Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron
Wikipedia adsfile info – #193

Tagging

What categories do you suggest were missing from Burrangong Argus? Two categories is not unusual for a niche, specific topic.

If you don't know, I suggest you desist from pointless tagging of this nature in future. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: excuse me dear, you tell me that an oldest newspaper article, does not need any other categories? my Tags is used to help articles to improve more, however if you think i am making any mistakes while reviewing and tagging articles please Revert any Edits that is not "seem" useful or not useful. Thanks —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you a specific question: what categories do you think were missing that exist? If you have no idea whether or not it actually has more categories that it should be in, but are just slapping a tag with any article with a couple of categories for the sake of it, you are doing the absolute opposite of "helping articles to improve more" - you're making a mess of articles that are already completely correctly categorised. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also see from your edit history that you've got serious form for doing the same things on other articles. Many of those articles are appropriately categorised and your tags will either sit there until the end of time or until someone cleans them up and just removes them as I did. Unless you are aware that there are actually significant deficiencies in the article categorisation (with actual categories that you know exist), please don't tag them - it amounts to tagging in the graffiti sense, not in the maintenance sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear i think i am helping those articles to "Improve" Please if you think any of my edits or "sense of judgment" is wrong or if it seems that i did them by mistake, please link them to me, so i can fix them and learn more —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a string of articles on small villages that appeared to also be correctly categorised. It may be that there are other relevant categories in those countries' category trees, but if you don't know that, you should not be tagging them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: "Appeared to be correct" are you sure? i think this is a false accusation, also i tag them to be improved not to lower their article's quality it seemed that they lack of sufficient categories to me so that's why i did that, and thank you again for teaching me more about wikipedia i appreciate your kindness Feedback like yours improve my sense of judgment, so i am not doing the same mistakes in the future, please feel free to report any mistakes that made by me, Regards —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you think it is a "false accusation", which categories do you think should have been included in those articles? If you have no idea, don't tag it. If you have absolutely no idea what categories you think they should be in, you have absolutely no basis to assume that they lack sufficient categories. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also finding your tagging inappropriate in a lot of cases, for example, if a biography has no sources then you only need to tag it ((unreferenced)) (or better still ((BLP unsourced))), you don't need to tag it with ((BLP sources)) as well. Imagine how you would feel if you wrote a new article and somebody tagged it excessively. --John B123 (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: i take your suggestions and i will do better in the future thank you

Tagging the lead for "fact" when the fact was in the article citations

Hello, I'm Netherzone, we appreciate your contributions, however I noticed that you tagged the lead section of an article I recently created, Terran Last Gun with "fact"/citation needed regarding his membership in the Piikani Blackfoot tribe. That was not necessary. Lead sections do not need to have citations, per wikipedia guidelines and the WP Manual of Style. If you had taken the time to actually read the article, and the citations in the article, you would have seen that multiple sources back this up. I will be reverting the tag. Here is a link to WP:MOS, while it is a very dense and complex document with many parts, it is really helpful to know these guidelines. I also noticed that the vast majority of your edits are tags, you might want to try your hand at creating some content, e.g. new articles or additions to articles, and if you continue tagging, please read the article first and the citations first before tagging. Thanks and best regards, Netherzone (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: well thank you for informing me, but i thought the leading section needs footnote at least one to support articles quality, thank you but i am sure i am not wrong, because the article has enough resources at least one of them should be used in leading section don't you think so? thanks —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Sakura, I'm just a bit curious, did you actually read the article and the citations in the verifiable reliable sources? No offense friend, but in the time it took to tag it, you could have added one of those citations yourself. I do appreciate your interest, tho. Best wishes, Netherzone (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Netherzone: i am so sorry 🙏 if my acctions were hasty, well i do participate to Improve and help article's and warn it to Improve their Quality, but not to bombarding them with taggs, my Main Goal is to tell the Creator of the article or someone else to improve the Article's Quality that's all thank you for friendly behavior your speeches were highly appreciated by me :) > --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind reply. The reason I asked the question above (which you did not answer) is that I noticed that your tags are made about 1 minute apart or even tagging more than one article within 1 minute. Respectfully, I can't understand how you could actually read articles and citations so fast. What would improve the quality of an article is to add the "missing" content if you think it is lacking, otherwise your actions could be perceived as "tag bombing" which some might see as disruptive editing. See: WP:TAGBOMB. Netherzone (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
omg @Netherzone: i am not tag bombarding nor intended to do, if it is about your article well i am sorry, i explained why i did that, if it is about other articles please link them here i can explain my actions one by one, if i happen to fail to give an Appropriate Explanation to one of my actions or if one of the explanations "Seem" illogical i will Apologize to the article creators one by one --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a pending changes reviewer!

