Purpose of this page is to document my mistakes on enwiki and how I dealt with them, This page tells me what miss on and what I still need to learn.[edit]

G12 Paro College of Education[edit]

Just a reminder to check the page history to see if there is a version without the copyright violation before request G12. GhostOrchid35 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

GhostOrchid35, thanks for pointing it. I will ensure it from next time onwards. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 19:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bindumadhav Khire (March 24)[edit]

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The long Facebook wall post and the framing around it requires a copyedit.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bindumadhav Khire and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bindumadhav Khire, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and will be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

SITH (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, QueerEcofeminist! Having an article 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! SITH (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sexualities(book)[edit]

Hello, Sureshkhole. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Sexualities(book), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadashiv Govind Barve[edit]

Thank you for your contribution, but you have to quote your sources. Please explain also why the person were notable.Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

COPYLINK notice[edit]

Just so you have this... {{uw-copyright-link}} Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog:

I am amazed to see you warning me at first instance, where just above your message I am discussing the same with nemo bis. Where I have already voiced concerned about my edits using oabot and I am in the phase of reviewing my own edits, let me see, try and get to know, there would be one or two mistakes that doesn't really mean I will mess up with the whole system here? And when I am in the process, I am discussing the same with someone who happens to be in the position to educate me and I am yet to rework the same. You came and warned me. It's a really sad and violation of guideline.
The above conversation clearly states that, I am aware of what I am doing, it's just technical difficulty which prevented me from making sense of few initial edits I did.
And now onward I will take care of those technical details. Thanks for the unnecessary warning. Sureshkhole (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- They are not "technical details". Per the notice above, you need to take copyright very seriously. I do hope you become more careful. I appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog:

For your reference, here and here We are already talking about the same. And I am fully aware of what copyright vio is, which is visible in my message to nemo.
FYI - I am the unfortunate guy on mrwiki who actually implemented copyvio and got most of the copyvio cleaned up there. So I know what copyvio is, but I want to get more into open access and So, I searched, found this bot very useful, so tried it and you can see the visible gap between edits because I am still not confident about what I am doing with this bot. So I messaged nemo to talk about it. where they have already given me a list of sites which are useful and important while making oabot edits.
All this was happening and you came and warned me on copyvio. I understand if I had done it in complete dark and I am continuing it then definitely someone needs to stop me.
But when I am saying, talking about reviewing my own edits and expressing a concern, accepting the fact that there might be mistakes, still you warning me is bit rude just not that. You haven't suggested what is usually doable in such situations. Sureshkhole (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- When OAbot suggests a link, you have to pause, and check to ensure that the document at the suggested link is appropriate. There is no way to automate that check, and if you sacrifice care for speed, you will end up adding many more COPYLINK violations. It is not complicated. It just a matter of pausing and checking. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  - Jytdog, please follow your own suggestion: if you had paused a moment, you would have noticed that Sureshkhole was already on a path to improve their edits and that the warning was unwarranted. I'll take your "Just so you have this" at face value and transform it in a link, which achieves the stated purpose. Thanks, Nemo 08:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: my edits using Oabot[edit]

Thanks for your edits! (Note, most of the credit for OAbot goes to User:Pintoch.) I didn't check all of them, but what I saw makes me think you can safely continue this way.

The developers surely want to expand OAbot to more languages and you can file a request, but we need more usage or it doesn't feel worth the effort. If the mr.wiki community asks to run OAbot in fully automated mode, I think it would be fun for the developers to do.
The links depend on how much you trust the website owner to act responsibly and how likely you think they just made a mistake. If you want to play safe, you can just add links to trusted institutional repositories run by universities and research entities. The biggest in the queue are at the moment csic.es, umich.edu, harvard.edu, mpg.de, caltech.edu, uzh.ch, unl.edu, archives-ouvertes.fr, ulg.ac.be, uq.edu.au, uni-konstanz.de, hal.inserm.fr, mit.edu, uva.nl, ulb.ac.be, unige.ch, usda.gov, eur.nl, ucm.es, uni-goettingen.de.

