Jump to content

User talk:FortUser

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Welcome!

Hello, FortUser, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all talk page comments as well as AFD nominations so editors know whose views are being put forward. Please take a moment now to add your signature to the AFD you started. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! FortUser, 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! 05:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

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.

Selfstudier (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Selfstudier.
FortUser, were you aware of the extended-confirmed restriction in this area? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is still true, if you continue to violate the restriction you may be reported to arbitration enforcement. nableezy - 20:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I will not create extended-confirmed restricted pages until I get the necessary certification. FortUser (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt just creating, you cant edit material related to the topic besides in article talk pages, and even then not in formal discussions like RFCs and requested moves. I removed your comment at the AFD on those grounds as well. nableezy - 20:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of 2023 Hamra shooting

[edit]

The page 2023 Hamra shooting has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

WP:G5 / WP:ARBECR (WP:A/I/PIA)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

[edit]
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating the WP:ARBECR restriction in this area, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours. 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. 

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Wikipedia:Sandbox, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Untamed1910 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sandbox. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Untamed1910 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sandbox, you may be blocked from editing. Untamed1910 (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


You need to stop right now. What you are doing is WP:GAMING and by itself is sanctionable behavior. If you want to edit in a restricted topic area you should actually spend some time on the talk pages and editing other pages to get a better understanding about how these pages are put together. But if you keep this up you will be blocked again, and even if you get to 500 edits an admin will remove the permission as it was clearly gotten through gaming the system. So stop, right now. nableezy - 02:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note (and ec) Hi FortUser! Just reiterating some of the above: it's no big deal if you'd like to make a large number of sandbox edits but they aren't a path to extended-confirmed. The point of the extended confirmed protection is to limit contentious article access to editors with a reasonable familiarity with Wikipedia editing processes and consensus decision-making. An editor who reaches that 500-edit cutoff wholly or largely through repetitive sandbox or userpage tweaks has not met the intent of the restriction and will likely have their extended-confirmed right removed. If this is the reason why you're making all these sandbox edits, can I sugegst you stop and just go back to regular editing elsewhere. You'll reach 500 legitimate edits soon enough. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How long does it usually take? Have you been editing for years? FortUser (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EC came in right as I first started editing seriously. As I recall, I think it took me a few days -- definitely less than a week -- to reach the plateau. It can seem daunting, but I promise, it's not that bad. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec again) Everyone edits at a different pace. Just edit articles normally and don't worry about collecting new permissions. There's no hurry to dive into contentious topics, and there are plenty of risks in wading into areas where blocks and sanctions fly free. As random advice, for the moment find a less contentious area than Israel-Palestine to work on and create, improve or collaborate on some articles in that space for a while. With the experience you gain there you'll probably be well set up for more contentious areas sooner than you realise. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as Dumuzid said, EC arrives quickly enough legitimately. Generally, if you create an account and immediately start editing seriously, you'll reach 500 long before 30 days. Also, the WP:ARBPIA area is a minefield, and it really isn't a pleasant place to start editing. Nor is any Contentious topic for that manner. Can I direct you to the Wikipedia:Task center if you want an idea of where to start? Much, much safer, and less likely to send you to WP:ANI. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the only four big topics affected by EC listed in WP:ECP (Arab-Israeli conflict, Anti-Semitism in Poland, Russia-Ukraine war, and India-Pakistan war)? Or are there any others listed that aren't listed? FortUser (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many. Gamergate was an early protected topic. Caste issues have likewise been protected for quite some time. You can find the exhaustive list here. One of the things I did when I was working towards 500 edits was to simply read articles that fascinated me (non-ECP, of course) and copyedit them. Fix typos. Correct punctuation, that sort of thing. You'd be amazed how much of that work is needed and how quickly the edits will accumulate. Dumuzid (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpick: That is not an exhaustive list of topics affected by WP:ARBECR, and it will inevitably contain protections in areas that are not covered by it too. For example, quite a few pages are extended-confirmed protected per WP:ARBAP2, but there is no general extended-confirmed restriction for American Politics. So please better ignore that list. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If an article not related to the above four topics doesn't have ECP, may I edit it? FortUser (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FortUser, if you have not yet been made formally aware of the restriction in an area, and are genuinely unaware of it, there is no issue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you can also not edit material related to those topics either. If you want to edit Jimmy Carter about his health go for it. If you want to edit about Camp David or his later book like Peace not Apartheid, do not. nableezy - 04:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are some pages relating to those topics (e.g. Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid) which doesn't even have semi-protection. Why is that the case? May anyone edit that? If not, why doesn't it have ECP. FortUser (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the Arab-Israeli conflict. List of military engagements during the Russian invasion of Ukraine has the same problem. FortUser (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its because it hasnt been requested yet for those articles, but no the sanction is in place even if the protection is not there. Just dont edit about those topics in articles, regardless of protection. Like Euryalus said below, just go edit some other topics for now and get a handle on how things go here. nableezy - 06:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same for India-Pakistan. See Operation Desert Hawk. FortUser (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no extended-confirmed restriction for WP:ARBIPA. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is ECP automatically granted at 500 edits, assuming 30 days? Or do I have to formally request it? FortUser (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is automatically granted, but can also be removed if there is evidence of gaming the system. If it is removed it will not be automatically reinstated, so you'd have to apply for it if that ever occurred. I wouldn't worry about that right now though, just go do some editing. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I personally don't really understand is why 99% of Wikipedia's new editors seem to have no issue with avoiding the few highly-contentious restricted topics and editing about trees, animal species, ancient history, sports events, whatever, while a (perceived) 1% isn't just magically drawn towards extended-confirmed restricted topics but then also continues to seek for loopholes, exceptions, clarifications, instead of joining the other 99% through the Task Center or the community portal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Please see WP:ANI#User: FortUser actively gaming EC nableezy - 02:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I erred. I will no longer try to game EC. Please don't block me. FortUser (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to preempt the question: No, this area does not have an extended-confirmed restriction.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Selenium (software) \ Wikipedia application \ Proof of concept