Hi Sakura emad! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes, and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tools. Instead of having you formally request the rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.

Please keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:

  • A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges.
  • A list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
  • Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
  • You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
  • Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:

I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page - I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah aw omg 😊 thank you, i will try my best —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis International Airport

I did not see any source provided. Could you please tell me where there was one? 47.227.95.73 (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dear IP, (here screen) i marked what you've undid, and i see the source before me provided, please let me know if i am wrong regards. --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry that I didn't see that. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no problem have a fun ^_^ —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi Sakura emad! I saw that you applied for the rollback user permissions at WP:PERM. Unfortunately, I decided to decline your request to have rollback granted onto your account at this time. See my response to your request (diff, permalink) with the exact reasons why. In a nutshell, you're doing extremely great work with reverting vandalism, but you haven't been doing it for very long yet. There's also an awesome tool that I mentioned that you should enable if you don't have it enabled already. Keep doing what you're doing, keep up the great work, and let's meet up in about a month from now and let's discuss you getting rollback. I'll be happy to grant you the user right; we just have to see you participating in "vandalism-fighting" for a bit longer in order to make sure that you're proficient with it. :-) If you have any questions, let me know and I'll be happy to respond to them and discuss this with you further. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i definitely supported the line that you mentioned in there, and to be honest i can't believe you're going to support me, like this is too much for me, when i first came here i felt lonely and frustrated, i had less confident about myself back then, in nutshell i am really happy to have you and collogues in the community. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This community is awesome and I'm happy that you're apart of it. :-) Yes, you'll run into unfriendly editors who will be uncivil toward you, and yes, you'll definitely have some times where you'll find yourself in a dispute and left somewhat frustrated. It's inevitable with such a large community of editors, but it's not something that you should worry about. Should you ever run into a situation that leaves you feeling lonely and frustrated again, remember that there are lots of editors here who will drop what they're doing and help you. Don't ever feel like you're alone here. We're here to help you grow, become more experienced, and learn while you volunteer with us. I was just like you when I was becoming established on Wikipedia long ago. I had a lot to learn, I was new here at one time, and I spent my time learning more and growing as a member of the community - it's definitely worth it! I can absolutely tell you this: If you keep up the great work that you're doing, if you enjoy the things that you're doing here, and if you decide that Wikipedia is a place where you wish to contribute to regularly as an editor, it's definitely a great place to be apart of. You're on your way up here! Just remember that everything you're doing (even if they seem small) make an impact on Wikipedia and make it an even better place. I started editing on Wikipedia regularly back when I was in High School, and I actually started off as a vandal and a troll before I decided to jump the fence and start working as a "good guy". That was 14 years ago. Back when I was 15 years old and adding vandalism to Wikipedia, I never once imagined at all that I'd be where I am now. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah i felt lonely and frustrated, but eventually things become easier for me, but something made me worry like you mentioned

