This is an archive of past discussions about User:Guessitsavis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome!
Hi Guessitsavis! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
I don't know if I'm going crazy, but you have a userpage, right? Because it isn't working in your signature. here. Is it a problem on my end, or is it your custom signature? 'Cause something weird is going on. Roundish ⋆tc)23:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi! There is still someone trying to edit the Rava page after you warned them. I deleted the quote they added, as it is extremely misleading. I am adding the explanation here for you, as you previously warned this user about vandalizing again.
74.108.37.126 added the quote, "Rava said that this is what the mishna is saying: An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old has done nothing, as intercourse with a girl less than three years old is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye. In the case of an eye, after a tear falls from it another tear forms to replace it. Similarly, the ruptured hymen of the girl younger than three is restored."
This is difficult to understand (also, half the text here does not appear in the original Aramaic but is someone helping to interpret), but it is in a 3rd century description of weddings, where virginity is crucial. The meaning of this text, particularly the phrase, "[he] has done nothing" is referring to the status of the child as a future bride, as Rava is attempting to protect the child from being seen differently by society. It is NOT discussing the permissibility of the man's actions. This of course, does not go nearly far enough (and may itself be repugnant to our modern sensibilities)...but it is certainly not what the user is attempting to spin Rava as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.0.212.145 (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Forgive me I have never made an edit/change on wikipedia so I am new to this - I hope I have done this right by editing/informing you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.0.212.145 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there. I noticed that my recent edit on the Wikipedia page of the 1993 movie 'Alive' has been reverted, due to it sounding opinionated. Truth be told, I am a little bit urged to point out that the cast of this film were mostly Americans and Canadians (who couldn't speak spanish for the most part), with none coming from Uruguay or even Argentina and Chile (where the crash took place). I myself am a Chilean, so I feel a bit of a stronger connection to this chapter of our history, and considering the recent movie 'Society of the Snow', which features an all-spanish-speaking cast of Uruguayan and Argentinian actors, and is arguably a better film (when you compare both movie's reviews made by movie analists and websites), I think that, in the article for the old film, it should be pointed out that the cast were mostly Americans and Canadians. Now, it could be placed just mentioning that (without mentioning that no actors were from the countries involved in real life), and it could be placed in the 'Cast' section of the page, but you tell me. 186.189.95.36 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree, it is definitely a point worth mentioning. However, my main concern is the tone it's placed in. It see I'd suggest placing it elsewhere in the article, as well; it might have been more ideal under reception. It's definitely a crucial point, but it could raise NPOV (neutral point of view issues). I'd just give the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article a once over, and make sure it's all good there. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Fursona
Hewwo,Guessitsavis! This is Seemslegitz, considering ur a active member of the fandom (or halkeye over the Fursona article) you should know that the term "Original species" is self explanatory to furries. Protogens are also well known and if someone doesn't know, the term is a Google away due to its popularity. Due to both of these being basic terms, sources aren't needed. Especially for evidence that furries make their own species (I would know considering I made a not at all know species called the Deutsche Dragon and Swedish Dragon.) If the protogen is what needs sourcing, I'll leave out that part of it! <3 -Alex (He/Him/They) Seemslegitz (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Please check out WP:NOR"On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.", and "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." According to this policy, the claim that you are inserting into said article has no citeable and verifiable source which supports your claim, and is therefore not allowed unless you can reliably back it up.108.49.72.125 (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
As you have said, this is for a 'claim', I am not making a claim, I am stating a fact that doesn't need any such sourcing due to it being self explanatory. The Wikipedia original research policy does NOT apply to this instance. -Alex (he/him/they) Seemslegitz (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Even if WP:NOR doesn't apply, you're still making a claim, one that I wouldn't consider to be common knowledge nor self explanatory. You can see an information page about general common knowledge guidelines at WP:CK. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 23:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I quote "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." so yes, WP:NOR very much applies in this instance. I would also like to add this isn't self-explanatory for most readers, and see WP:BURDEN, it is up to YOU as the author to cite sources, not up to the reader to Google it or make what they will. You must understand that nobody has an issue with you making this claim/fact, however, the issue is that you aren't citing a source which is essential! I know you are editing in good faith, but please don't revert edits until a consensus is reached, otherwise the excessive reverting might result in an edit war. Somebody else has undone the edit to the article, and I strongly request you not to revert it until you find a reliable source to back up your claim. 108.49.72.125 (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Don't bite the newcomers
Reverting these edits as unsourced was a bit bitey. The additions were not particularly controversial. They could have done with some copyediting and pruning, and perhaps tagging some to request a source. Reverting a newcomer who is clearly trying to add useful content is not very welcoming. Srleffler (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Reading it over, I was definitely in the wrong there. In the future, I'll make sure to restrain myself in that aspect. Thanks for letting me know I was out of line there! Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Eskimo Kiss Edit
Guesstavis,
I am the person who is trying to edit the eskimo kiss page to include mention of a "nosey swoosh" but you are not letting me do it because I don't have a citation.
