User talk:Hazooyi

Francis Sheehy-Skeffington

Greetings Hazooyi. In simplifying the wording of this article, you changed, perhaps inadvertently, the meaning of the first sentence in the "Easter Rising" section. The first sentence was: "Francis Sheehy Skeffington has often been considered one of the martyrs of Ireland's 1916 Easter Rising." I think the intention of this sentence was to show how our view of Sheehy Skeffington has subtly changed over time, from being considered a "martyr" of the Easter Rising to being thought of as a forward-thinking pacifist, socialist and feminist--and of course, an unlucky victim of circumstances. In deference to an earlier Wiki editor and to those who still view Sheehy Skeffington primarily as a martyr, the sentence used the present perfect tense ("has sometimes been considered") rather than the present tense ( "is considered"). "Is considered" suggests that S.S is still viewed primarily as a "martyr", which I don't think is the case. (The Richard Ellmann quotation is an example of the earlier historical view). Would it be possible for you to restore the sentence as it was? Thanks for your consideration.

On another matter, I think that the Wiki article standardized the use of the full name, Sheehy Skeffington, because in accord with his philosophy, that was his choice and practice. Shouldn't we honour him in this? Best wishes to you. CanK9 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CanK9 Thanks so much for writing and letting me know. I am very busy at the moment so can't make the changes you suggest but have no objection to you doing it. I was not aware of the issues you pointed out. But that is what I like about Wikipedia. You always learn new things. Hazooyi (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick and gracious response. CanK9 (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Dror Kashtan

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dror Kashtan, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Shuki Friedman

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Shuki Friedman, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki Friedman moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Shuki Friedman, 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. Maliner (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need better sources to establish the notability of your subject. Articles and books written by him do not contribute anything towards notability. I have tried to give your article a second chance by incubating it in the draft space so that you can improve it and submit it for a review. But you chose to revert my move. So now you have to decide whether to revert back your article to draft space and improve it or want me to open a deletion discussion (WP:AFD) now as your article can't be there in mainspace with such poor sourcing. Maliner (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you decide to reject this article right in the middle of my work??

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Hazooyi. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Maliner (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Maliner. Not sure why you are leaving those sort of messages for me, but whatever. I have been trying to learn the ropes. I have read many policy pages and look at the way other pages are built, in the hopes of doing things right. Still, I think it is not really fair to jump on a text that I am right in the middle of and then accuse me of having some vested interest. It's pretty funny, actually. Messing around with Wikipedia is actually an escape from doing my real work...LOL

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moshe Gaon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channel 2. 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) 17:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Church of Saint Porphyrius

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Church of Saint Porphyrius, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Yedidia Stern

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Yedidia Stern, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Alex Heckler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Heckler 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/Alex Heckler 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.

Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really?? I thought the article was coming along well - also thanks to your help - and I am really surprised that you suddenly decided it should be wiped out altogether. I started the article because his name comes up often in certain circles and I didn't see any write-up about him on Wikipedia. I came up with quite a bit of material about him, and the sources looked reliable to me, so it is hard for me to believe you say he is not notable.--Hazooyi (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify for an article on Wikipedia, a person must meet the guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. - but please read the whole of the page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is precisely the case here. Multiple sources have been added that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Which is why I don't see grounds for deletion and would like to understand why you think that sources like the Wall Street Journal, reports from the White House, articles in newspapers and Brandeis university newsletters are not reliable. Of course I appreciate your efforts to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia and thank you for any help you can provide.Hazooyi (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okj, yes, there are some sources, but essentially, the subject has to be notable. For example, not every CEO has an article, and nor should they - even though they might have a profile in the NYT or the Irish Times. In this particular case, the subject is described as an "attorney, political fundraiser and philanthropist." Attorneys aren't necessarily notable. Judges might be. We have specific guidelines for people involved in politics and the judiciary: WP:POLITICIAN for national level, and WP:NSUBPOL for subnational politicians. The subject doesn't meet those criteria. So the nomination is absolutely in good faith and keeping with WP's policies and guidelines. Don't take it personally. (I should have explained this more fully earlier, but I'm also working, so only have some free time on breaks). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article intros

It is not necessary or even desirable to bold the article title if the title is descriptive rather than a common name. Please stop doing that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I have read hundreds of articles over the last few months and see that this is the standard practice on Wikipedia. You start with the name of the article.--Hazooyi (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence,[C] although there are exceptions: If the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." and if it serves no real purpose, then it is best practice not to do so. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, because I have rarely seen this. But I do think it serves a purpose. Without it, readers are immediately dropped into a medley of facts and figures without any clear focus. I think my introduction makes things clearer. Why are you against it?--Hazooyi (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it does not make things clearer, it just adds unnecessary detail to a lead sentence which is already obfuscation and needs changing.