you'll run into unfriendly editors who will be uncivil toward you

to be honest i felt disappointed 😥 towards myself, cuz i think i was unfriendly with IP Users, even if they do vandalism they maybe new, or they think they're right, i mean they're doing it to improve something "in their opinion", so i am trying to be better and have a good faith towards them, and i am really happy like i couldn't believe there's someone can support me like this, about wikipedia i think it's fun and a place where i am learning more by editing, and i will try to do my best, ^__^ like really, and please don't blame yourself about the past, you're absolutely doing great now, and i am looking up to you && learn more from you, and can i ask you questions? i wonder if it is ok to ask multiple questions ^_^ thank you very much again —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Users who engage in adding vandalism and bad-faith edits are not here to help Wikipedia improve and be better. Users who purposefully disrupt the project and abuse it are here to degrade the project and cause turmoil. Yes, you should be civil and professional with all users, regardless of what they're doing - but don't let yourself believe that users who purposefully engage in abuse and disruption are here to help "in their opinion". They're here to be unhelpful, and their disruption should be reverted and the user reported so that they can be shown the door. Stooping to their level and behaving uncivilly toward them only gives them what they want - which is to waste your time and make you angry. By being professional and respectful toward all users, you accomplish a number of things: you put yourself as the mature editor who doesn't let themselves get phased by trolls and immature kids, and you don't give the trolls what they want. :-)
Of course! You can ask me as many questions as you want! I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. :-) What's up? What questions can I answer for you? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
as you continuously supporting me, my confidence continues to grow as long as my happiness, thank you alot, about the questions i may get alot of questions in the near future that i need to ask you, i truly appreciate it your kindness 🥰 —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me learn more from you in the future. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sakura emad, you are more than welcome to ask me questions any time you have them, and you are more than welcome to learn from me as an editor any time you want. I'm happy to help, I'm available, and I'll help you with anything that you need. I'm here for you! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🥰🥰 omg thank you alot, well i feel better now i will do better <🌸> —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darna (2021 TV series)

I want to clarify you that only 2 cast members (Jane de Leon and Iza Calzado) have already been confirmed for the TV series so far. I just want to ask because I saw your edits, can you please EXPLAIN these two edits [1] [2] that you've done over there? You know, that "adding a lot of unconfirmed cast members without a source link" thing? -136.158.42.180 (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear IP, ok if you think my Reverting was "wrong" don't you think your Removing is also "Wrong" For example if you experienced here, i refer you to a template called ((fact)), don't you think placing this template in there, is better than removing the complete text from the cast? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to learn how to follow the rules of WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOT, etc. -136.158.42.180 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok i am trying to learn more thank you, but please can you tell me removing them completely from the list is the right thing to do? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as long as nothing confirmed yet about the other cast members for Darna (2021 TV series) or any upcoming future teleseryes, it's better to remove all the vandalized/hoax edits/lists about unsourced cast members that are not in the projects. Just wait for announcements from the management. -136.158.42.180 (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
well i learn more from you or other editors, however my opinion about uncertainty is remains the same we can't remove or add anything without the sufficient resources, currently no sources are presented so i think let's wait and see as you said

wait for announcements from the management.

let's wait and to know if the names should stay still or should be removed from the list, thank you regards. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, keep in mind that there are disruptive IP users like 124.106.226.215, 58.69.105.139 and 58.69.105.140 (etc. all per WP:SHARE) who have the same behaviors, same comments, and same disruptive edits. They are very suspicious that needs to be reported and block. -136.158.42.180 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Wall (band)

What information in my edit required a "source"? It was run-of-the-mill copyediting. 156.57.13.133 (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dear isn't it obvious? one of the examples Scotland is the part of UK why do you removed it from the origin, and another example you unlinked some linked pages, do you think i am wrong? by reverting your edits? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what is it that requires a "source"? And does MOS:OL not apply? 156.57.13.133 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we're talking about back then right?, that's what made me to revert your changes, One:Removing UK from The origin, what i saw from MOS:OL It says excessive Linking is unnecessary, i think it does not supports removing&&Deleting them? as you did and made me to ask you for that, two: i thought you added new information to the article am i wrong? correct me if i am, and Note:: i am really sorry for my bad behaviour and calling you "destroying article", i do apologize. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What "new information" are you referring to? 156.57.13.133 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is just what i felt back then, i reverted to the last revision 02:03, 13 August 2021 —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please (Take a look) thanks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hi, Sakura. Just dropping by to thank you for your warm welcome to Wiki. Even though I've been editing articles for a couple of years now, the links you sent me will be taken into account in the future. Feel free to delete this message once you have read it. Regards!

thank you i have done nothing let's be friends please create an account and let's have a chat frequently --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful

