twice when you're accusing me, seemingly rather spitefully, of breaking a rule that i obsessively try to avoid breaking. Irtapil (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm making a reasonable request; to not ping me to discussions that I am already participating in or that you have already pinged me to. Please just accept the reasonable request rather than making an issue out of it.

Regarding 13:12, 14 January 2024, it was the switch from Fatah to Al-Aqsa Martyrs.

Regarding 18:32, 14 January 2024, it was the splitting of the line for the blockade; line 146

Regarding 20:14, 15 January 2024, it was the column regarding "Palestinian Factions", that you appear to be in a protracted disagreement about.

Please note that a revert isn't just reinstating a previous version; it's any action that undoes, in whole or in part, a previous action by another editor. For example, if they say "Palestinian Factions" and you change it to something else, that's a revert - particularly if there is ongoing disagreement about what wording to use.

I note that you have since made another 1RR violation; 11:05, 16 January 2024. Making a 1RR violation while a request to self-revert a 1RR violation isn't a good look; I won't ask you to revert this one because it's a reasonable change, and I wouldn't even have brought it up outside this context, but I would suggest you be more careful in the future.

While I am commenting here I wanted to repeat my question from the article talk page that you haven't got around to answering yet; have you been copying content from the Arabic article? BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try to avoid pinging you, it happens automatically on some versions of the site but I'll try to remember to delete the tag when that happens.

Irtapil (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, I'm kinda OCD about the WP:1RR. I'm very careful to avoid breaking it. But I have been trying to keep the page updated to keep in line with changing info on the linked pages, this involves some unintentional back and forward. If you think some of the info is wrong and have sourced to support that, please discuss it on the talk page for the relevant event page.

Irtapil (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding 18:32 - It's merged now, what is the point of objecting now?

Irtapil (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Regarding 13:12, 14 January 2024, it was the switch from Fatah to Al-Aqsa Martyrs. Look carefully at the changes please. Al-Aqsa Martyrs appears automatically for Fatah in one of the templates.

•  al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades is what you get from Fatah in the ((armed forces)) template.

I have commented on the talk page for that template that these two are not synonymous, and the connection is controversial. But I have been using the template (copied from the other pages) sometimes because it is the way to get the Al-Aqsa Martyrs militant group to appear with their insignia, the Fatah flag is different and doesn't show the golden dome of the Al Aqsa mosque complex.

If you really want it to say "Fatah" can you please provide a source to say that Fatah are currently at war with Israel? That is a rather controversial assertion. Fatah control the Palestinian Authority, which is opposed to most of these groups. The PA got kicked out of Gaza when the IDF did. (that's the short version, it's messy).

Regarding 20:14, 15 January 2024, it was the column regarding "Palestinian Factions", that you appear to be in a protracted disagreement about.

• I'm fairly sure that wasn't s revert? I made sure i named it something different to what they previously objected to.
• But I'll try to fix it today. Who was I "in a protracted disagreement about" it with? I'll ask them what their objection was rather than guessing a third time.

Irtapil (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If your have substantive objections to any of these edits, can you please explain them so I can address them better rather than just undo for the sake of undo?

Irtapil (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:05, 16 January 2024 that is NOT a revert.

• You removed words your didn't like.
• You replaced them with words that are identical to the column headings.
• I removed the words you added that were identical to the column headings, as I explained in the edit summary.
• I did NOT re add the removed words, it was not a revert.

WHY did you add words in the columns that were identical to the headings?

Irtapil (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Regarding 18:32" - It's merged now, what is the point of objecting now? To demonstrate a pattern of 1RR violations and with that evidence request that you are more careful going forwards.

in a protracted disagreement about was based on your edit summary; perhaps it was just a one off? Regardless, please keep in mind that even if you don't change it to a previous form you are still performing a revert because you are undoing their change to the current form.

Fatah was just an example of a revert that I found while looking at a small sample of your recent edits; please keep in mind that it doesn't matter whether your revert is right - with very few exceptions every revert will count towards 1RR. The reverts that I did disagree with were putting two rows for the blockade, and calling the hostages "prisoners"; I think I've gone into detail elsewhere about why I disagree with those.

This is a revert because you removed "hostages", undoing my edit. As I said, it isn't something that I would have raised except we were already discussing 1RR violations, and you made that revert while I was waiting for a response from you about those violations. I changed it from "captured" to better align with the sources; "captured" can be legal, "taken hostage" can not.

Thank you for the commitment to try to avoid pinging me unnecessarily. BilledMammal (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just noticed, Fatah was something I added myself from the main page.

