User talk:Rager7

This is Rager7's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mazhar Khan (disambiguation) (May 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Mazhar Khan instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mazhar Khan (disambiguation) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rager7! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Mazhar Khan (disambiguation)

Hello, Rager7. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mazhar Khan (disambiguation), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Mazhar Khan (disambiguation)

Hello, Rager7. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mazhar Khan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, there's already a disambiguation for it. Rager7 (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Rager7! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Please be sure to check out the Manual of Style as well. In particular, you have made a lot of edits where you have simply shortened something with a contraction. Per WP:N'T, do not do this. Kimen8 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see I didn't know there was a rule against certain types of contractions. Rager7 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Also, another article should only be linked to once (with exceptions); this is also in the manual of style (WP:LINKONCE). Kimen8 (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, there are rules of linking too. Rager7 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On further review of your edits, I noticed this one to Bothwell Road Park, where you added a contraction despite being specifically advised against doing so above. We can not have users who are unresponsive to feedback here. I will mass-rollback your edits. Graham87 (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you made to Charter of Saint Petersburg (probably a very bad translation from Russian), honestly neither version makes sense. If you really think "are" is an appropriate word to describe something that happened in 1998, you lack the competence to edit the English Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I tend to act impulsively. I'll try to not to overedit next time. Rager7 (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Rager7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To the administrator that may be reading this, I wanted to preface this by saying that this is not a justification for my previous behavior about six months ago. Any mention to past behavior is simply an explanation of why I did it and not a defense. With that being clear, I wanted to say that I'm sorry and regretted my actions. In which I kept violating a policy. The policy being in which to not overlink words, the reason why I kept doing it despite being warned was I thought I was improving the website. However, the action conflicts with the policies and rules of this website. Hence, I was subsequently blocked for that act. While I was blocked, I read more about Wikipedia’s guidelines and started to learn what is acceptable and what isn’t on this website. Which gave me a better understanding on what to do and how to edit properly. My impulsiveness, naivety as being a new editor, and lack of understanding of the rules created a mess that had to be fixed. In which I now apologize for, so with that being said, my future plans once unblocked would be to continue making edits for history and political articles and making such edits that don’t conflict or violate the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks for your understanding. Rager7 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per below. Graham87 (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: Do you have any thoughts regarding the appeal above? -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: I'm not satisfied with it. It only deals with part of the reason for the block. It also doesn't come across as very sincere to me. Graham87 (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the apology comes off as insincere? Rager7 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just the whole ... vibe of it. I do wonder what in particular changed between the time you were blocked for repeatedly and prolifically violating guidelines and the time you requested your block. But I guess there's one way to find out ... to unblock you, which I'm going to do. Your main problem was editing sprees on random articles; don't do those this time and things should be all good. Graham87 (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that my apology came off as hollow given my past actions. I followed up on the rules while I was blocked and understand that I should not had ignored other people's advice when it came to overlinking and those editing sprees that I did are a form of disruptive editing which is harmful to the site functioning. Rager7 (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding extra refs

Hello, please don't add extra refs to content when a reference has already been provided, as you did at [[Tower of Kurt Pasha; this is refbombing. Not only do we tend to prefer written text to podcasts/videos as sources except as a last resort, much of the text in that podcast was wholesale copied from Wikipedia and its voice very much sounds synthetic to me (as if it was created with something like ElevenLabs); the former point definitely disqualifies it as a source here. Graham87 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I wasn't sure if it was a reliable source and I'll try not use podcasts as a source in the future. Rager7 (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not sure about something, just don't do it or ask at the teahouse. Graham87 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Rager7 (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