There are plenty of examples to look at but because you are relatively new to WP, you have probably not seen that many, a current topical example is Israel–Hamas war, which starts off "An armed conflict....". Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that one too is a convoluted mess...With the response to my efforts to improve things on the current article (which I definitely think makes it clearer and I am completely objective), I would not dare to try my hand at that one LOL. Hazooyi (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think someone here has made a mistake. Why would I be blocked? I've only been editing here a couple of months and have done my best to follow all the policies. What have I done? This is very distressing. I have devoted quite some effort to rewriting when I felt the English was not up to par, and also to expanding on various sections of articles where I had some knowledge of the subject and thought I could contribute. Please rethink this move, which seems very sudden and unwarranted. When I joined here, I thought I would enjoy it. It was hard to learn the ropes, but I kept at it, and I thought I was doing not badly. Please explain what I can do to restore my status as a Wikipedia user. Now someone has written to say I am a person behind a blocked account. A while back someone left a message implying that I have a conflict of interest, and here suddenly another speculation about me. Neither of these is true. I started adding to Wikipedia articles a few months ago. I am not writing on anyone else's behalf, and I actually don't know any other editors on Wikipedia, blocked or not, apart from the few who have commented on this page. --Hazooyi (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not addressing point of block as noted below. You have had four days to amend this request and have failed to do so. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2024 (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.

--Hazooyi (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I did amend the unblock request as soon as Yamla explained. Look at the history of my reply.--Hazooyi (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are believed to be the same person behind the blocked account, Gilabrand. You need to directly address this in your unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for explaining. Yamla. I didn't see that anywhere. So what you are saying is that I am someone who has a blocked account?

Yes, that's the reason given by the blocking admin for your block. --Yamla (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think someone here has made a mistake. Why would I be blocked? I've only been editing here a couple of months and have done my best to follow all the policies. What have I done? This is very distressing. I have devoted quite some effort to rewriting when I felt the English was not up to par, and also to expanding on various sections of articles where I had some knowledge of the subject and thought I could contribute. Please rethink this move, which seems very sudden and unwarranted. When I joined here, I thought I would enjoy it. It was hard to learn the ropes, but I kept at it, and I thought I was doing not badly. Please explain what I can do to restore my status as a Wikipedia user. Now someone has written to say I am a person behind a blocked account. A while back someone left a message implying that I have a conflict of interest, and here suddenly another speculation about me. Neither of these is true. I started adding to Wikipedia articles a few months ago. I am not writing on anyone else's behalf, and I actually don't know any other editors on Wikipedia, blocked or not, apart from the few who have commented on this page.

I know Wikipedia administrators are busy, and I appreciate them trying to keep things in order, but I really don't know this guy they are saying I am. For some reason nobody has responded to my last posting, so I will upload my request again. I would really like to edit again. It was actually kind of habit-forming...Hazooyi (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the blocking of other accounts mentioned below, there is no good reason to unblock at this time. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. If anything, adding a second simultaneous unblock request drops you to the bottom of the queue. Don't do this. If your open unblock request isn't sufficiently convincing for anyone to review it, reword your existing open unblock request. Yamla (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2024 (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.

Same as above, after no response for weeks. This seems to be collateral damage, from what I am reading on Wikipedia policy explanations.

I'm really really sorry, but I'm confused. I was blocked, I asked to be unblocked. Yamla said I should address the reason for the block in my request. I immediately amended the request as he suggested. Then an administrator comes along and says the unblock is denied because I didn't address the reason within four days, which is not true, as can be seen from the editing history. Then Yamla comes back and puts up a tag about procedural decline and also says that unblock requests are only handled if they are of interest to someone. Can someone please step in and clear this up? I don't profess to understand the complexities of this website but still....--Hazooyi (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a month now and I am still waiting for some explanation for why I can't edit. As I have said several times, I am not a puppet of anyone and I have no idea what was wrong with my edits, although I would fix them if I knew what the problem was. Why nobody is answering me? Am I supposed to resend all my messages again? From what Yamla wrote, it seems that I would be even worse off if I did another appeal. My oh my, this is a complicated place. Maybe we need to send some of the editors back to their early days. Seems like they have forgotten what it's like...Hazooyi (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained, more than once. User:Blablubbs has blocked this account since a Checkuser has determined that this account is a sock of an already blocked user. Don't open another request. If no-one has seen fit to act on your unblock request in the month that it has been open it is unlikely anyone will unblock you, but I will notify the admin board. Meters (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I've reviewed the technical evidence, and it seems clear to me that Hazooyi and Gilabrand and Idont are the same person. Further, I've just blocked Pashtida (talk · contribs · block log) as another account used by Hazooyi, based on checkuser evidence. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Zzuuzz. Since Gilabrand is the oldest account and @Blablubbs confirmed Hazooyi as a confirmed sock puppet of Gilabrand, I have tagged Pashtida as the sock of an original master, Gilabrand. Regards Maliner (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]