User talk:BottleOfSoup/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:BottleOfSoup. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Welcome!
Getting StartedTutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Tips- Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
- It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
- If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
- Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
- When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
- If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
- Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey BottleOfSoup, nice username. I saw your recent edits at the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion talk page and wanted to let you know that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a specially designated 'contentious topic' on Wikipedia with special rules for editing. Especially be aware that one must have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days to edit pages concerning that topic area, which I believe applies to all the talk pages of such articles as well. You can however make edit requests on the talk pages.
I hope I have explained this accurately and if you have any questions let me know. Happy editing, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- How do I make edit requests if it applies to talk pages? BottleOfSoup (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Making edit requests would be an exception to the rule. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @IOHANNVSVERVS what isn't allowed then? It says they're not a forum for general chatting about the topic, so wouldn't everything be an edit request? BottleOfSoup (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- General chatting about a subject is not allowed per WP:NOTAFORUM.
- You can learn more about talk pages here, but they mostly involve debate about the article itself and how to edit/improve it, concerning things like reliability of sources etc.
- You can read more about edit requests here.
- - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links, but they didn't really answer the question.
- Neither of those links explain what users with not enough edits are not allowed to do on talk pages?
- If general chat is already not allowed by "not a forum" and edit requests are allowed even for people who are not allowed to edit the page, then what is the extra thing that people with more than 500 edits are allowed to do that people with less than 500 are not allowed to do?
- BottleOfSoup (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- The extra thing that people with more than 500 edits are allowed to do is edit articles and talk pages of contentious topics, which people with less than 500 edits are not allowed to do.
- Also I may not have been clear in my explanation about "general chatting about a subject" not being allowed. I mean chatting about which Pokemon is your favourite or something like that on the Pokeman talk page for example would be not allowed per WP:NOTAFORUM. Probably better to read the links I'm sharing also, rather than reading too much into my exact words. I'm not an administrator or any sort of special user after all, just a fellow editor trying to offer some advice/guidance. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Or at least everything said by someone who can't edit the page and reply to edit requests. BottleOfSoup (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @IOHANNVSVERVS what isn't allowed then? It says they're not a forum for general chatting about the topic, so wouldn't everything be an edit request? BottleOfSoup (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Making edit requests would be an exception to the rule. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Australia
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Political Parties Page
- {{User:SuggestBot/suggest|Political Parties}}
- Political Parties
Political parties in Australia
- {{User:SuggestBot/suggest|Category:Political parties in Australia}}
- Category:Political parties in Australia
Political parties in Asia
- {{User:SuggestBot/suggest|Category:Political parties in Asia}}
- Category:Political parties in Asia
Use British English tag
Hi, you added this tag to Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip, but it should only be added to articles already using British English, or articles with strong national ties to the United Kingdom. The original creation of the article used American English (e.g. offenses) AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see you also added the tag to an article about a Lebanese film, along with a Use DMY dates tag, even though the article was already tagged with Use DMY dates. AusLondonder (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AusLondonder Remove the British English tag from the Lebanese film article if you want, that might have been a bit over enthusiastic. I was generalising as "Eastern hemisphere" but Lebanon are more French influenced than British?
- But dmy should stay, only the USA puts the dates out of order, the rest of the world does dmy or ymd. The mdy scrambled version should only be in articles about the USA.
- BottleOfSoup (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AusLondonder Palestine does have strong historical ties to the UK from the British Mandate era. (There's even a couple of hundred WWI era British and ANZAC soldiers buried in Gaza in a graveyard that was very respectfully maintained by the locals.) Israel has subsequently ended up getting closer to the USA, but Palestine seems to be the opposite.
- Also, the article is about Gaza and focuses on the era when it was run by Hamas. Whenever I've seen Hamas or Al Qassam communicate in English, it has been British English, e.g. they spell defence with a C.
- Palestine articles should use UK English, unless they are specifically about Palestinian Americans.
- BottleOfSoup (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Unless there's a broader term for non-American English? BottleOfSoup (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AusLondonder British English used officially in Gaza e.g. "Civil Defence" emergency vehicles in Gaza are labelled in British English.
- BottleOfSoup (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Queensland
Papua New Guinea
Antarctica
April 2024
Hello, I'm Kerry Raymond. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Please stop adding Use Australian English to articles which already have the template. Kerry (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I see you are relatively new. Let me explain. You should have received an automatic notification of the revert of your edit. Usually this appears around a bell symbol at the top of your screen when logged in (but it may appear differently if you have selected a different screen interface), so you should know which article it was from that. But if you don't, it was Monarch Glen, Queensland and, as I said above (which is a semi-automated message, meaning I clicked a button to generate most of it, but the text in italics is added manually), there is no need to add the Template:Use Australian English on an article that has the template already in it. Such templates always appear at the top of the article, so it is fairly easy to check. It is a good thing to add that template (along the Template:Use dmy dates) on any Australian-topic article that doesn't have it, but adding it twice is not twice as good! Unnecessary work for you to add it and unnecessary work for me to remove it. Also, on the etiquette side of things, you replied to me here on your Talk page, which triggers an automatic notification to me. But then I come and look on your talk page and there is no message from you, so I am confused and waste time trying to figure out why I was notified. Eventually I see you added a reply but then deleted it. Unfortunately, your deleting the message doesn't stop me being notified, so in that scenario, it would probably have been better just to change the content of your message from asking what I was talking about to reflect the current situation - "ok, I understand and I will be more careful in future" rather than delete it. Bear in mind that every contribution you make to Wikipedia may be reviewed by a number of people (using the Watchlist system) so someone else may have also come to your Talk page to discuss the same matter, so seeing a conversation that showed the issue as being already resolved would save time for another reviewer. If you are not aware of it, in Wikipedia (articles or talk pages) nothing is usually deleted "forever" -- it usually remains accessible through the page history (which is how I saw your reply). Kerry (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Kerry Raymond
- Thank you for explaining the extra details.