Administrator Elections \| Updates & Schedule
Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed. We plan to use the following schedule: Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections. If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Failed Austrian Painter" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Failed Austrian Painter has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 11 § Failed Austrian Painter until a consensus is reached. asilvering (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I encountered this redirect, I mentally put this as strike one against you in your new incarnation. But then you sent me a Discord friend request out of the blue (yeah yeah, guessing my Discord username isn't rocket science). Strike two; this is technically harassment, but also a common newbie thing and I'm a lot more open about my identity than many Wikipedians. Still, strike two. Once I'd established who you were, I checked your edits again and found this one. Strike three, as Wikipedia isn't the place to test the waters like that ... especially on such a controversial subject. Three strikes and you're out! You're reblocked. Graham87 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, does that mean I can't make another unlock request? In which case nothing can be done to bring me back? Rager7 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm trying to get you unblocked. The notice above is mandatory. Feel free to ignore it. Un assiolo (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked (mark 2)

As a result of the above-linked ANI, I have agreed to unblock you and won't take any further unilateral admin action against you (except in extreme emergency cases that almost definitely won't happen). Please ... check and double-check each edit you make. If you're unsure if a potential edit is acceptable either ask somewhere like the teahouse or don't make the edit at all. Graham87 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there is an unofficial Wikipedia Discord server :-) ... I don't have much personal experience with it though. Graham87 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I have to be more mindful when editing in the future and when it came to the Discord messaging. I was trying to resolve the redirect dispute, granted from your end it came off as weird but that was my goal. Rager7 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salaich

Regarding this edit, the last sentence in the Demography section doesn't really make sense before or after the edit. Do you know what 95.55% workers describe their work as main work actually means? To me it's gibberish, but so is 95.55% workers describe their work as their main occupation. Are you familiar with the questions asked on the census? The source is dead and it wasn't archived, and I'm not going to download census data spreadsheets to verify it. If, like me, you don't know what the intended meaning was, it's best to just leave it alone. Un assiolo (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I changed the word "work" to occupation. As it sounds better when you read it out loud. 95.55% workers describe their work as main work sounds redundant. The word work is mentioned twice and sounds repetitive hence I changed the word to occupation to make the sentence sound much better. Rager7 (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still nonsense. What does 95.55% workers describe their work as their main occupation actually mean? Isn't every worker's work their main occupation? What does it mean? --Un assiolo (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sentence is trying to say that most workers describe their work as their main activity. Since later on in the article it states the various activities that people do. While working is the activity most people do there is also providing livelihood as another form of activity that people also engage in. I do agree with you that the sentence is poorly-written thereby feeling nonsensical but I think that is the meaning of the original sentence. Perhaps a rewrite of the sentence being: 95.55% workers describe their work as their main activity. Feels more natural and less confusing sounding to readers. Rager7 (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed rewrite does sound better, assuming that is actually the correct interpretation. I don't have a better one, so I guess we can go with that. If it's wrong, it's not really worse than the nonsense that came before. (Ideally, we would actually look at the census data to see what question was actually asked.) But I would still suggest just leaving things as they are in cases like this, in general.

Really, the entire Demography section here is suspect. It describes the demography of "Qadian" which is a name not mentioned elsewhere in the article and obviously different from the name of the village discussed in the rest of the article. Qadian is a nearby city, apparently, and also a village in Iran. I really have no clue what is going on here and if I saw this I wouldn't touch it at all. If I may ask, how did you find this article? --Un assiolo (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How I found this article was that I click on the "Random article" feature and it shows the article above. This is how I am able to find obscure articles and edit them. Sadly, that sentence is poorly worded from the start and my proposed change is the best version of that sentence given how it is written. Rager7 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I've been keeping an eye on your edits, to make sure you stay out of trouble. I see that you want to be "adopted". I don't know how the process works and if I am qualified to officially adopt someone, but, informally, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

I made an edit to User:Rager7/sandbox to clean up some things. There should be a heading for the "See also" section, and its entries should be in a list, even if there is only one entry. The "References" section with {{Reflist}} goes after the "See also" section.

I also made this edit to fix something in a page you edited.

I see you are using the Visual Editor. You may want to familiarize yourself with the Source Editor. Experienced editors prefer using it in many cases. You can switch to it by pressing the pencil icon in the top right. See Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/1 for a tutorial on how to use it. Un assiolo (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]