 Fatah Al‑Aqsa Martyrs ^[1] ((citation needed| reason = Can an Arabic speaker speak check the source? This was on the main page as "Fatah". It probably refers to [[Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades]]. They were originally the militant wing of Fata, but Fatah no longer publicly endorse them. so this should say "Al-Aqsa Martyrs" - the page about them already details the controversy about alleged continued links to Fatah. |date=January 2024))

Irtapil (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing "hostages" is not a revert, unless your can find me a version where there were previously numbers but no words there.

And you won't find that, because I copied those numbers from the event page myself, including the words you deleted.

"Captured" was from the page for the event is where i copied the number from, discuss it on that talk page of you find it inappropriate.

The table already has a column heading that you prefer, you don't need to duplicate it in the cells. You really, honestly, think we need to add things identical to the column heading in a table you are complaining is already to crowded?

Irtapil (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing "hostages" is not a revert, unless your can find me a version where there were previously numbers but no words there. I don't think you fully understand what a revert is; it is undoing the actions of another editor. By removing hostages you undid my actions, even if the result wasn't something that perfectly aligned to a previous version. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional 1RR violation

Between 22:47, 18 January 2024 and 00:25, 19 January 2024 you made a number of reverts, most significantly 23:23, 18 January 2024, where you reverted the "outcome" and "Hamas and their allies" cells to very close to the versions you previously added:

1. Outcome:
   1. Partially lifted ((efn|name=Holodomor| partially lifted on 20 October 2023, but still more severe than <!-- link page on prior blockade -->prior to October 2023. )) →
   2. Ongoing; partially lifted on 2023-10-20, but still stricter than the [[Blockade of the Gaza Strip|blockade implemented after Hamas took over the strip in 2007]]. →
   3. Ongoing ((efn| name = Winston | partially eased on 2023-10-20,((cn)) but still more severe than the pre-existing [[Blockade of the Gaza Strip|blackade]]. ))
2. Hamas and their allies
   1. ((flagicon|Gaza)) Entire population of the Gaza Strip →
   2. ((flagicon|Gaza)) [[Gaza]] →
   3. ((flagicon|Gaza)) Entire [[Gaza Strip]] <br>((citation needed| reason = how many people is that? ))

Now, you've made a number of reverts re-adding content I've removed - primarily empty columns - such as 10:42, 19 January 2024. Please self-revert these reverts, to bring yourself back into compliance with 1RR.

As a side note, I didn't actually ask you to add the word "Hostages" to cells, but never mind. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then, give me an answer, what remedy were you seeking? How did you want me to resolve your complaint? What was your goal in posting that on my talk page? Irtapil (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:42, 19 January 2024 is an additional revert, specifically of 03:44, 19 January 2024. Making further reverts (and thus further 1RR violations), while a request to self-revert a 1RR violation is outstanding, is very inappropriate. Please stop doing so, and make whatever self-reverts are necessary to bring yourself back into compliance with 1RR. BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop trying to intimidate people with pseudo-Legalese.

Irtapil (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already reduced that to one column, I restored the data your deleted and integrated it into the one column. I was already doing my best to restore a lot of the changes you made, to try to create a compromise version. Despite you suddenly removing a lot of things without consulting anyone else. Anyone else world simply rollback! You are responding to my attempt to compromise and cooperate, by pointing out edits you supposedly object to, spuriously calling them "reverts" based on one or two similar words, and then telling me you don't actually want me to self revert them? So why object if you don't want them undone? What are you trying to achieve by this? Irtapil (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

if you weren't asking me to undo the supposed extra revert of removing "hostages" where it appeared redundantly, what DID you want? if even you agree the redundant word didn't belong there, how does it count as a "revert"? Irtapil (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"while a request to self-revert a 1RR violation is outstanding"? i "self reverted" everything to the best of my ability as soon as you explained what you wanted! and when i did comply, you then told me you didn't actually want me to self revert it? what do you want?

If you don't want me to in do any of these changes, why are you listing them at me?

What is your goal here? what are you trying to achieve? Irtapil (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made ONE real revert, restoring the huge amount of content you deleted without consulting any other editors. I did it in stages trying to preserve anything useful you might have added, most people would have just done a rollback.

Do not redo your deleting spree without consulting multiple other editors about each bit you want to remove.

1. please explain what you want done, those are three different versions. I'll take it out if the footnote so it takes up half the page again if you insist? but, WHY do you want that?

2. I'll remove the cite note if that is your problem, but Gaza usually refers to Gaza City, the blockade definitely was applied to the entire Gaza Strip, I'm not restoring the inaccurate geography without a good explanation?