[edit]

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Selenium (software) \ Wikipedia application \ Proof of concept, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Courcelles (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to demonstrate my Lorem Ipsum text as a proof of concept on a seperate page. The main page is Selenium (software). FortUser (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Courcelles (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please unblock me. I just wanted to preempt a potential mistake. I'm really sorry and didn't know that was prohibited. I will no longer seek ECP. Please unblock me. FortUser (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For someone warned so extensively on gaming to be making pages like Selenium (software) \ Wikipedia application \ Proof of concept is unacceptable. You have disrupted this project enough. Courcelles (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the main page Selenium (software), I wanted to prove the topic. Please unblock me. It was an honest mistake and I won't do it again. I thought it wasn't gaming if I wanted to warn you in advance about something. I did it in the wrong way but I thought it was legitamite. Please unblock me soon. FortUser (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See this revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selenium_(software)&oldid=1150221451). I honestly thought it was legitamite. I was showing how Selenium could be misused and wanted to warn the admin about it. FortUser (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I showed how Selenium could be misused to edit Wikipedia. In order to prove my concept, I created a new page and let my program generate text. I explictly stated that unauthorized use constituted gaming although without a proof of concept, any design is useless. Furthermore, I let the admin know about a potential way to create edits on Wikipedia nefariously. Therefore, I thought what I did was legitamite. I will no longer make any dummy edits to game the system. I apologize. Please unblock me.(talk) 00:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That you were disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point is not a valid reason to be unblocked. This unblock request does not show how you will not continue the behavior once unblocked nor does it demonstrate understanding of the reason for the block. Aoidh (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To add to the above: as noted above there have been multiple attempts to explain what gaming the system is, and to encouragee you to make productive edits. We're now at the point of diminishing returns. If you genuinely didn't know that your edit to the selenium article wasn't appropriate, or that the lorem ipsum spam page wasn't appropriate, then you need to work on your Wikipedia skills and background knowledge before returning to editing. If you're interested, there's more info on this topic at this essay. You might reasonably demonstrate you have these skills and background knowledge by proposing some viable edits to articles on your talkpage and getting others to review them. Alternatively you might go work on some other Wikipedia (commons, Simple, another language etc) and come back here in a few moths with evidence of productive editing elsewhere. Maybe even just spend a few months reading Wikipedia articles until you can demonstrate you know a bit more about what is and is not acceptable in articles. Unfortunately unless/until these steps occur, your account will likely stay blocked. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I genuinely was unaware of the policy to not disturb Wikipedia in order to make a point. I previously didn't understand that; my bad. I had a specific motive to get WP:ECP - to edit controversial topics. I will no longer game the system by making inprodutive edits - ever. All the other rules have no benefits if I violate them and I won't. Please unblock me and retire this account so I can have a clean start. I will no longer seek ECP. Thank you so much. FortUser (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. This is precisely the point I was making above. You don't seem to have read any of the editing policies, and don't show much willingness to comply with the ones you are directed to. We welcome new editors but there comes a point where cleaning up disruption is a waste of everyone's effort. Take some time away from editing articles, and read up on what the policies and guidelines are. Then propose some useful draft edits on this talkpage and ask for others to review them. This will be useful proof that you have taken the time to learn about how to edit constructively. Until you have some evidence that you can edit constructively, your unblock requests will keep being declined. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