--Nemo 12:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Sure, I will note the list of sites, And will start the discussions on mrwiki village pump around this. So that we can take it ahead from there. Definitely I will continue with my edits. Sureshkhole (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Using OA bot[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T202802

Please don't add links to pubmed when there is already a pmid parameter (not to mention the pmc parameter) as you did here.

More importantly, please do not add links to pages that violate copyright, per WP:COPYLINK, as you did here.

You are responsible for what links you add to WP from OABot.

Please review the links you have added to WP to ensure that there are not more that violate copyright. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop removing important information from Wikipedia[edit]

Please stop removing important information on Wikipedia while trying to experiment. While your edits might be in good faith, it is not enough for learning to edit. There are plenty places available here to get guidance but don't indulge in attention seeking behavior by removing well referenced sources. You are learning is not good enough reason to vandalize Wikipedia. Next time you indulge in this kind of behavior here, I will bring that fact to administrators here and then you will need to face the music. I am telling again, I have no doubt about your motives and I can see that you are learning! But be careful while editing. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you a paid editor?[edit]

Are you getting funding for editing any of the Wikipedia pages on here or on Marathi Wikipedia? Are you involved in any of the organizations which are paying you to edit Wikipedia? Do you have any agenda while editing Wikipedia? Do you have any conflict of interest while editing Wikipedia? If you have any conflict of interest, please note that its your responsibility to declare that conflict of interest. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Abhijeet Safai, Are you aware of the fact that you are entering into a very serious thing? You are casting aspersions that too without any proofs, diffs, histories. Please provide some refs to claims and if you are that worried about my contributions, you are free to report me. Why you are wasting time on me by sending such messages? QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I am asking you to declare your conflict of interest if any. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Abhijeet Safai, I am not getting paid for my editing at all, why will I get paid for filling up random articles with refs? clearing copyvio randomly? why you think like that? QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Jagannath Dixit is doing such a great work to improve health of people and to reduce the burden of NCDs which is also a goal of WHO. If you can see that, you will understand that there are people who are trying to damage his work due to their financial interests in weight loss industry. There is a huge possibility that there will be attempts to reduce his importance by them. You have proposed his article for deletion. That raised my suspicion. I respect the work you are doing for LGBTQ community. Paid editing is absolute no no on Wikipedia and one should not feel bad to ask or to answer about it. Thanks a lot for answering about paid editing and conflict of interest. Many good wishes to your editing on Wikipedia. I might not be able to give much time but I am happy that you are editing Wikipedia in a positive way. Many good wishes for editing. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Abhijeet Safai,

What is your problem? I am writing on LGBT issues or I tagged your article for deletion?
Remember these two are different things, Bindumadhav Khire is my third and only article about sexuality. So are you saying that is in return of some payment?
Or act of me tagging your article for deletion was because of some payment?
You need to be very specific and I want to remind you that, you haven't provided any solid proofs and I consider this action of yours as my harassment, So consider this as last request from me and stop it right away. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I also can make accusation of harassment and can can give proofs too. So relax and read clearly. Do not read which I am not writing. I do not have any problem but you have some problems hence you are tagging articles for deletion which is a kind of attention seeking behaviour in my opinion. I need not give proofs when you are not having conflict of interest. If you have any conflict of interest you are supposed declare that. Your language is highly childish and that tells that you do not understand Wikipedia functioning. There is nothing known as 'your' or 'my' article on Wikipedia as there is no concept of ownership. I really do not have time to keep on explaining this to you as your arguments are also boring. I am supporting you for the good work you are doing and it is not sarcastic. I really mean good wishes to you but if you will not behave, you will need to face music here. I have not made any comment that you are a paid editor because you edit about some people. I know they are two different things. I asked you if you are a paid editor by seeing your editing pattern. I really have no time to explain these things to you and you will need to read all these guidelines yourself. You need to stop boring people by showing your attention seeking behaviour. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Abhijeet, let me blunt. You think of your abilities and your awareness of our guidelines, way too highly. And based on that false perception, you are now blatantly harassing QEF. If I see you spouting garbled nonsense over here any further; I will straight-away ask for you to be blocked/one-way IBan-ed for the acute disruption that you are causing (incl. comments over AfDs et al) which far exceeds the minimal amount of constructive work that you do over here.