Irtapil (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general, what I am asking you is to be much more careful with your edits. A revert is a revert, regardless of whether it is right or wrong - I brought up the in-cell "hostage" one only because, while waiting for you to respond to my 08:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC) request to-self revert, you made that revert. What you should have done is responded to the request before making any additional edits, and have been extra-cautious for the next 24 hours to ensure you don't further violate 1RR.

It may be helpful to read WP:3RR if you have not already.

I made ONE real revert, restoring the huge amount of content you deleted without consulting any other editors. I did it in stages trying to preserve anything useful you might have added, most people would have just done a rollback.

No; you made two, and that was the second. Please self-revert that second revert.

As a side note, the WP:ONUS is on the editor wanting to include disputed content. If two editors disagree over newly added content, then it stays out. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am careful, your claims of alleged reverts are extremely spurious. As somebody already agreed in the discussion where several other people have concerns about you. I have self reverted then ask anyway.

What was the "first revert"?

Irtapil (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:23, 18 January 2024, as listed at the top of this section. BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I UNDID THE FIRST ONE TWO DAYS AGO! I did that one first.

• 1. DONE because it was the simplest way resolve the first half of your complaint

at 21:09 on 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Not only was it done more than 24 hours before the actual revert (the one real revert where i undid your deletion spree), it was UNDONE two days before i did the actual revert (undoing your deletion spree)!

So even if i re did it in the process last night, while up all night honestly trying to integrate some sort of compromise version, there is a two day gap!

Irtapil (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I said 23:23, 18 January 2024, as listed at the top of this section, I meant at the top of #Additional 1RR violation; I was referring to the diff named "23:23, 18 January 2024", which was between 11 and 13 hours before your reverts at 10:10, 19 January 2024‎, 10:42, 19 January 2024, 11:11, 19 January 2024, and 12:42, 19 January 2024 - I think there are some other minor intermediary reverts, but these four were the main ones.

I think you've partially reverted 10:10, 19 January 2024, but you need to fully revert to bring yourself into compliance with WP:1RR. BilledMammal (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A month ago I asked this at WP:AE. I'll ask the same here. If you've been asked to self-revert with an explanation, do it, and if you discover after the fact there was no violation then we can handle the false report.

BilledMammal, I appreciate that you're trying to avoid going to AE, but two days of hostile discussion isn't going to help, and it's just going to make sure you two will never agree on anything in the future. If they're not receptive and you're certain there was a violation, go to AE.

Irtapil, if you get the impression that your own pattern of editing on that page indicates quite extreme bias then take your evidence to AE and cut the hostility. Content, not contributor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't see that at the time, but I'll definitely commit to the gentleman's agreement now.

In regards to Irtapil, I get the feeling that they don't fully understand what a revert is, and while I've been trying to explain it to them I'm not sure I'm doing a good job at doing so - in such cases I try very hard to avoid going to AE unless it becomes truly necessary, because I feel that if I can just manage to explain it to them the entire situation will be neatly resolved with minimal drama and no sanctions.

With that said, I was starting to feel that this was a case where I needed to go to AE; my plan was to take them there if they didn't self-revert the next time they edit (with a little extra time because I understand if they want to do other things first); I will stick to that plan. BilledMammal (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish

I have self reverted almost everything as soon as I understood what they would consider a self revert.

I left one real exception, which being only one seems to not break 1RR (especially given I left only one in a window of much more than 24 hours).

The other one seems to have been a self revert in the first place, as far as I can tell. And if it wasn't, I want to talk to the editor who I reverted so I can understand what they were trying to do, it involved a template that has some unpredictable behaviour.

Irtapil (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish

I didn't see this till now, but I think I have addressed it elsewhere.

Irtapil (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or I did see it, now I'm confused, but I got several similar messages in different places. Irtapil (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish

I think I am repeating myself, but responding here because you linked this in the arbitration?

I'm having following what you are referring to when you cross link things between multiple pages. e.g. "A month ago I asked this at WP:AE" the edit didn't seem to be in the page, it might be archived or hidden by a hat note?

"If you've been asked to self-revert with an explanation, do it, and if you discover after the fact there was no violation then we can handle the false report." I self reverted everything as soon as I got an explanation.

The Fatah related revert was awaiting an explanation, I asked whose edit I reverted and I had not yet seen an answer. But it is possible that I didn't see the answer amongst the very many messages I received here.

I took a while to respond to the message on "01:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)" I was trying to focus on some of what other people had said to me. When I was about to respond i saw the Arbitration notice.