- I deleted the message because I realised you'd already answered the question, when I re read the message, I realised you said it was about the Australian English template. I remember undoing a few duplicates myself, it was always at the top somewhere, but sometimes there were half a dozen different headers in variable orders and I didn't spot it. The date being on the old version confused me a bit too, I could see it was the same when I looked carefully, but it made duplicates stand out less.
- But I'm a bit confused by the etiquette of messaging here? It seems like just deleting it would already say '"never mind, forget I said that"? It seems weird to explain that in a second message?
- BottleOfSoup (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The etiquette isn't so much by choice as a necessity given the moment you saved your message, the notification went to me summoning me to your User Talk page and that can't be undone. Just like you can't undo ringing a door bell. People can choose to receive notifications in different ways (if you dig into your user Preferences under the Notification heading, you will see there are many things you can be notified about in a variety of ways, e.g. on-wiki or email or other tools), so you can see that some types of notifications like emails simply can't be undone. In addition, there is the Watchlist system (another thing you can dig into and configure) which alerts users to changes on any nominated page (including articles and user pages and their talk pages which can also be delivered in a variety of ways. When I am "talking" with someone, my settings means I am made aware of further changes on that user talk page. So I was aware of your deleted reply and your most recent reply by a couple of different mechanisms (notification and watch list). There is much about the way Wikipedia works "under the hood" that sometimes creates strange situations from a human interaction perspective. I'm not going to defend how Wikipedia works "under the hood", sometimes it mystifies/annoys me too. You just have to learn to live with the beast. So, once you've "rung the door bell", don't run away, just say what the situation currently is either by replacing the old message or adding a supplementary one. "Ahh, I worked it out for myself. All good!". Most Wikipedians are well-intentioned but often are very busy so we tend to use semi-automated tools to send standard messages with minimum typing effort on our part when we do reviewing work. It's a necessity when there are so many articles changes and often too few people reviewing them. If you want to see just how much Wikipedia changes, go to [1] and click on Live Updates and watch how English Wikipedia is constantly changing. Kerry (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Kerry Raymond, I thought deleting the messages communicated "unsend" without extra words, but the ringing a doorbell analogy makes sense. I'll try to make my messaging style less like an overworked Amazon delivery driver in future. Thanks for explaining that. BottleOfSoup (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- The etiquette isn't so much by choice as a necessity given the moment you saved your message, the notification went to me summoning me to your User Talk page and that can't be undone. Just like you can't undo ringing a door bell. People can choose to receive notifications in different ways (if you dig into your user Preferences under the Notification heading, you will see there are many things you can be notified about in a variety of ways, e.g. on-wiki or email or other tools), so you can see that some types of notifications like emails simply can't be undone. In addition, there is the Watchlist system (another thing you can dig into and configure) which alerts users to changes on any nominated page (including articles and user pages and their talk pages which can also be delivered in a variety of ways. When I am "talking" with someone, my settings means I am made aware of further changes on that user talk page. So I was aware of your deleted reply and your most recent reply by a couple of different mechanisms (notification and watch list). There is much about the way Wikipedia works "under the hood" that sometimes creates strange situations from a human interaction perspective. I'm not going to defend how Wikipedia works "under the hood", sometimes it mystifies/annoys me too. You just have to learn to live with the beast. So, once you've "rung the door bell", don't run away, just say what the situation currently is either by replacing the old message or adding a supplementary one. "Ahh, I worked it out for myself. All good!". Most Wikipedians are well-intentioned but often are very busy so we tend to use semi-automated tools to send standard messages with minimum typing effort on our part when we do reviewing work. It's a necessity when there are so many articles changes and often too few people reviewing them. If you want to see just how much Wikipedia changes, go to [1] and click on Live Updates and watch how English Wikipedia is constantly changing. Kerry (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
ClueBot
User talk:ClueBot Commons #Why is it not working? (URL)
{{void|disabled by John of Reading|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age =48
| archiveprefix =User talk:BottleOfSoup/Archive
| numberstart =1
| maxarchsize =75000
| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads =5
| format =Y/F
}}{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=90}}
<!-- Template:Setup cluebot archiving -->
made using
- {{subst:Setup cluebot archiving|archives=yes}}
and that produced
{{void|disabled by John of Reading|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age =48
| archiveprefix =User talk:BottleOfSoup/Archive
| numberstart =1
| maxarchsize =75000
| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads =5
| format = Y/F
}}{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=90}}
failed attempt
I'm not sure why this attempt didn't work?
{{void|disabled by John of Reading|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=72
| archiveprefix=User talk:BottleOfSoup/Archives/
| minkeepthreads=7
| minarchthreads=5
| format=Y/F
}}
BottleOfSoup (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
at top of page <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">
Index
|
|
Papua New Guinea
- Category:Papua New Guinea
- {{User:SuggestBot/suggest|Category:Papua New Guinea}}
Political Parties Category
- {{User:SuggestBot/suggest|Category:Political Parties}}
- Category:Political Parties
- Category:Political parties
CS1 error on Archana Sarat
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Archana Sarat, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl (bot) I think I already fixed that? BottleOfSoup (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Checkuser block
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Welcome!
Getting StartedTutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Tips- Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
- It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
- If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
- Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
- When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
- If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
- Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)