You are still a newbie for all practical purposes and please try to learn from others rather than doling out unsolicited advice. ∯WBG^converse 06:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at User_talk:Abhijeet_Safai#Advocacy[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:Abhijeet_Safai#Advocacy. ∯WBG^converse 09:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

And why do think that the Audi R8 (Type 42) should be deleted? This was simply a split move following a split discussion on the main Audi R8 page. The content has been in existence long before this page was created. You should've added a message on the talk page if you thought there was a violation so it could've been dealt with. U¹ _quattro TALK 08:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro, Thanks for pointing it, sorry my bad, I missed the history of the page. I removed the tag, thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If you had given the source a read , you would've realised that it itself has copied the material from the article at Wikipedia. Your contestation is uncalled for. U¹ _quattro TALK 08:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro, Yes I realized my mistake and I am sorry for that again. The page is already restored to last version. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Selvakannan[edit]

Hello QueerEcofeminist. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Selvakannan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is not G11 material, and all G12 issues are just in one paragraph can can be dealt with using revision deletion. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, Because of the history of contributions, I tagged it with G11. this particular article may not look like it but the series of articles they have produced shows it clearly. obviously, this is something I thought while tagging it with G11. Please have a look at those contributions and let me know, whether you feel the same. I might be wrong in judging or there could be any other way to deal with such contributions. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I have some more info i've dug up and will provide soon. Thanks for reflagging this for me. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bothiman -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, ohhh, so this was a sock, anyways thanks for letting me know, for me this was another learning opportunity. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Phyllis Chesler BLP[edit]

Hi QueerEcofeminist,

Can I ask why you reverted the IP editor at Phyllis Chesler? The information you restored was poorly-sourced (to Breitbart/original reasearch) information in a WP:BLP, introduced to the article by a novice editor just a few days ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Jayjg, Yes, that was my mistake and when the IP reverted it again, I checked it, earlier I thought it's the removal of 'sourced' information but when the IP reverted it then I checked and saw those are not reliable once and there is a discussion going on regarding the same on talk page so I kept quiet, it's my second/third day of using huggle, So I was careful but there might be such error in few first attempts, thanks for pointing it out. I will remember to check what exactly I am reverting and IP's are humans too!

thanks and regards QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 04:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Curious to know why are you AfDing B. R. Ambedkar related films[edit]

Hello, No offense I know you're 1000 times experienced than me in Wikipedia editing, I'm just a few days older, Though I see that you have particularly targeted a topic and Tagged AFD on its related films, I see those films are old and pretty much known one or two even I have heard of even though I have never watched any of them. I think those films deserves an article. I checked policies you mentioned in article's entries so yes they aren't within policy but the articles are good, and some readers might need search for this and they would get nothing if they are deleted. --WikiLover97 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hello and thanks for your edits. Just a heads up, the artists deletion sort is on for sculptors, painters, etchers and the like. See the description on its page-- it's not for film directors, designers etc.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, Hey thanks for pointing out. I will definitely remember that from next time onwards. can you suggest some page where I can find which category is for what? So that I don't do such mistake again! thanks. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 14:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

hi! I think the only way to do it, sadly, is to check each sort page for the criteria. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, So only spending more time with deletions can get me to it. Fine, let's do that. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm AmericanAir88. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Tehran Regional Arbitration Centre, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