But when @BilledMammal sent that last list, they were very well aware that those edits on 19th were part of one multi-step revert that came after @BilledMammal making their own ~60 step edit to the page, several of which were deletions, which thus count as reverts.

A rule of "self revert when asked and dispute later" would be far too easily abused, where there was any ambiguity i did self revert, but one revert in the span of ten days is not ambiguous.

Irtapil (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

remaining reverts

BilledMammal (untagged but highlighted)

Please clarify which you think remain outstanding? I see only one remaining real revert in the span of several days, so not a violation of 1RR. If there is a second one (or others), then I've missed it entirely accidentally, so please explain as clearly as possible what you would like me to do to fix it?

The one remaining real revert is the one where I said I partially self reverted my original revert. I made some attempt to address your concerns even though leaving it entirely my way wouldn't have been a 1RR violation.

The only one I haven't self reverted at all was the Fatah one, which was a self revert in the first place. If I'm wrong about that being a self revert already, you really need to show me whose edit I reverted so I can talk to them about it. The ((armed forces)) template involved has some unpredictable behaviour so I need to talk to them about what they were trying to achieve.

Irtapil (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to self-revert the following diffs, which were made as 1RR violations: 10:10, 19 January 2024‎, 10:42, 19 January 2024, 11:11, 19 January 2024, and 12:42, 19 January 2024

Thank you for trying; I understand the rules can be frustrating and confusing, but they're much of the reason that this topic area is slightly-functional (as opposed to non-functional). (And sorry SFR, I know I said otherwise, but I'm not quite willing to give up on a non-AE resolution just yet...) BilledMammal (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BilledMammal

Sorry, I didn't see this till today, I got several messages at once.

Responding now after having a close look at the edit history of the page.

Those are all part of ONE multi step revert, the one I was keeping in the span of several days.

If multi step reverts do not count as one revert then you have much more to answer for in the preceding 60+ edits you made in quick succession that day. Almost all of which removed content.

And if

If it counts as a revert to do this

Number + captives

• Number + captives ➡️
• Number + hostages ➡️
• Number + no word

… then the 20% of the page you removed in dozens of edits that day definitely counts as more than one revert, I very much regret trying to work with your suggestions and cooperate, I really should have just done a hard rollback, one simple edit, like any other editor would have done.

Irtapil (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refs

You frequently edit articles to add spaces between article text and citation markers. Per WP:CITEFOOT,

Note also that no space is added before the citation marker.

Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only in tables, to make it not screw up the wrapping, or just fit better.

• to stop the marker dragging the whole last word to the next row, even when the test would otherwise fit on the same row.
• or it expands the row when it fits more neatly if it wraps the ref.

That style guide is more for when they're in paragraphs?

• I could do a line break instead? but then it straps needlessly on wide screens.

Irtapil (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, could you please explain why you extended the Battle of Sufa by four days without providing a reference? Filling articles with unverifiable claims doesn't do readers or editors any favors. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove it if you like.

I was looking for a good ref (in English, text not audio, an uncontroversial website, not paywalled, etc.) There wasn't a ref there already, so i figured it wasn't urgent. It's "one side says" but i was looking for "the BBC says that one side says" and probably the vastly different other side of the story as "and Reuters says that the other side says". But i probably should have left it off till after i found a good ref, and just put a "citation needed" on the implied same day ending.

The invasion seems to have shortened retrospectively? which seems very weird? I'm sure a few weeks ago most battles had ends listed around 8 / 9 / 10 October? But they've shrunk now to all 7 / 8 October?

Irtapil (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it turns out, I'm responsible for most of the changes of the battle dates.

I'm aware of four fronts of the invasion that are currently called battles.

Re'im, as far as I am aware, has been considered a one-day battle since the fog of war settled.

Sderot had an end date of 9 October. I added a "citation needed" tag to that date in December and ultimately changed it to 8 October this month based on the prepoderance of the evidence in the body of the article. There was nothing I could find suggesting it continued into the 9th.

Sufa retained an incorrect end date of 10 October from when it was created. The date is the subject of the first discussion on the article's talk page, where consensus was established to remove it. In December, an editor changed the end date to 27 October based on a self-published (social media) source, which I removed per WP:SELFPUBLISH.

Zikim is a very long and convoluted story, but eventually there was consensus to describe it as an "initial battle" on the 7th and "intermittent clashes" thereafter. Amid a major expansion of the article, I changed it to solely 7 October after it became evident the "intermittent clashes" were not considered by RS to be part of the same battle.

As for the main article, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, an editor recently expressed doubt that the listed end date of 9 October was verifiable. After a review of the sources, I agreed with his reasoning and adjusted the infobox to the 8th.