You warned an IP for "unconstructive editing" because he corrected an error in an article, and reverted him, removing correct information, and adding incorrect and misspelled information in its place. He didn't add a source for the correction, but it could've been verified with a five-second Google, and warning him for "unconstructive editing" (!) for a legitimate correction is very misplaced. That was an excellent way to burn a completely legitimate potential editor. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wow dear you terribly terrified 😰 me at the beggining when i first read your Warning, however after a glance of looking in the situation it was not like you were talking about, anything you add to the wikipedia must be supported by Sources, The IP Just Simply could add a single source, however i did not

burn a completely legitimate potential editor

, i just simply warned them by saying some sources in the Article, And just simply added a general Note of Van which says "they did not appear constructive", i think i did the right thing, if not Please let me know —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You re-added unsourced material that was both outdated and misspelled and warned the editor who had fixed the error for not being constructive! What about that says "right thing" to you? Yes, the material should have been sourced, but the version you reverted to wasn't sourced either, and a five-second Google would have both established that the IP was correct and give you an abundance of possible sources. A more sensible thing to do would have been to do that five-second Google, thank the IP for the correction and explain the need for sourcing in future, as opposed to undoing the correction and re-adding unsourced, wrong information. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife ok thank you very much, i will be more careful next time, i will keep the standards. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything has to be explicitly sourced. Sometimes, there's only one source needed for a 4-5 sentence paragraph. You need to judge sourcing in the context of the needs of the article. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lilburn article

Hello Sakura, I'm sorry you feel my edit to this article was unconstructive, but I'm afraid that if you inspect the citations previously included in the article, my edit was necessary to reduce the article to a state where facts are accurately represented- a check of the article history reveals it to have been one big vanity project on the part of a single editor anyway, which is where the inaccuracies and mythologising have crept in. I would appreciate you restoring my changes, but if not I will redo it later since as I say the standard of the article prior to my edits was atrocious. I see from the discussion above you are a little too enthusiastic in going for what you think is "unconstructive editing", and would urge you to spend a little more time examining the situation before doing so in future; I haven't got endless time to redo things I've already spent an hour on!

Not to worry, I've restored the previous state of the article.

see [1] and discuss it in the talk page Thanks.--—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll repeat my message to Justiyaya:
Hello Justiyaya, I'm frankly rather saddened and bewildered by the way two editors have now decided to take me to task for improving an article that was previously nothing but a collection of disconnected factoids, half-truths and outright falsehoods, many stemming from sources such as "House of Names" which I replaced in many cases with carefully researched published sources, removing that which was unsupported by sources and reorganising the article to have some form of structure and focus. I'm afraid I simply don't have it in me to argue and back-and-forth after years on Wikipedia seeing it go nowhere, but I repeat I am saddened that my improvements have been disregarded out of hand; if you and Sakura can genuinely look at both versions of the article and consider its previous form superior, then I really don't know what to say, but I shan't be editing it further.

Sakura, I see from your edit history you're relatively new here; let it be known you've done a poor job in this case, a very poor job indeed, I'm afraid to have to say. Wikipedia is now very slightly worse because of the inferior state in which that article has been left, but oh well.

Dear IP Please Register and Let's Have a Proper Talk i am not against you nor any Unregistered Users i am one of you, and yes i am new in english wikipedia, i am looking forward to have a chat with you and let's fix the problem. --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that IP editors are human too. While it's generally good to encourage anonymous users to register an account due to the benefits that using an account provides, you shouldn't ask them to register an account as a condition of being able to discuss something with you. Your last response here appears to convey that they need to have an account in order to discuss their concerns with you and fix the content to an article. This absolutely isn't true. I've had many discussions with many different IP users (many of which I still interact with to this day), and we were able to work together and resolve issues just the same as if they were users with registered accounts. IP users have just as much "editing rights" and should be treated the same as registered users. Don't forget that! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
dear @Oshwah thank you for your suggestion and remembering, you're right i know and i acknowledged that they have as much right as registered users do, well some of IP addresses even i saw them they're Participating with us in reverting the vandalism, some of them have received Barnstar for their acts!, i am sorry if my acts appears to show that

Your last response here appears to convey that they need to have an account in order to discuss their concerns with you and fix the content to an article.

but it was not intentional and i am not intended to do so. thanks —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15/08/2021

