User talk:Svartava/archive



Hello, Svartava, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode


 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, Rasnaboy, thank you for the welcome message and all the information! —Svārtava (t/u) • 02:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit
Dear Svarthava,

I noticed that you removed the name edit on Ehelepola Wijesundara.I edited the name to reflect his name scribed on the 5 casket of the Temple of Tooth relic.Please do not revert the my edit. 219.88.174.245 (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Problematic messages on your talk page
If someone leaves a fowl message like that, please report them to wp:AIV. I reported and they are blocked for a day. If they do it again, another AIV should increase the block for a week. You can also request that your talk and user pages be protected. See wp:RfPP. I suppose that would need to be done for every language. You can also setup a special page for anons to leave messages on such as user talk:Svartava/Anon for instance. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Adakiko: That was an LTA from hiwiki, Adam Chacko. Cheers, —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You said an exit wass deleted for no source …
But the info on the page has no sources and literally 99.9 percent of the information is unverified (and cannot be verified) and you allow it. You’re helping a fraudulent criminal lie. Why? 47.134.6.218 (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You were making the article contradict itself by add by adding words like false, etc. besides the information given. Read WP:CHALLENGE. —Svārtava (t/u) • 08:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I was correcting lies on an article
Perpetrating lies by a criminal and you’re not making him list sources. What are you saying? Is English your 7th language? 47.134.6.218 (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is the Joe K page..
Not subject to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CHALLENGE, but the revisions are? Please explain…. 47.134.6.218 (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article is also subject to WP:CHALLENGE, and you could have simply removed the material rather than making statements such as "false" etc. which made the article look just nonsensical and self-contradictory. I have now removed the unsourced material from the article, which may be restored by anyone else if they provide sources for it. Thanks, —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can not remove historically accurate information that has been on Wiki for years. I have been editing this article for years.  Your removal of factual information is improper. Vandalism has been taking place on this page for years.  It will continue to be monitored and updated with factual information.  Work history, is not subject to citations where none are available. Stick2700 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * hi ! that is not true: just because something has been present in the article for years doesn't mean it cannot be challenged. verifiability is required especially in a biography of a living person, unsourced information that is challenged should be cited. if no citations are available, it should just not be in the article at all until one can be found. happy editing! &#128156; melecie   talk  - 10:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Citations are being added. Be advised that this vandalism problem has been reported to authorities on multiple instances and is being tracked. Stick2700 (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , it is not vandalism by any reading of the definition. Someone is sure the change should be made, therefore--even if they're wrong about that (which they're not)--it's a good faith edit.  Your assertion that it should stay because it's been there for years is absolutely ludicrous.  The article in question is an unsourced mess that looks like it was written by the subject's own publicists.  I'm not even sure the article should be there at all. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Citations are being added. The article was originally written by a stalker who has since been charged, jailed, served time, and released.  Subsequent multiple issues of vandalism have resulted in investigations by Michigan State Police.  Can you please source your personal work history and publish on Wiki?  Probably not.  The point is that not everyone's work history is public, and not everyone's work history, or other personal history can be sourced by publicly available information. Stick2700 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course not! And I am not notable by any stretch of the imagination, so there won't be any article about me at all.  If I were notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you could probably find some information about all that.  Uporządnicki (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The latest version of the article in question, aside from being more of a personal resume than an article, is just downright ungrammatical. And it's also full of puff phrases and peacock terms. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've restored the unpuffed version, but there are still sourcing issues. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I might have jumped into this a little too soon, and while I was a bit confused about who said or added what. Yeah, someone's trying to write a glowing testimonial about this guy.  And with a quick search on line, I only turned up stuff that suggests he doesn't even warrant an article at all.  But I agree, sticking statements like "this in not true" right into the text is not the way to deal with it. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Svartava. After reviewing your request, I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ASvartava enabled] rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! F ASTILY  06:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.


 * Many thanks, Fastily. :) —Svārtava (t/u) • 09:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick question
Hello,

Is it against policy for people to ask Wikipedia editors to make, say, Wiktionary edits for them if they're unable to do so themselves (such as the page in question being protected against unregistered editors, or a registered user being temporarily blocked)? Assuming the edit in question isn't vandalism or disruptive, of course. Think like WP:EDITREQ.

And even if it isn't against the rules at all, is it against policy for those cross-wiki editors to actually perform those edits? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Shāntián Tàiláng: I read WP:PROXYING on this matter. In short, you are allowed to make edit requests, but the requestee would make sure that it is correct since any responsibility of the edit and it's content is more on its doer that its requester. I'm open to such edit requests but please note that if I can't judge the edit or if it is in a language I don't edit, I will likely not make that edit. —Svārtava (t/u) • 16:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * OK. Reason I was asking is that there's one page on WT that links to the redlink 君子好逑 when it should just link to . (Yes, it may be a Chinese quotation, but all one needs to do is to just put a space between 君子 and 好逑 in the "Etymology" section.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I just remembered, there's another one that I think should be straightforward enough: with " v " and  with " v ", as in  (an idiom which means "to hide the key facts", literally "to not show the mountain and to not reveal the water"). You don't have to create the idiom's page if you do create those two verbs, but please do add a "Derived terms" section with 不顯山，不露水 for both entries. Yes, Google Books verifies both words' meanings. Just ask RcAlex36 if you need or want any help. Thanks! Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Shāntián Tàiláng: I asked RcAlex36 to take a look at the edits you proposed so if he deems them correct, he'll possibly make them himself. Also, sorry for not making this very clear before, but please know that however minor (even, for example, adding categories - I can't judge the definition myself if I do not know about the language) an edit may be, I am very hesitant to make edits in a language I do not work on or have knowledge about (you could refer to my babel box). —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 requests