If there are other dates that concern you, let me know and I will be sure to take a look at them.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SaintPaulOfTarsus @Weather Event Writer

I think we need to modify the battle table, or add a separate one, to properly describe "intermittent clashes" at a location.

This seems to be why the West Bank has disappeared? No individual "clash" is "notable" enough?

BUT the series is, the impression currently given is that there's nothing happening in the West Bank, and that's completely unrealistic.

! campaign

! location

! first clash started

! most notable (page link or date and multiple citations)

! most recent clan ended

! colspan=3 |

I'll sketch something out on the talk page later maybe.

Irtapil (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe you can link to individual sections of Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war, city by city. That article looks pretty well-maintained. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SaintPaulOfTarsus

Sorry, I might have misread this.

I like your suggestion of linking that West Bank article City by City. I'm currently a bit scared to edit the page. But when i get time I'll include that in what I sketch out in the talk page.

I think the "initial attacks" were a thing that happened on 7 October (extending to the 8th at most), I actually even opened a move request yesterday to call it that on the basis of "that is what the thing is called".

Some of those became longer battles, some were quickly repelled.

The longer battles were a thing that followed the initial attack?

It does sound like "intermittent clashes" explain disputed dates. The radio interview with Osama Hamdan from Hamas in Lebanon mentioned something like "sent reinforcements" or a second wave. It was on an African radio station with an impossible to navigate website. We can probably find him saying similar things to a much mod popular source, like the BBC or Al Jazeera. His wiki page is out of date so I'm not sure of his current role, he is one of their most prominent spokespersons and possibly the most articulate in English. I'm not sure if I've seen or heard interviews from any others in English? Looking for him will give more detail and context than the usual "Hamas says" stories.

Also look at Times of Israel and Haaretz - if you find anything pay-walled I can send a gift link. The Israeli sources currently in the Battle of Sufa article are possibly not the best.

I'll try to follow up more of this later … if i don't end up exiled by a platypus.

Irtapil (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SaintPaulOfTarsus

I took it off, I'll put it back if / when I find a good enough source to link.

I was kinda thinking in draft mode because that article is a bit sparce and stubby.

Irtapil (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SaintPaulOfTarsus

Same with the West Bank event on 6 October.

Left it off for now, pending some refs that say it's relevant rather than just that it happened. There will probably be some, but I'll leave it off till after I find them.

I added it mostly to test the sorting still worked after I merged those columns. It was the first West Bank event I thought of.

Irtapil (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Afaict, your edit of 09:42, 13 January 2024 at the Hamas apartheid Rfc screwed up the appearance of bullet items in the Survey section of the § Mention of apartheid RfC. It's late here, so I can't go into detail, but see WP:THREAD and Help:List#List basics for proper threading and indentation after a bullet item. When you replied to Homerethegreat's 16:02, 17 December comment, which started with a single asterisk in the left column, you must reply with *: in the left column, not ::. I believe this is responsible for all of the messed-up bullets from that point on, although I haven't had time to test it to prove it, so if I'm mistaken, I apologize. I hope this is enough info for you to figure it out; if not, ping me tomorrow and I'll try to help. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed it up in this edit, Please read those two links to be sure you understand how to reply to a bulleted item, or how to reply to a reply to a bulleted item (quick tip: column one gets an asterisk, then the right number of colons; adding blank lines between comments may screw it up). Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'm busy on another page now, but that sounds fine. I know how they're supposed to work but i use a couple of different devices and one of them has been playing up lately producing some strange glitches and mangled replies. Irtapil (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries; it's good. Mathglot (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

actually, i can't quite see what i did wrong there, that's not the usual glitches i was thinking of, can your clarify a bit? Irtapil (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems your fix involved adding bullets? It looked like only the top level comments in the thread had bullets? i was just copying the trend. Mobile versions only allow placing bullets after colons, so it would be tricky to replicate exactly what you did sometimes. Irtapil (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clear: a standard bullet is the filled-in circle like you see in unicode character U+2022, here: • My edit didn't add any bullet characters, it removed them. An asterisk character (* probably on your keyboard as shift + 8) is what Wikipedia uses to generate a bullet character, but it only works if it is the first thing on the line; I did add one asterisk in column one of several different lines of your edit, replacing one colon on each line, and that fixed the problem. So, adding the asterisks, made the extra bullets disappear. Does that make sense?

Tbh, I don't do much mobile editing, and that uses a different interface, so Im not sure I can help you with that part. It would be good to reiterate your question at the Wikipedia:Help desk, where you will find experienced editors who do have a background in mobile editing. If you do that, please provide a link back to this conversation, as that will help them help you. Starting off with template ((Courtesy link)) would be a good way to go. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mathglot

I meant you were typing * in the code to make it show a bullet?