Information icon Hello, I'm 109.254.254.156. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.Template:Z186 109.254.254.156 (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@109.254.254.156 dear let's contact an administrator Please to see who's wrong and who's right. as i said if i am the one who's wrong i will certainly write an apology letter into your page, if not i can't let you delete warnings as you wish, that's what i am saying and i am not changing my opinion, i will contact an adminstrator if you're not!
will tag @Oshwah
to review this case (1) —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that I had the right to clear my page according to the rules of Wikipedia. The warnings were unconstructive: the first mistakenly assumed that I was "inserting original research" while I referred to a source that had been in the article for a long time - this issue was resolved and the person who left this message admitted that I was right. The second one "warning" is from an editor who does not understand what is vandalism and what is not, but likes to leave warnings about it. In general, I have the right to clear my page from the clutter of text that was left by mistake.109.254.254.156 (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@109.254.254.156, as i said from the beginning i will write an apology letter in your page, if i did that with my stubbornness by mistake, however i haven't heard of @Favonian's final word, why don't wait some more? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read again the first post of the admin: "In general, users may remove messages from their talk pages as they see fit. There are a few exceptions (where user can't delete stuff on their pages) listed at WP:BLANKING, but they do not apply to the case of User talk:109.254.254.156." (c). Which mean that my page - my business.109.254.254.156 (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @109.254.254.156, i will let you know i am not against you nor happy to keep those warnings in your talk page, but i am doing my job as a vandal fighter, i do know you're not vandalizing in wikipedia, i feel like you're experienced User (though idk why you're not registered yet), anyway at that time i wanted to keep the warnings to prevent further vandalism as i saw them in your talk page, (old reply) —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! See this section of Wikipedia's policy on user pages. It states that "[p]olicy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages." There is a small list of things that users cannot remove from their own talk pages, but for the most part - if a user wishes to remove old warnings, block notices, etc from their own user talk page, it is allowed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hello @Oshwah Thank you i understood now checkY —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Users blanking their talk pages

In general, users may remove messages from their talk pages as they see fit. There are a few exceptions listed at WP:BLANKING, but they do not apply to the case of User talk:109.254.254.156. Favonian (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian, Thank you for joining our conversation and sharing your experience with us, i will let you know that i think he/she can't remove warnings, at least he/she have to wait one month before blanking it. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
these are warnings tags placed in the users Talk Page due to valid reason. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "grace period". They can remove the messages immediately, should they so choose. Favonian (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
so they can remove the warnings immediately! —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i thought they can't remove the warnings however, you Stating that this is not applies to this user.

but they do not apply to the case of User talk:109.254.254.156

—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian Good. I deleted your message - I had the right to do so (especially since we decided this issue because of which you left it). But the second warning is a violation of WP: Vandalism rules. She (Ivana) had no right to leave this warning to me because my actions are not considered "vandalism" according to WP:vandalism.109.254.254.156 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a friendly talk page stalker: There seem to be two misunderstandings occurring: Sakura, Please read Favonian's message more carefully, otherwise it is easy to misunderstand. Favonian wrote: There are a few exceptions listed at WP:BLANKING, but they do not apply to the case of User talk:109.254.254.156. There are two parts to the sentence, the first is about the exceptions listed at WP:BLANKING - did you read and understand that part of the sentence? Then, there is a comma, and then but they do not apply to the case of" this IP. WP:BLANKING says that SHARED IPs should leave the message there, User 109.254.254.156 has not stated that they are on a shared network. My reading is that the messages that are EXCEPTIONS are things like block messages, and it is those that should not be removed. In the case of this particular IP, they do not apply. I do not think they did anything wrong by removing the messages, by doing so they acknowledged they read them, and they are preserved in talk page history. Secondly, I looked at the article in question Napoleonic Wars, and read the citations. The IP is in fact quoting the number of French casualties listed in citaton #27. However, if one reads deeper into the citation, several researchers list different numbers of casualty estimates. Perhaps the previous number was an average? Either way, it might be more productive to use the talk page of the article to hammer this out and avoid further misunderstandings. I think we have to give the IP the benefit of the doubt that they are a good faith editor, was not vandalizing nor adding unsourced material. I do suggest they use article talk.....Just my two cents.... Netherzone (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the only ones that really needed in the infobox. These data are the only ones of military losses from 1792-1815 from presented sources (the time when the events took place to which the article is devoted). The previous values considered only 1805-1815, these are not average values, but simply different ones.109.254.254.156 (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i am still not perfectly sure about the case, if i am %100 wrong or right, but i said that i am going to write 📝 an apology letter if i was wronged right?, so i am going to write one. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@109.254.254.156, as i said i am not happy to keep warnings in your page, it was just for preventing as i felt they should be stay in the page to let the user know and other Vandal-Fighters that the user is warned. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting edits ...

