Where did you stumble upon a Hurrian weather god named Aplu - what Assyriological or Hittitological studies? I wrote... probably 90% of the articles on Hurrian deities on wikipedia, as well as the Hurrian religion and Hurrian pantheon ones, which are rigorously sourced and a product of thorough survey of relevant literature, and virtually no authority in the field mentions a Hurrian deity named Aplu. The information gets persistently added to random articles on wikipedia, with the only sources always being completely unrelated (Iliad, a dictionary entry of a completely unrelated epithet of Apollo). As far as I am concerned, this is pure invention of a past wikipedia editor. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Est. 2021: Please read the message again, there is no Hurrian information to include. You copied information which was previously deleted multiple times, and which was deemed unfit to keep in 2021 (see the talk page and the other talk page linked on it too), and is not supported by the sources in the article.
As stated on the talk page, I agree to the proposed lead update, but only if the article is rewritten to match the new broader scope, with a specific focus on 'the Crimean problem'. A revision of the article is necessary before any updates are made. --Nagsb (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!07:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Est. 2021,
I'm not sure why you are doing this but you shouldn't cut and paste content from long-standing articles and paste it into a new article you just created, turning the older article into a redirect. That's just not fair and it doesn't retain the content attribution from the original article. I have merged two of these efforts and please don't ever do this again. It's a little ridiculous, if you want to change the name of an article move the page but don't pretend like you are responsible for creating an article on a subject that has existed on Wikipedia for 20 years that other editors have contributed to. It's misleading and I believe it violates Wikipedia rules on attribution. If you want to be an article creator, then think up new articles to write about, don't hijack existing articles. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!07:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I copy-pasted and expanded content written by me. There's no attribution issue. These pages were less than stubs before my contribution ([2]), and I'm already reading new academic studies to furtherly expand them. By the way, I didn't know we could merge page histories, WP:REPAIR looks like a useful tool. I think I'm going to use it in future. Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 07:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Est. 2021! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Minerva that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. NebY (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You marked this initial edit as minor, and then your reinstatement as minor too. See Help:Minor edit: Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor. You did not provide a source in the article; linking to another Wikipedia article is not sufficient, and Varro is a primary source; see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But most of all, do read WP:LEAD; in a nutshell, The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. Your insertions are not a summary of the article bodies and give undue weight. Also, when your changes to an article are reverted, don't simply reinstate them; open a discussion on an article or project talk page and achieve consensus there - see WP:BRD. NebY (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saturn (mythology). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@Buaidh: The recent nominations for split made me question everything about regional templates, but looks like I was correctly categorizing them all along. Thank you for solving my doubt, Est. 2021 (talk·contribs)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Culture of Italy into Patronal festival. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: Funny boomerang, because that paragraph at Culture of Italy is the translation of what I wrote years ago on it.wiki – like most of the linked pages, that I had started or contributed to: Feast of Our Lady of the Hens (both on it.wiki and here), Feast of San Gennaro, Feast of Saints Francis and Catherine, Patronal festival, etc. I can't remember if I wrote from my former account Vicipaedianus x or was already named Est. 2021, but I guess that makes no difference. It actually happens very often that I find translations of articles and templates written by me on other wikis without any attribution, for example many articles I wrote for it.wiki from my former account and I later found on the English, Spanish and German versions of Wikipedia, or content that I wrote here and I later found elsewhere without any attribution, like the Vietnamese and Bengali translations of Template:User WP. I even joked about that on the Bengali Wikipedia, because there's nothing I could do against it. Btw I really appreciate that you tried to defend the right and necessary attribution policy, even if mistakenly – you had no mean to know. Thanks for your efforts anyway. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 22:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free use of File:Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff (quadtych).jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff (quadtych).jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from File:Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff (quadtych).jpg. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Ирука1318:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I see you speak Neapolitan and make userboxes on request. Any chance you could make a Babel userbox for nap-0? I'm interested in learning the language, but haven't been able to get started yet. (I'd make the userbox myself, but I'm not even sure "Chesta perzona nu ppò parlà napulitano" would be the right text...) Thanks for considering it! -- Photosynthetic430❧18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already specifically credited that you had used it to revise Seraglio. I also linked to WP:COPYARTICLE which says "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content."
As you have apparently finished editing Seraglio, the copy in user space should be blanked or deleted.
I'm not sure if you are aware but all of the WikiProject categories that use to call editors "members" have now been changed to "participants". I thought I would change the template userbox you created to read "participants" instead of "members" but after changing the words and looking at it in Preview I saw that this userbox is used on 19,000 pages and I didn't save my changes. Since you created it, I thought I'd ask you to make the change so I didn't screw up a commonly used template. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!20:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, thanks for your kind message, I really appreciate it. Actually, Andrybak previously made the same change based on the recent CfD, so I thought we had to change the wording and I discussed about this topic at Template talk:User in region#Template-protected edit request on 19 October 2023, where I was reminded by the excellent Jonesey95 that the recent consensus only concerned categories, and that changing the wording in individual userboxes to say "participant" instead of "member" will require a second, widely advertised RFC, and I agree with that. Personally, since we don't have to, I don't think there's an actual need to change the current wording, also considering that the template already always links the correct pages and categories whether they're named after members or participants. To be fair, I also prefer the current wording for personal taste, but that's obviously irrelevant in a group work, so I'm open to different opinions. Thank you again for asking me! Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 06:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of the CFD was that it covered only the naming of categories themselves. I think it will take a larger discussion to enforce specific wording within WikiProjects. Other people may have different interpretations of the CFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You took part in the discussion at Talk:Republic of Crimea, so you must have known that there were two editors opposing the establishment of the category, and two (including you) in favour. That you still populated that category seems disruptive to me. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsk6400: You're the one removing pages from a category that's not under CfD and then falsely tagging it as empty, just to get it deleted without a formal CfD. That's not how it works. Instead of this chicanery, if you don't like the category then honestly start your CfD. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 08:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The category was created only a few days ago. I just reverted to status quo where that category was added to a page. Reverting to status quo doesn't need consensus, nor does it need a CfD. The change that needs consensus is the establishment of the new category. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Est. 2021! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Category:Republic of Crimea several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
@Liz: Several times? What are you talking about? I just repopulated the category and removed {{db-catempty}} as it was not empty anymore. I literally only made one single edit to Category:Republic of Crimea. There was no edit war at all. Now you are reverting my edits and emptying the category without any CfD, it does not make sense. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 08:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
.svg){kind=icon}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}