The attempt is just a nice gesture for my girlfriend, who is in another country. There is nothing to cite, other than my love.
Maybe you could help to create the page on Karolina Protsenko on Wikipedia. This page has several languages including French. Yet about the page, the English language is missing.
Hey there! I am, myself, quite unfamiliar with the article creation process on Wikipedia, but I can try to guide you on some of the steps!
I would suggest taking a look at Your first article, as it provides an excellent overview of the general steps/processes of article creation. After reading that, and getting your article in tip-top shape, I would recommend submitting it to WP:AfC for review. If you would like a general overview of Wikipedia policy, I would look at the Introduction page.
Another excellent resource is the Teahouse, an area designed for newer editors to ask questions and get feedback.
Hey there, apologies for the delay in my response. After reviewing the article in question, and the person it's associated with, I am uncertain if the person meets our notability requirements for individuals. This doesn't inherently mean they're not, just that I am unsure. I would recommend you ask someone at the teahouse, as they will likely have a much better understanding the requirements than me. Thanks! Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Never mind.
I just will see with someone who could help me for that article.
Hello, just to let you know that I am going to revert your edits to List of 2020s American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. You have done nothing wrong, but the edit request was from a very prolific sockpuppeteer who uses edit requests to try to get around the semi-protection that is there because of them. Normally I would have noticed the request and deleted it before it was actioned, but I did not see it. Thanks for answering the request! Slp1 (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Guessitsavis. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@Verona15leon: Hey! It appears I reversed your edits because you failed to supply a source. Wikipedia takes the sourcing of material, especially in reference to living people, very seriously. As a result, lots of changes to biographical pages, especially those potentially libellous, require thorough sourcing. You can read more on our policy regarding living persons here. Don't be afraid to ask me any further questions! Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 17:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Ayaz Sheikh
Thank you for your feedback. While I understand your concerns, I believe there are other notable aspects of Ayaz Sheikh's career that warrant inclusion in the article. Additionally, I will continue to search for reliable sources to support the information presented. Your input is valuable, and I am committed to addressing any concerns raised during the discussion. Syed Shaveer (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for a period of 6 months. If you still need an IP block exemption after it expires please file a new request. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Hi @Guessitsavis, thank you for your feedback regarding my first Wikipedia article. I have made some edits to the page, which I hope make it sound less like an advertisement. I would appreciate it if you could check out my edits and share any new feedback you may have. Thank you! Danny M (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
For a few of these signs, they seem to come from Delaware. Is this because they are the same?
I'm not sure what I can say about road signs in Delaware. Some of road signs used in Texas may not be unique to only one US state. WWBM (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Guessitsavis, thank you for your review. This is my first Wikipedia article and I've been working on it for a little bit - in particular trying to address the over-citation. I have tried to make sure that the citations are as relevant as possible (while offering additional relevant context and are from reputable sources). I would like to further reduce this to address your comment, I'm just not sure what information I should be doing that with. I appreciate any of your input and feedback.