... especially ones that fix factual errors or poorly written sentences. If you're really experiencing high levels of stress, maybe you should take a break from Wikipedia for a while until you're relaxed. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dear @136.49.32.166 i have a question for you —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pangkal Pinang

Keeping the 2010 population figures in the first paragraph when the 2020 census has been released is just irrelevant clutter that can be found in the demographics below anyway, so I removed it again. --50.72.215.179 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@50.72.215.179, thank you, note: i revert changes that Changes or removes without proper explanation, any edits that Fails to meet WP:CITE, WP:RELY —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and even sometimes i even reverted things similar to your edit look here, it's right that the user update an removed outdated events however if they not provide sources they can't replace it with new updates, in short Everything you add to wikipedia must be attributable to reliable, published sources. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you shouldn't assume that just because someone didn't leave a summary that it's automatically wrong without actually looking and understanding what was being changed. I didn't need to source the new info cause it was already sourced right next to the old info. Take a moment to analyze what the actual change was. --50.72.215.179 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I understand you enjoy working hard to make this site a better place, and that's appreciated. Just be a little careful with what you revert. --50.72.215.179 (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @50.72.215.179 (talk) i appreciate your feedback as it helps me to gain more experience, i will keep them in mind and try better as Much as possible[1], it's written in my User page "This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.", Thanks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watch what is and isn't vandalism

Please be careful with rollbacking. You have rollbacked numerous edit that were not vandalism. Don't assume that the edit is vandalism if it is from an ip. Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattplaysthedrums Hello Dear, i am trying my best to keep the standards, however if i know i do mistakes i will correct them[1][2][3] can you let me know where i made mistakes, i will appreciate if you link them to me, as i am going to correcting them and learn more from them, i am not pro and i am experiencing significant stress while Participating in wikipedia[4] beside that i am trying to do my best. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakura emad The mistakes you made were all apologised for. I suggest you take a Wikibreak if you are feeling stressed about woking on Wikipedia before you continue editing. Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattplaysthedrums no i am not taking unnecessary breaks where in my area there is no breaks for me —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattplaysthedrumsi am not stressed about wikipedia and i really appreciate being here, please don't take it from me, it is one of my happinesses. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i just need to work in quieter areas and avoiding complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take a break from Wikipedia. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
why? i already explained it. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've been reverting legitimate edits, including ones that were explained and also included references. While you may need something to help you cope with what's happening in your life, it's unfair to other Wikipedia editors that you're using this place as your therapy. In the process, you are undoing other people's hard work. Look at this picture: https://i.postimg.cc/xd0cRtQ4/Fragment.jpg . I fixed this useless fragment, and you reverted me without even reading what you reverted. What a waste of time. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain things more Logically and Understandably while i am saying i am happy to stay here, it doesn't mean i am using this place as my therapy, Yes this is correct i do mistakes sometimes includes your edit[1][Yours], however i undo them to their original edit in time (After reviewing my Revert)[2][3], However i am not a robot nor Programmed being, i can do mistakes from time to time ⌚, and i appreciate your friendly behavior and understanding towards me, i am not using my stress or health condition as a shield to Protect myself or to continuously do mistakes (No!), watch my Anti-vnd History if you find my activities useless and prove i am a useless Anti-Vandalism fighter i will resign Regards. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Vandalism Unit - Academy

Hi Sakura emad! Did you know that Wikipedia's Counter-Vandalism Unit has its own academy? I don't know if it's any good (never tried it myself), but it may be something for you to check out! Sincerely, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i did @Apaugasma dear thank you, i even send a message to one of its tutors. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Power

Hey, I closed the discussion as requested several days ago, does it need re-opening to allow for the IP's input, or is it best left closed?. Best StarryNightSky11(talk) 00:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear> @StarryNightSky11 to know if it's best to close or not, first we need to know if the IP address can tag any of us again in their talk page to re-open the discussion, if the IP Address have an ability like that, then it's best to be closed until the IP Address requests for re-opening the discussion, (My opinion) Thanks 😊 —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well the IP had a 72 hour (3 days) block which has expired, and they are free to edit, although I haven't seen a request to reopen the dicussion so I'll go with what you've said about waiting until they make a request to do so. StarryNightSky11(talk) 00:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well Done 👌 dear, Thank you for the Hardworking 😊 —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Happy editing. StarryNightSky11(talk) 01:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reverts of edits

