User talk:Irtapil

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 6 sections are present.

I finally gave in and archived this mess.

• Help:Archiving (plain and simple)
• {{Automatic archive navigator}}

"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]

@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]

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

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]
<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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

{{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]

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]

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]

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]

year marker

Irtapil (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

@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]

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

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

@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]

@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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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

@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]

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

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

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

{{help me}}

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

notifications from other wikis[edit]

{{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]

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

year marker

Irtapil (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

@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]

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]

@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]

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

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

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

year marker

Irtapil (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

@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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

@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]

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]

 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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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