User talk:ILoveHirasawaYui

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Four penny coffin, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disturbing articles has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the Wikipedia:Categorization guideline? I assume not, because I can see no possible way to justify such an inherently subjective category based on what the guideline actually says: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". I suggest you stop adding this new category to articles, and seek advice before proceeding further, since it seems inevitable that the category will be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven’t. I assumed that it would be allowed since Wikipedia:List of unusual articles exists. Should I make it a page, like Wikipedia:List of disturbing articles instead of a category?ILoveHirasawaYui (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it is still utterly subjective, and pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But there are many pages like it that exist. Just a few of them are List of unusual biological names, List of bizarre buildings,List of chemical compounds with unusual names, List of unusual deaths, List of unusual dismissals in international cricket, List of unusual drainage systems, Unusual eBay listings, List of strange laws, List of unusual units of measurement, and Place names considered unusual. Anyway I removed it from all the articles that I added to it. ILoveHirasawaYui (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any 'List' in main article space (which 'Wikipedia:List of unusual articles' isn't), is required to have verifiable inclusion criteria. Pages in 'Wikipedia:' space are treated in a more lax manner, but I can't imagine anyone will want an arbitrary list that anyone can add anything to, just because they feel 'disturbed'.

I'd recommend you spend more time learning how Wikipedia works first, if you don't want to waste a lot of your time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I'm allowed to make Wikipedia:List of disturbing articles, as long as it's in 'Wikipedia:' space?ILoveHirasawaYui (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, it will be liable to be deleted under the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion process. And almost certainly will be deleted, unless it shows strong evidence on not being arbitrary and subjective. Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ILoveHirasawaYui! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! ILoveHirasawaYui, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Ben Garrison are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Portal:Ancient Egypt does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Parmouti 30, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert this please? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Correctional_Center&type=revision&diff=1109259224&oldid=1108865034 2601:206:301:4A90:FC18:F524:E2FA:FD89 (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I💖平沢唯 (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--2601:206:301:4A90:B6A3:15D2:BC46:CF7 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your revert, but you should know that this IP is a sock of prolific sockmaster Cadeken. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken/Archive, who has created dozens of accounts and used even more IPs. The editing pattern is identical. IPs in southern California always pop up when a registered sock is blocked. The IPs seek meatpuppets with this message to evade a block or policies. This IP was recently blocked for such solicitations. Sundayclose (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ILoveHirasawaYui: violates AGF, NPA and BURDEN; calls me "a troll" regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary in this edit, in which you accuse someone of trolling, is not civil. Just because you disagree with someone's edits doesn't mean that their edits are vandalism or trolling. You must always assume good faith of editors, and accusing good-faith editors of vandalism is a clear personal attack. Vandalism on Wikipedia has a specific definition, and people who believe their edits are improving an article are not engaging in vandalism. When someone removes unsourced content, you must add sources to using inline citations before restoring it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Seckends. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of most-disliked YouTube videos, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Seckends (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of national capital city name etymologies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joppa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ILoveHirasawaYui. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Parmouti 30, 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) 21:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ILoveHirasawaYui. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Parmouti 30".

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!} 20:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gender inequality 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. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]