User talk:Augmented Seventh

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, I'm OXYLYPSE. I noticed that you recently removed content from Black Bolt without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The content was sourced, no need to blank the page. OXYLYPSE (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake, phone edit at night, i was going to clean up and you beat me to it.

thank you.

I'm making sure the characters are described as characters, not as their OR alignment. Augmented Seventh (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also broke the Medusa and Havok articles AGAIN. It's been half an hour now and you haven't gone back yet. These articles, as well as the Black Bolt and Kitty Pryde articles, already had to be fixed by other people an hour ago. You're doing around one edit every two minutes for the past 9 hours. Slow down, use preview, stop breaking stuff. Euka (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the kind advice.

i thought i already doubled back on those poorly drawn edits.

I'll head over there now. Augmented Seventh (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you interacting w/ them on their talk page, they're a sockpuppet of Wiki7Hell (newer blocked account Vitor.G.Chanfonard). You can see this in Youth's page history. I already reported them on WP:AIV, just thought you might want to know - FifthFive (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the high quality information that one comes to expect from fifth five.

Thanks for the heads up, Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Viqarunnisa Noon School and College, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and Bangla.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Your recent editing history at An (Chinese surname) 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; read about 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.
Please just be mindful of this rule going forward. If you run into this kind of problem try taking it to the talk page so the community can hash it out. I'm going to protect the page for a couple days so hopefully this goes away. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening.

I'm reverting blatant serial vandalism.

I've been attempting to keep spurious and unsourced content from being edited into the Chinese surname pages.

It consists of daily additions of unsourced nonsense names, completely outside of the mission of the encyclopedia.

If you have suggestions or accepted protocols outside of reverting the nonsense, i could use help.

I've tried warnings, but it's an ip hopping situation; last week, added under the Ma surname was "Ma Bell".

thank you for the heads up, Augmented Seventh (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Hello,

I’ve noticed that when determining reliable sources, you tend to prioritize materials from the aggressor nation over those from victimized countries or third-party states. It’s unclear why—perhaps due to a focus on English-language sources? The translation or communication limitations of victim nations shouldn’t justify ignoring their perspectives in favor of the aggressor’s.

I’ve attached newspapers from the victimized countries. While they’re not in English, AI tools can easily translate images of text. As stated, language barriers are no excuse to disregard their narratives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.41.204 (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to address your unsourced edits.

my suggestion is to always use scholarly sources as applies to scholarly content.

i think that will help you address the problems you're having with inserting the dubious content into surname pages.

Ma Bell, the phone company, doesn't belong in an article focused on the Chinese surname, Ma.

thanks for the heads up, Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad'age. I was addressing the wrong wikipedian.

i actually don't know anything about this topic. I'm just checking reliable sources. the clippings you are suggesting aren't usable, as is, for the changes you're attempting.

i hope that clears it up.

thanks again, Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you, just changed the resource.

Best 98.243.41.204 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m new to editing and learning how to properly format references.

Could you give me some advice on citing sources from Wayback Machine. Some of these sources don’t have DOIs because they’re quite old.

I’d appreciate guidance rather than simply having my edits redone.

Best! 98.243.41.204 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be grateful if you could set aside any biases and review reports from the victimized nations during that period: https://archive.org/details/shenbao-1937.07-180/page/n1/mode/2up. I believe this provides a more comprehensive perspective on the historical context.

P.S. I trust there’s no bias involved, and this is purely about citation formatting. I sincerely apologize and will correct my referencing in future edits. I hope you’ll adjust rather than completely redo my changes. Thanks again! 98.243.41.204 (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the revert [1] made without an edit summary? Does Resistant starch typically replaces flour in foods such as bread and other baked goods, pasta, cereal and batters because it can produce foods with similar color and texture of the original food sound grammatical to you? 76.71.3.150 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you are absolutely correct. i am certain i made a mistake.

thank you for correcting my error, and giving me the opportunity to learn.

s Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please come there to explain why you think the book of mormon is an independent secondary source. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was fully unsourced. Find a source or stop edit warring 12.75.41.13 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

Thank you for the invitation. I will leave that specific debate to qualified academics within the specific field and any administrators with an interest.

Have a Wikipedia day. Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are just normal editors, why did you revert if you didn't care about the article? You now own the unsourced additions. You should self revert if you don't think your edit is backed by reliable sources. Reverting for fun only is disruptive. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance, it appeared to be a specious removal of uncontroversial content from an unremarkable article.

Looking at it now, and the response to my admitted error, it becomes instructive for me, for which i again thank you.

hunchentoot, Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey man I noticed you removed my edit about Elon Musk on the rat running page why you do that? What's good wit you? 45.15.18.72 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took the information that I found for the missing countries via www.worldpopulationreview.com. They are listed on there. The ones that are missing are listed as unknown at the bottom. Thanks Tom996 Tom996 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it better if we delete unrelated information? Moreover, the topic of Srivijaya as a maritime kingdom has been explained in the explanation section 116.206.32.62 (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was my understanding that the content was relevant and not included elsewhere in the article.

you seem to have significant knowledge on the topic, i was just going by reading available included sources.

thank you for helping to keep the encyclopedia accurate, Augmented Seventh (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen the IP edits and your reversions in my watchlist, so I'm not involved, however I'm of the opinion that it's honestly too much information. You don't write the LGA name in a postal address, for example for a house or business - you only need to write the building number, street name, suburb/locality, state/territory and postcode. I've only noticed that rural/regional railway station articles still maintain including it, mainly because no one has been bothered to remove it until now. I haven't seen it being included in articles about urban and suburban geographical places much recently. If someone wanted to find out what LGA a place is in, they can click on the suburb/locality that it's in and they can find out that way. Fork99 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely could be correct

My understanding was it was part of the railroad ID system specific to the country.

It seemed a redundancy, but i had put the location facts back in based on the expertise of past interested editors, and couldn't see a valid reason to remove.

thanks for the heads up Augmented Seventh (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in further information, see Local government in Australia. Fork99 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Lemon8: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. jolielover♥talk 03:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Elvish Yadav, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. It appears that you removed controversial content, even though it had a citation to a valid source, simply because it was controversial. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and may contain information about people that you do not like, but that is not a reason to remove the content. Lenny Marks (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, i would disagree.

I don't think lengthy tabloid-style, he said she said content is appropriate for the project, and i look to edit the controversy sections for brevity.

I have no knowledge of the personalities involved, and can't see anything notable beyond online sniping that was removed.

that said, noted. I'm going to look at that behavior in the future and see how it affects the project.

thank you for the heads up, Augmented Seventh (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you made yourself familiar with the guidelines you will realise that there is nothing wrong with my edits. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing regarding your recent edit to Uthman Ibn Farooq Yusufzai. The edit used RedWarn to restore contentious content regarding a living person (i.e. allegations of domestic abuse) that was sourced solely to a court filing.

WP:BLPPRIMARY calls upon users to not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. There are some narrow exceptions (when primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source), but the edit you restored appears to solely rely upon primary sources. Domestic abuse allegations, generally, are of an extremely serious and grave nature and require substantial independent secondary sourcing whenever including them in an article—if we choose to do so at all.

Please exercise care when evaluating this sort of material for inclusion in an article going forward.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to instruct me on this topic.

I'm reading the applicable guidelines, and will used the information going forward. Augmented Seventh (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]