How about a timed block instead of an indefinite one? I understand that I can no longer game (make useless edits) under any circumstance. I will read up on guidelines in the meantime. Also, on the talk page, who will read it?

I only violated two policies WP:GAME and WP:ECP. I only violated the WP:GAME precisely because I understood WP:ECP. I did not violate a whole sleuth of policies, and I will not afterward. I understand I need a break from editing but isn't an indefinite block a little harsh? How about a couple days and a fresh start after that? I did make some productive edits, as you can see on my edit history. I am competent but I made a huge mistake.

Alternatively, you could revoke my chance get ECP for several months. I will no longer be motivated to game anymore. I also understand that it was a terrible idea to give someone the resources to violate the rules. I will no longer do so in the future. It is only my third time and I will be extra careful so there will never be a fourth.

To summarize I understand why I ways blocked (repeated violations on WP:GAME and posting information on how to break the rules) and I will ensure I won't violate the rules again by double-checking with the rules or an admin when a matter seems hazy and reading the rules on Wikipedia. I will also no longer chase ECP for a while. Please reduce the block time.

Speaking of good edits, how about hide my revisions on Selenium (software) from the public? Someone else can access the revision and cheat.

Decline reason:

Us putting an end date on the block does nothing to convince us that you understand the reasons for the block and will not repeat them. The block will be removed when you can do that. This request doesn't. I concur with my colleagues below that your only path forward is the standard offer- you should take time to absorb everything you have been told, and maybe edit another Wikimedia project(like Simple English Wikipedia, or another) where you can make productive edits that can be used as evidence of your changed behavior. Six months from the block would be the middle of October, I suggest you wait until then. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for the email but I still don't support an unblock for the reasons already listed. Your additional unblock request above can be considered by a third party. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also acknowledging the email that you sent to me, but I don't see anything in the subsequent discussion to change the reason for the decline. To comment on a specific request in your email (and in your above unblock request), I do not think it at all appropriate to change the block from indefinite to a timed block; the issues that caused the block are not something to "wait out". - Aoidh (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can also just respond here, email is not necessary. To respond to your second email, however, where you ask What is there left to do? Please advise. I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Standard offer and going from there. Making subsequent unblock requests only minutes after the decline of the previous one (ten minutes and five minutes, respectively) does not show that you're taking the time to read and trying to understand the reason for the block and the decline of the unblock requests. You said please advise and my advice is to slow down. The rapid-fire unblock requests and the ECP-gaming issue have the same underlying appearance of rushing too fast. Take a few months, read, absorb the information, and then make an unblock request. Show that you're not going to rush, that you understand the underlying issues, and that they will not be repeated. - Aoidh (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is your advice literally to come back in a few months? I don't think my unblock request can get better if I take a break for a few months. Please advise. FortUser (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My advice, again, is to slow down. Read the things that are being said and shared with you because the answer to your questions are all already there. My advice was not to simply "come back in a few months". - Aoidh (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've already fulfilled the second condition of the standard offer. How long should I wait? Is there any chance I can get the six month threshold shortened? FortUser (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus how much do I have edit elsewhere or propose good edits here? Should I wait a few months before coming back? FortUser (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mispoke. Should I wait a few months before proposing edits or should I do so immediately? FortUser (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How will I demonstrate that I know more rules? FortUser (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pings and the further email. It's getting a bit repetitive, please see the advice above from Aoidh and my earlier comments on what to do if you want to be unblocked. Read the policies, build up some evidence of productive editing (example: write an entire, properly sourced article in your sandbox page). When these steps are done, ask for an unblock (via the usual template that you used above) and see how it goes. Until then I'm not going to keep replying in real time given there's nothing new to say. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this block is sitewide so they can't edit their sandbox, they will need to do it here. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Sorry to butt in, but may I offer FortUser the WP:SO? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ctrl+F "Wikipedia:Standard offer" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tohu wa-bohu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chumash. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FortUser&oldid=1150410766"