I've not touched a keyboard in years, my main computer is an MS Surface, not being able to easily switch to Hebrew or Arabic keyboard would be annoying, it's very easy on a touch screen keyboard.

Irtapil (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, Irtapil. In your hatnote at the top, you asked what you could do to give back to foreign Wikipedia communities. One thing you can do, is browse the list of their featured articles, that is, the very best articles they have, that are awarded a Featured Article badge (which will, of course, have a different name in their language, like Articles de qualité in French Wikipedia), and find one or two that interest you, that do not have a corresponding article at English Wikipedia. How can you do this? Fortunately, there's a tool for that: it's called, Not in the other language. As an example, I ran this tool for French, and here are the first 100 articles in French Wikipedia that are Articles de qualité that do not exist on en-wiki. I found fr:Emploi des personnes autistes in the list, which might be Employment of people with autism in English Wikipedia. (Note: the last three words of that proposed title are one of dozens of possible different versions, depending on whether one chooses person-first, identity-first, and other varieties. This is a complex topic that doesn't need to be decided here; just wanted to flag it in case you decide to create this article, that there may be a titling issue that needs to be addressed.) If that topic interests you, you could translate that one. If not, there are plenty of others.

Also, if you have a particular topic are you are interested in, you can specify a category to the tool; for example, if you are interested in the Mexican Revolution, you could ask the tool to list articles present in Spanish Wikipedia about the Mexican Revolution that are absent from English Wikipedia; there are 96 such articles. You could pick any one that interests you, and translate into English (or ask someone to translate it). The Querétaro conspiracy [es] would make a great new article here, and looks interesting and important. Hope this helps, and let me know if you need help using the tool for some other language. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know any other languages well enough to translate. I can read a lot is scripts well enough to spot if "native names" are plausible or missing bits (e.g. a couple of years ago the president of Afghanistan had an interesting string of obscenities in that field that had been there for the better part of a year), but that is about the level of my usefulness in language skills.

I can possibly find and match articles that already exist? if there are any tools to help with that? But not translate things that don't exist.

How do i invite translators? '(or ask someone to translate it)" is a thing i often want a tool for when my curious adventures into the other wikis find things that are not here.

Irtapil (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finding matching articles that already exist: Wikidata is the sister project that is responsible for linking articles on the same topic in different languages. You could ask at d:Wikidata:Project chat and they can probably give you the best advice about that. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Irtapil! We have crossed paths a few times in the past and I actually noticed your hatnote this morning and I wanted to see if you would be interested in helping out on Simple English Wikipedia. Simple English is a version of the English Wikipedia, but it is made in Basic English, so everyone can understand it. The targeted audience is people who are just learning English (English is not first language), children, and adults with learning disabilities.

Coincidental, I found Simple English Wikipedia fairly recently and you may be really interested in helping out. I’ve been writing basically all the articles related to the Red Sea Crisis as well as a couple of related with the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, including starting the article entirely for the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower as well as the article for the Battle of Re'im. I know you have an interest in the realm of the ongoing Middle East conflict, so I wanted to see if you would like to help out. On Simple English Wikipedia, I started a list of military operations during 2024, which has a couple of articles in need of improvements.

It is entirely up to you, but since you are interested in the ongoing conflicts as well as helping out on other branches of Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia may be for you! Anyway, that concludes my message and keep up the good work! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WeatherWriter thanks for the suggestion, I'm not sure, maybe.

"simple" is not a language i am fluent in … I'm really more prone to over complicated? Tables I can do though, is simple English compatible with over complicated tables?

I found simple English wiki a while ago, I had kind of mixed feelings. I liked the idea of being accessible to second language speakers, but the back story to the particular dialect sounded a bit "New Speak"?

22:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I am aware, it is compatible with English Wiki tables. Tables work the same there as they do here (same source-code editing wise). The only thing I notice is honestly the lack of connecting articles. For example, on the Israel-Hamas war article, Simple English duplicated the infobox as well as the campaignbox for the war. But, 95% of the campaignbox separate articles that exist on English Wiki just haven't been created yet. Like the List of military engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article on English Wiki actually hasn't been made on Simple English Wiki. Things like that. I noticed that a whole lot, since I've been basically creating the articles as I go for the Red Sea Crisis (including ships, battles, and even some military branches).