Hi Sakura emad! I hope you're doing well and that you're still continuing to learn and grow on Wikipedia! :-) Unfortunately, I've had some users come to me expressing concerns regarding some recent reverts that you've made that ended up being either mistakes on your part or that were not blatant vandalism or disruption. I also note that your user talk page has lately consisted of users coming to you asking for an explanation to your reverts and the warning messages they received from you. You remind me of me at times; I tend to let myself go too fast with making decisions, edits, reverts, and changes - and I've had to be reminded in the past to slow down and make sure that I'm only reverting things that should be reverted.

Overall, you've been doing a great job, but lately it seems like you're going too fast and reverting changes in cases where you're not sure whether or not they're vandalism or disruption. I just ask that you slow down, and that you make sure that what you're reverting and warning users for is obvious bad-faith edits and changes. In cases where you're not sure if an edit is either vandalism or disruption, it's best to err on the side of caution and the assumption of good faith and leave the edit alone. You can always ask someone for input if you're not sure, and you can always find out later. You don't have to be the one who makes the revert. When in doubt, don't revert. :-)

Don't worry too much about it... So long as you slow down and change your speed and course moving forward, you'll be fine. Everyone makes mistakes (including myself), and this is all a part of learning and growing on Wikipedia when it comes to patrolling recent changes. You'll get the hang of it and find your groove eventually, but for now and while you're still becoming proficient at identifying and reverting bad-faith edits, you should only revert edits that you know are blatantly made in bad faith. On top of this, you should always favor quality over quantity.

If you have any questions or need any input, please don't hesitate to message me on my user talk page and let me know. I'll be more than happy to help you. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear @Oshwah Thank you for caring and your guides up until know, i used to learn much more from you, i think it's too soon for me so .... i think it's better to put down the Top icon, thank you again. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to stop editing or feel as if you're going in the wrong direction. You should continue to revert vandalism and disruption, and learn and grow as an editor. If reverting disruption is what you enjoy doing (just like it's what I enjoy doing), then by all means - keep doing it! :-) You just need to take a few additional seconds to review the edit before you revert it. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert. :-) Don't worry, you'll become proficient and you'll get there... just give it time. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah ok actually i thought about it before this message, to Review and read the articles in more careful and accurate way, then decide whether it needs revert or not, but i think i put down the Top icon for some time, until i get regain enough consciousness(stress-shock), and do more useful edits in wikipedia thanks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flamelet Modelling

Hello Sakura emad,

I removed some sections of the Laminar Flamelet Modelling page some days ago, which you reverted by lack of further explanation. Well, the short explanation is that the entire text is wrong, mathematically and physically. I am actually a researcher in the field and I have used models based on flamelet theory very intensively during my career. Eventually, I could contribute to wikipedia rewriting the entire section, but, unfortunately, that would take a lot of time which I don't have right now.

So, in conclusion: The explanations given in the article are wrong and, in my opinion, not having these incorrect explanations is better than having them.

Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinetic (talk • contribs) 14:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear @Wikinetic i will let you know i am not a professor in a university nor an expert in your field, i do revert edits based on > Reliable Source needed Fails to meet WP:CITE, WP:RELY, or Unexplained removal of content or any other policies and guidelines that we have in wikipedia, in your case: i did reviewed my revert again to know if i am wrong or not, 
Text that've been removed:::
Assumptions
The following assumptions are made in the study of all the flamelet models:
1. While modelling only a single mixture fraction are allowed. Modelling of two-mixture-fraction flamelet models is not possible.
2. It is assumed that the mixture fraction follow the β-function PDF, and scalar dissipation fluctuations are not considered.
3. Empirically-based streams cannot be used.
i reviewed them and found out that it is been stated in this source(aerojet.engr.ucdavis.edu), Please let me know why it is wrong after the explanation with me feel free to revert it back. thanks —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Sakura, that is old and potentially outdated information, especially since it's on webarchive. As has been pointed out to you several times, please stop reverting other people's edits. Often, text deserves to be removed/blanked because it's wrong. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dear @136.49.32.166, First Please be patient till the @Wikinetic answers me. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sakura, the science / technical pages have their own editors who are subject matter experts. Therefore, YOU SHOULD NOT BE EDITING a science page, even if you're only "reverting". 136.49.32.166 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@136.49.32.166 Dear you're crossing the line by saying what should i do or what i shouldn't do, without giving an explanation, why i can't be in science pages? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's official Wikipedia policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_scientific_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_editors Now you're the vandal.136.49.32.166 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