AmericanAir88, Thanks for letting me know that, you have done so, But I did not get the reason behind it. As checked-->reviewed-->tagged pages are usually marked as Patrolled. If I have understood it right. Let me know, how you marking it as unpatrolled was needed, with which reasons? thanks. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 10:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

My Son Is Gay AFD[edit]

Since the title is protected, I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Son Is Gay for you to be able to nominate the article for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Democratic opposition (Hungary)[edit]

Iseem to have messed things up thoroughly here in trying to execute the move last night.Please look at the current version. Is this the one you wanted to move to draft. ? DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

DGG, The version is the same since ages, without any sources(in-line). So I wanted to draftify it and I moved it to draft. But the creator moved(via - copypasting) it back to mainspace saying it has sources. When I realized it, I tagged mainspace article for deletion as I couldn't move it back to draft. So now, we have an article space page and draft space with the same content. I think article space could be deleted now, and let them incubate in the draft. But open to hearing from others too. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

i agree with you. It belongs in draft. I will move it there.This history of the moves back and forth will seem peculiar, but that is my own fault for not looking carefully at first DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

DGG, no that's fine, I think when you realize that you needed to do something else, it's not a mistake. thanks for your help. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirects from main space[edit]

Hello, QueerEcofeminist,

I see you are moving a lot of pages from main space into draft space. When you do this, please remember to always notify the article creator (although it seems like you are doing this which is great!). Also, do not leave a redirect behind, going from the encyclopedia to draft space because it will just have to be deleted later that day. And we generally only draftify recently created articles, not ones that are a decade old. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Liz, thanks for your message,

Sure, I will take care of notifying the creator, I will spare age-old articles from draftifying.
I feel bad for those redirects as I don't have page mover rights so till I get that there will be redirects, So I will stop and wait till I get those rights. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 04:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me chime in for a moment. Could you please move Draft:Alameda Council back to Alameda Council? The article was 6 1/2 years old when you moved it, but it did need some strengthening. I added six references and expanded two sections. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 19:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm attempting a CSD of the redirect and if it clears then I can move it back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Making SPI reports[edit]

Hey QueerEcofeminist. I wanted to follow up from the recent Sandesh Tupsundre SPI. I know that we have terrible documentation about how to report sock puppetry, and it's particularly difficult in light of a negative CU result. It's necessary in that case to overcome the lack of technical confirmation with extensive behavioral evidence and analysis that's enough to (a) make it probably true that the users are connected and (b) make it unlikely that any innocent explanation fits (such as that all of the users were interested in the same topic for independent reasons). Otherwise, if I were to block, I wouldn't be doing my job as an administrator to ensure that the block tool is not inappropriately used. WP:SIGNS lists common reasons to suspect sockpuppetry, but it's generally necessary to list enough signs to remove most of the doubt that two particular users are connected. You can see a sample SPI I clerked that overcame a negative CU result: the analysis I presented is close to the necessary level of certainty, and in every SPI that I adjudicate, I have to convince myself at that level (even if I don't write it all out) before I will feel certain enough to block. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

L235, thanks for writing to me on this, I will take extra care from now onwards, and Yes, I was too fast/in hurry to report this case, I need to be more specific and give more behavioral evidence which will provide more ease to the handling of cases. I will go through the links and pages you suggested and make the requests according to those instructions. thanks and regards. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 10:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Page mover granted[edit]

Hello, QueerEcofeminist. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. 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. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Draftifying old articles[edit]

The other day I came across an article you had moved to draft space, Giovanni di Vico, after you had tagged the leftover redirect for deletion. This article dates from 2007, and the original author probably isn't going to come back and fix it in the next six months, so I moved it back to article space. WP:DRAFTIFY sets out the criteria for draftifying articles as part of the new page patrol process, and also makes it clear that draftifying articles as a backdoor route to deletion is inappropriate.

I didn't say anything to you at the time as I figured it was a one-off, but I've just found a whole lot more, all from the past few weeks. This is quite concerning, especially given the thread above.