Also, I know what you mean on the "New Speak" style. That said, it is like the 15th largest Wiki produced by Wikimedia, so it must have some decent value. The mainpage on Simple English got viewed over 500,000 times in the last 30 days per the Wiki view checker. Honestly, I'm enjoying the editing since maybe 50% of the articles I want to link to don't exist yet, so I get to create them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not insert blank space between article content and explanatory notes or ref tags, as you did in this edit at 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Examples:

• N – :* 36 children ((efn| including 20 under 15
• Y – :* 36 children((efn| including 20 under 15
• N – :* 373 [[Israeli security forces|security forces]] <ref name="social security data"/>
• Y – :* 373 [[Israeli security forces|security forces]]<ref name="social security data"/>

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I see someone already mentioned this above, and I probably should have replied there, but it was up the page and I didn't notice it before. They linked WP:CITEFOOT for you, which contains the guideance about this. Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mathglot

Yes, thank you. Maybe I need to have a closer look in that style guide. I looked at it briefly when they linked it, and to me it really looks like it's referring to paragraphs? I see why it is best to leave no gap in paragraphs

• we definitely don't want stranded citations or footnotes linwrapping around under a paragraph.
• and having a short penultimate line looks fine when the last line is a single word.

But in tables and info boxes it causes a lot of trouble, or at least looks very messy sometimes.

• in the example that I think you are referring to, the table has several columns that are just numbers and references (or it should be that way, see the section #BilledMammal above re redundant words matching column headings)
• If there is a space then the references wrap neatly below, and are stillclearly in the same cell. The columns all end up much narrower and the whole table fits more neatly on narrow screens, particularly for cells with long numbers of a few references.
• I hoped the "+" was an exception? Or numbers were? But it seems you are saying they are not?

Is there a style guide compliant way to get the game look? to solve that issue? (it's a problem on many pages I work on)

Irtapil (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't overthink it. Some guidelines or info pages have complicated explanations or exceptions, but this is not one of them. It's very simple, has no exceptions that I know of, and it's this: keep the <ref> tag (or ((efn))) tag) butted right up against the content it follows, no intervening spaces, full stop. Forget all about paragraphs, table cells, and everything else. If you see a blank space in any article anywhere between content words and the ref or efn tag immediately after it, feel free to remove the blank space, if you want to. But don't insert a blank there, it's never appropriate. If you have refs in a table cell by itself, then you don't have content before the ref tag, so obviously this doesn't apply, because there's no "between", there's just the reference. Don't know about any plus sign, so cannot respond to that part. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BilledMammal seems to dislike being tagged BTW.

I'll look at the rest in detail later.

Irtapil (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading above it seems that you're a bit unsure about what counts as a revert. Please take a moment to review WP:REVERT and WP:1RR, specifically Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish

I don't know what you mean by method? But I have self reverted all of the accused 1RR violations so far, as soon as I understood which part of the edit in question was supposedly a revert and what it was the complaint thought constituted self reverting the alleged revert. See edit history of the page in question, the edit notes all tag the person who pointed out the alleged revert.

• Most edits they pointed out (that I DID self revert already) had only one word in common (in an edit that changed several connected things), or had only a vaguely similar meaning.
• Never resembling any previous version of a page on any way would make editing completely impossible. And I am beginning to getting the impression that making editing impossible is the goal of the complainant above?

The only cases I refused to self revert were

• one genuine revert out of the >3 day period in question, one per >3 days obviously doesn't violate 1RR (it is also the only one I believe fits a reasonable and workable definition of what a revert actually is, i.e. a definition that doesn't make it nearly impossible to do any editing at all)
• one aspect of one edit that would have reintroduced a link to a disambiguation page, but you have successfully triggered my OCD about 1RR so I'm going to go add that disambiguation link back too, I already readded all other aspects of that revert, see edit history for the page
• one (which I think was on different day to the only genuine revert) which, as far as I can tell, was a self revert in the first place, it was me correcting an error that I had made myself. The edit they linked was me self reverting the page to the version before I introduced the error, reintroducing my own error would not improve the page? And the accused revert was self reverting that error to before I made the error doesn't count because self reverts don't count. But if you can find a different editor who added Fatah to the October 7 attackers? I'll self revet that too, tagging them and ask them for a reliable source.

The thing I am asking them above is why they are going on a hunt for things that technically count as reverts, and bringing them to me as actuations, despite sometimes seemingly having no genuine objection to the impact of the edit, even saying that they didn't tell me to self revert one of them, if they don't actually have spme substantive objection to the edit, why complain? What remedy are they seeking for an edit they don't seem to genuinely object to?