You even admitted that you don't have the expertise to understand that Wikipedia article, so why are you reverting? 136.49.32.166 (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved editor here- but IP user- WP does not allow information to added without sources, and we do not allow sourced information to be removed without sources. If you are an expert in this field- then surely you understand the importance of having all research properly cited and sourced. Please either cite your changes, or wait until you have more time to add those citations. Failure to do so could result in a block. Arguing with editors who are patiently trying to explain policy to you may also result in a block. And this is also why WP recommends you do not edit fields you have a ((WP:COI]] or close relationship with. I suggest you back away from WP for a few days and come back when you are ready to collaborate professionally. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing for long enough to see "sourced" information that was wrong stay on Wikipedia for years. Sometimes there's no "source" that "proves" information is wrong, only the knowledge that it is wrong. Just to give you an example, on the Katherine McNamara page, someone wrote that she was enrolled in a Master's degree program for economics based on a Teen Vogue article. That "information" was online for four years before I finally got it removed. In this case the other editor was removing bad information that is "sourced" on a page that UC Davis doesn't even host anymore. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i suggested you to wait till the @Wikinetic, but you have no patience at all, and thanks for calling me "vandal" while i've been opposite, i appreciate it anyway let me make an explanation first the text that's been removed was sourced, not as an vandal fighter but as an editor i have right to edit any pages in wikipedia as long as i am not going against any guidelines and Assume a good faith, the text @Wikinetic Removed was sourced and i double checked it was correctly sourced whether it is outdated or not it is was sourced, according to my review back then it was removed without an enough explanation so i reverted it an told the editor to bring a better explanation, and please can you act more Politely and stopping personal attacks —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "sources" can be wrong, and they're frequently used poorly or incorrectly here at Wikipedia. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And a single editor simply saying "This is wrong" is not a good enough reason to remove information. Please start a discussion on the article talk page and let multiple editors discuss. Your word alone is not enough. Follow the process to edit collaboratively and professionally or walk away- but continuing to harass Sakura is not an option that will get your way. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@136.49.32.166 you should've waited until the editor who's removed the content explained it and we could understand why and why not, and the problem could've be solved more easily, again Please stop personal attacks, up there i said

i am not a professor in a university nor an expert in your field
— User:Sakura emad

That's right and i am not an university professor nor an expert but it doesn't meant i have no information about the field or i never said

You even admitted that you don't have the expertise to understand that Wikipedia article
— User:136.49.32.166

that i am not experienced enough to understand the article if you let us (me and @Wikinetic) to talk more you could've see whether i understand the article or not. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP, I sensed that you are hating me and it seems like i am not to your liking, i don't know what makes you to feel bad about me it's because of this (diff)? if it is because of this well i am sorry i do apologize so please stop doing this to me. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beside the stress that i am suffering with, you're giving me more hard times in wikipedia, if you're an old user in English wikipedia as you said

I've been editing for long enough to see "sourced" information that was wrong stay on Wikipedia for years
— User:136.49.32.166

then i am in a new comer level for you,, can you Please be more kind and welcoming towards me instead of interrogating me? --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightenbelle and @136.49.32.166 i really look forward to get in a more friendly relationships in the near future, as for now let's forget everything (if possible) and start from scratch. thanks. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I, ROBOT

NOW YOU'RE ADDING WRONG SOURCES TO ARTICLES. PLEASE STOP YOUR DISRUPTIVE EDITING AND NONSENSICAL REVERSIONS.

YOU ADDED A LINK TO IMDB FOR THE MOVIE, BUT THE I, ROBOT ARTICLE IS PRIMARILY ABOUT THE CHARACTER FROM THE ISAAC ASIMOV WRITINGS. THIS IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF WHY YOU NEED TO STOP. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

can you leave me alone please? i understand you reverted and no problem if they're "wrong" or "useless" but can you stop your personal attacks towards me? --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More