 * Another thing I just noticed (and one which pertains to English entries and should be easy for ya): needs ,,, , , , , , , , , , , ,  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and  to be added to its "Derived terms" section.
 * In addition, shipkiller needs to be put in categories en:Nautical, en:Military, and en:Weapons, while mercy killer needs Category:en:People, self-killer needs Category:en:People and en:Suicide, honour killer needs Category:en:People and en:Murder, hunter-killer needs Category:en:Watercraft, killer sudoku needs Category:en:Games, salmon killer needs Category:en:Gasterosteiform fish, and color killer needs Category:en:Television and en:Electronics.
 * Yes, I know that's a lot of edits, but I'd be making those edits myself right now if I weren't blocked. Seriously. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Another Chinese one for now (but you'll probably want to ask Fish bowl about it, rather than RcAlex36): desperately needs its Chinese topolects (Mandarin, Cantonese) merged into a single "Chinese" header. Besides, one of my IP addresses got blocked again today, and all because I couldn't get Wiktionary to recognize me as logged in and (since I was stuck in a  at the time) I didn't know what else to do. (See here for some clarification.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC) One last thing for today (or this week): there's a quote on the pages for both  and  that doesn't have an English translation. The English translation needs to be "Confucius went to see Lao Dan, and arrived just as he had completed the bathing of his head, and was letting his dishevelled hair get dry." Hope I'm not overwhelming you too much. Thanks for your time. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

New question

 * A different question: when a user evades a week-long block, why is the block then made indefinite, as opposed to, say, two months or one year long? Because it seems (at least to me) like an indefinite block could ultimately backfire at preventing further block evasion, especially if that user is so eager to contribute (and not in a particularly disruptive way). And why does the WP:Autoblock abuse filter not work at all across Wikimedia projects? For example, imagine that a user, who's been given a block (say, a month-long one) from Wikisource, logs into Wikiquote (where they are not blocked) using a specific IP address (one that they have not recently used to login to Wikisource). Why does Wikisource not automatically block that IP address based on that login? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Shāntián Tàiláng: Hi, apologies for my delayed response.
 * Regarding your block, I can't judge your edits which got the block in place but I find myself agreeing that extension from a week to an indefinite block might have been a bit overkill. (You know, you could probably have brought it up later on, e.g. now, if only you weren't dead-set on block-evading.) But still, blocks, including infinite blocks are most commonly given arbitrarily at admin discretion. I'll ask about it on wikt:WT:Discord.
 * And also, autoblock doesn't work cross-wiki, neither it should (unless it's a global (b)lock).
 * —Svārtava (t/u) • 13:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, Svartava, I'm not really "dead-set on block evading" these days-- the only reason I did these edits was because I couldn't login to Wiktionary to see if I was still blocked. (When I tried to login, Wiktionary suggested that my browser was blocking cookies, even though that wasn't the case at all.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One other thing—I never noticed this until now, but if you look at RcAlex36's messages here, they sound like they're almost personal attacks, especially when you consider he said my case was a case of ("one's death is not or will not be a cause for regret", emphasis mine) even when I hadn't been edit-warring (disruptive editing, maybe, but not edit-warring; I had even thanked him for cleaning up after my bad edits prior to the block). In addition, I think that what he said "I think you shouldn't be editing anything at all" may have...driven me to do these and these block-evading edits. (Both of them involved creating Japanese names from redlinks, such as those listed here. At the time, I assumed that this permablock had mainly been done because of me continuing to make the bad edits—inaccurate Chinese entry creations—that RcAlex36 was unhappy about and for which I'd originally been blocked; I was not aware that "block evasion" applied to both good and bad edits.) Of course, RcAlex36's messages don't exactly excuse my later block evasions, but they still sound somewhat like taunting to me. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.


 * @TonyBallioni: Thank you! —Svārtava (t/u) • 14:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022 edit requests
Hello,

I just realized something about another Chinese Wiktionary entry: has a quote with a missing English translation. That same passage is translated on as "Once Confucius was above to set out, and asked his disciples to bring along raingear. Soon afterwards it really rained." That "above" looks to me like a typo for "about" (am I right about this, ?). And, of course, that translation should be added to 雨具's page (and, perhaps, that quote could be added to 's Adverb section, with the "soon afterwards" highlighted).

Also, and  may not actually be synonyms, but I think both pages do merit a "See also" section at the very least. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And one other thing I just noticed: is a redlink. It's a disyllabic word that means "shrike" (per this), and as such, it should be added to.


 * If it were not for my block, I would create it using the code

n  ====Synonyms====


 * Have a nice day! Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)