One example

• I copied data from another page that said "20 captured" (and similar data for a few other events)
• they changed "captured" to "hostages"

This was a long word that exactly matched the column heading in a table that has only numbers in that section, other than my recently copied data

• I removed the word "hostages" so those cells also had just numbers like the outriggers in that section

The complainant insisted this counted as a "revert" but when i self reverted it, reading the word hostages everywhere I had removed it, aAthey responded by saying they hadn't told me that they hadn't actually told me to re-add the word hostages. So what did they want? What was their purpose in complaining that my good faith edit that improved the page was a revert?

Irtapil (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can find a different editor who added Fatah to the October 7 attackers I'll self revet that too, tagging them and ask them for a reliable source.

• Al Aqsa Martyrs were probably imvolved but Fatah is more controversial, I get the impression they're doing a bit of Putin / Wagner thing denying any association
• it's not implausible Fatah are directly connected, Hmas have requested a Fatah leader in the hostage exchanges.
• this request from Hmas world be inckuded on the page if the above complaint wasn't (as far as I can tell) systematically removing any and all reference to Palestinian prisoners in Israel from that page, along with a huge amount of other things.

Irtapil (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm leaving out that a on purpose Arabic: ا ≠ ــَـ and ح ≠ ח either, but that's another story.

Irtapil (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a whole lot there, so for now I'm just going to address a couple points. First, method means that any way you edit a page, whether it be using the undo link, rollback, twinkle, redwarn, ultraviolet, a manual edit, or any other way.

Second, Never resembling any previous version of a page on any way would make editing completely impossible. And I am beginning to getting the impression that making editing impossible is the goal of the complainant above? The point is for the articles to be the result of consensus. Because of the long history of edit warring in the topic Arbcom has levied 1RR on the entire topic to force people to discuss, rather than revert. Generally, once something has become the stable (which varies in time, I've seen people say two weeks to six months in different discussions) it's not seen as a revert to change it. In many of the new articles about the current conflict there is no stable version.

And finally, again, stop commenting on what you think about other editors' motives. If you believe there has been disruptive editing take it to WP:AE or WP:ANI and present diffs of the disruption with a concise explanation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish

I've read it now.

I see what you mean by commenting on motives, and how that might come across, but I didn't want to take it straight to a separate arbitration without giving them a chance to explain.

I say "separate" because the the editor was already being discussed in Arbitration raised by another user. It was a general discussion about a potential patern of behaviour. I raised a few of my concerns there.

One of the motives I was wondering about was the possibility that trying to catch me on a technicality was retaliation for concerns I had raised there.

I have been worried by that editor foot a couple of months but not been sure what to do about it.

I have been worried by that editor foot a couple of months but not been sure what to do about it. I am very worried by how much that user is deleting from pages related to the war. I didn't want to accuse to openly, or generally jump to conclusions, without looking at it in detail and I hadn't had the time to do that yet.

The one edit I was refusing to undo Was a multi step revert I did which restored content they had removed.

They reduced the overall size of the page by about 20% in a series of over 60 separate edits (counted just then) over the course of (from memory) about ten hours.

Nobody else has agreed to this being necessary. They raised some of it with me and I disagreed, nobody else responded. They did nothing to solicit other responses like tagging other recent editors or lodging a fornal RfC. They just unilaterally deleted a vast amount of the page, including every section of the page.

I restored what they removed. They have raised WP:ONUS but it was way to much to feasibly discuss in a timely manner. If such large unilaterally made changes were left too long - and during that time subsequent edits were made by other users - I worried that it would quickly become unfeasible to reintegrate forked versions.

I restored what they removed. They have raised WP:ONUS but it was way to much to feasibly discuss in a timely manner. If such large unilaterally made changes were left too long - and during that time subsequent edits were made by other users - I worried that it would quickly become unfeasible to reintegrate forked versions. restoring anything

I did it one section at a time to have a closer look at it as I went, and to reduce the risk of both technical errors and my own human error.

A lot of it was structural rather than content (e.g. columns of tables that were recently constructed and not yet filled), but I've still not had a chance to closely examine whether they did remove any meaningful content.

I did however notice this morning that the pages shows no airstrikes in Gaza after 15 December, which is obviously not very realistic? But I have not had a chance yet to see if anything was added there that then got deleted. Irtapil (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm had a weird glitch and it sent a bit early and I'm not sure if it sent at all. If it did send it was mostly finished. Irtapil (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish

sorry, i never did fix that, was it coherent enough? or should i tidy up?

Irtapil (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to be so verbose, I got a bit side tracked on a tangent about a thing I find interesting. But not much of really needed a response? I don't have time right now, I will read later. Irtapil (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]