I've restored all of these articles back to mainspace and am in the process of cleaning them up. If you still feel they need to be deleted, please nominate them for AfD. If there are any further similar articles you have draftified prior to these, please help me restore them to mainspace. Thank you.

Courtesy ping: @Primefac and Salvio giuliano: – bradv🍁 03:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, I am extremely sorry, if that was a completely bad move, but I did not stop as all the moves were cleaned up by admins as leftover redirects. SO there was no way I could get to know this mistake of mine. Don't worry about the above thread as I am not going to use the page mover right for any such moves now, until I understand that it's needed. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 03:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, these are all cleaned up, and I went through the rest of your moves and they all look fine. I understand that no one mentioned anything to you yet - this probably could have been caught earlier by whoever was deleting the leftover redirects. I've pinged Salvio with my previous message, and I'll leave it to them to talk to you about your page mover rights.

Some of these articles probably need to be deleted, but they do need to go through the proper process. Feel free to review them and use PROD/AFD as appropriate - they're all listed above. – bradv🍁 04:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Bradv. I hadn't noticed those errors. QueerEcofeminist, I granted you the page mover right on a probationary basis and, at the moment, I'm not inclined to remove it yet, as long as you pay attention when moving articles. However, I'll keep an eye on your moves going forward.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano, thanks, I will take extra care while moving any page now onwards. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Your reviewing activities[edit]

Due to you your review of Medicare For All, I revisited the link and discovered that what was only supposed to be a redirect to Single-payer healthcare#United States had been hijacked by User:KingOpti101 on 2019-08-18, wherein he/she had pasted code from the target page, overwriting the REDIRECT directive. It is not clear whether this was an act of overt vandalism or simply incompetence. I reverted all of KingOpti101's edits and rolled the page back to the edit of 27 January 2019 by User:Bri. Whatever you "reviewed" did not catch this problem. Please be more vigilant. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 16:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hydrargyrum, It appeared in new page review backlog, And without looking at history, I marked the current revision as marked. Obviously, I must have checked the page history. Which I do all the time, but here I missed it. thanks for pointing at it. I will not miss on checking page histories for such changes.
Word "activities" made me further curious, was this only mistake of mine or do you have found more of them?
While posting this message on my talkpage you changed code of the top banner! was that by mistake or I don't know? QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Thanks for the explanation; you simply didn't see the mischief User:KingOpti101 was up to on the Medicare For All redirect page since the page was created and after User:Bri's legitimate edit. By "activitees" I meant your regular reviewing of articles. As for the code change, to add this section I had opened your talk page with the "edit this page" tab at the top of the window and I must have accidentally "strafed" the <pre></pre> link with the mouse cursor in the Wiki markup menu below the edit window; I see that it has already been corrected. Otherwise, while I had the full page open in edit more, it exposed some minor XHTML errors that cause very unsightly effects for users such as I with syntax highlighting enabled. Normal text in the editor is supposed to be black on a white background, but when an XTHML tag isn't closed, all normal text from that point on appears as black against a pink background. The most common syntax error is using <br> instead of <br />. I find the syntax highlighter feature in the user preferences most useful for exposing mismatched brackets in templates and links and and mismatched XHTML tags. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 07:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hydrargyrum, * I want to tell you clear that, I haven't liked the way you treat your mistakes and mistakes by others. There is a huge difference between how you see it. use of plural form in the heading suggests that you are pointing to several where it's just one and

Trying to hide your clear vandalism behind the not so nice explanation of code correction, where even if you want to correct such codes you need to ask/suggest to the user and not try and fix it yourself. As it's in my userspace.
And I am not saying I didn't do mistakes, but the language we use should be different while trying to have any dialogue. There are many good examples on my talkpage itself. Where many users have conveyed their concerns about my editing here. I always welcome and look for improvements too, additionally, I keep the history of my mistakes too. But this is something I felt and you should be aware of how others feel about your actions/language. thanks And I give full-stop to this conversation. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)