User talk:Just Piping In

Welcome!

Hello Just Piping In, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Mirokado (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standardised welcome I received, you already know some of it of course. --Mirokado (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing semi-protected pages

Hello. I'm afraid I forgot one important bit about editing semi-protected pages: the new account must be four days old. Sorry, I was not trying to mislead you! Even if you do not plan to use your account very much to start with, having it in place will mean that next time you do want to start editing a lot, you can hit the ground running. --Mirokado (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just Piping In, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Just Piping In! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Roller26 (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Just Piping In! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Hello!, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi, just a quick reminder to please use edit summaries. I had to view the diff to see what happened here. Other than that, good edit; keep up the good work! Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zazpot, I’m not sure if I should take that as a criticism or a compliment so I’ll say thank you and move on unless I’m missing something. Just Piping In (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry for any confusion. It was really just a reminder. I was looking at the recent history of that article, and your edit did not have a summary, so I had to view the diff to get some idea what the edit was about.

The reason for edit summaries is to spare other editors this trouble. In short:

Every edit should have an edit summary.
Every edit summary should accurately reflect the corresponding edit.

Other than that, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Zazpot (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC); edited Zazpot (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zazpot, thank you, I’ll try to use them more. Just Piping In (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But please could you? I don't normally check up on these things, but I just spotted flurry of edits from you after the conversation above, and many of those edits lacked edit summaries or only had uninformative ones like "Cleanup".

To be clear: I'm not criticizing the edits themselves. But the lack of an edit summary is a real headache for your fellow editors. Zazpot (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zazpot, all of my edits I’m doing just about the same thing. I’m not changing the content or anything. Just closing up spaces and linking senators to the correct articles. For additions like Deb Fischer on the Republican page I’d be happy to write something like “recognized Biden win from article” but for basic cleanup where I am basically just linking senators (I believe sometime in the beginning I have an appropriate edit summary), I am not going to write one for every one. Once again, I’m doing the same thing over and over and not changing the content of the page. I’m sorry if you have a problem with it but it would take me just as long to make all the edits than it would the summaries. Just Piping In (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but there is WP:NORUSH, so please slow down if necessary, and do it right. You will soon find that writing good short summaries gets quick and easy with practice, especially if you use abbreviations. See Special:Contributions/Zazpot for examples.

Whatever time you think you are saving by not writing edit summaries is being spent tenfold by editors like me reviewing your work who are delayed by having to sift through diffs to see what you are doing.

I believe you mean well, but your short-termism is costing valuable editor-hours that could be more productively spent elsewhere. Zazpot (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Zazpot, I am trying, but my time means something here too. How long does it take for another editor to figure out that I linked US senator from Arizona to “list of US senators from Arizona”? How would I even make that type of edit summary? I’d just be saying the exact thing that any editor who glances at my edit can see. I agree to adding edit summaries if I add or delete information such as deleting any titles people have. But I can’t agree to it every time I simply link a word or a title. I’d be writing sentence on a word or a few words being added to make a link blue. That’s just not efficient. Just Piping In (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How long does it take for another editor to figure out that I linked US senator from Arizona to “list of US senators from Arizona”?

A: Literally 10-100 times as long as reading the edit summary in the article's history.

Doing the latter just means skimming one page - quick & easy. Each summary takes a fraction of a second to read.

Doing the former means clicking the diff link, waiting for the diff to load, scrolling through the diff to see what changed (not always obvious, especially with small edits, and especially with no edit summary as a guide), and then scrolling to the top of the page again to click the next diff link. Due to Fitts's Law and the high Interaction cost, this is, to use your phrase, just not efficient. For some editors, especially editors with disabilities or with slow internet connections, it's not even viable. Don't be the guy who makes editing Wikipedia a chore, for everybody else.

Q: How would I even make that type of edit summary?

A: "lk AZ senator". Quick & easy.

Q: my time means something here too?

A: Yes, it does. But think: are you editing Wikipedia to be selfish, or selfless? If to be selfish, why bother editing it at all; just leave it to others. If to be selfless, then please value your fellow editors' time and happiness at least as much as you value your own. We're all volunteers. Zazpot (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC); edited 02:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zazpot, you seem to have a problem with me. Ok, I’ll add edit summaries, does that make you happy? I’ve seen a lot worse problems than edit summaries not being present, and you’ve taken the time to not only follow every edit I make but then keep arguing with me on my talk page seems excessive. I believe there’s probably some deeper reason to this. Are you assuming my political affiliation? Are you just trying to hassle me? Are the edits I make edits that you dislike so you are trying to call me out on every wrong move I make? I’ve been nice to you and understanding of your concern and I have attempted to remedy the issues which have arisen, but you keep stalking me over this issue. I’ll do better with the edit summaries, but this is ridiculous. Just Piping In (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no problem with you or your edits themselves; no assumption of political affiliation. Thanks for agreeing to use edit summaries. Over and out, Zazpot (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Zazpot, I’ll take your word for it. Best of edits, Just Piping In (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don’t think I have the best edits. I couldn’t think of a good way to end the conversation on a friendly and polite note so I said “best of edits” like “best of luck” but it sounded like I was complimenting myself. Probably “happy editing” would be a better thing to say. Just wanted to let you know. Happy editing! Just Piping In (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zazpot, sorry. The edit summary thing is something I am getting used to. I’ll try my best not to forget (even though I just did). Just give me a few days and it will come naturally! Just Piping In (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, understood. Zazpot (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you had a good run of edit summaries and then slipped into old/bad habits. This is just a gentle reminder to retry the new/good habits :-) In case it's helpful as a measure of progress, perhaps click here occasionally; aim to get the "Major edits with summaries" and "Minor edits with summaries" values up to at least, say, 90%. Thanks again for editing Wikipedia, Zazpot (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zazpot, of my last 30 or so edits, there was only one that didn’t have an edit summary. The number will only go up if I edit more, and my edits are going a lot more slowly since it is taking me just about as long to write the summary as it is to make most of my edits. I am trying my best and actually doing a pretty good job of it. Just Piping In (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have double-checked, and you are right. My previous comment was mistaken, and I retract it.

By way of apology, please accept this barnstar. Zazpot (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For engaging constructively and becoming a better editor, and for standing your ground with good grace when mistakenly challenged Zazpot (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zazpot, I don’t know if there’s an official way to accept a barnstar, but I forgive you. Just Piping In (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zazpot, what is going on? Why can’t I edit anything? It’s saying I’m a puppet? Just Piping In (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have been blocked. I didn't even know you were under investigation until you pinged me in your message above and I checked to see what had happened. Not really sure what to say, sorry, except that it looks like this would be a good opportunity for you to take a deep breath, a step back, and to reflect on Wikipedia's ~~rules~~policies and guidelines. Zazpot (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC); edited Zazpot (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zazpot, I did not know either. The thing that was posted on my user page I read and it’s about if you’re like an editor with two accounts. Can you help me please? Just Piping In (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the policies and guidelines that seem most relevant are:

* Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (the policy you appear to have violated; as you can see, Wikipedians don't take it lightly)

* Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking (if you think you can be a better editor in future and stay within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines)

* Wikipedia:Appealing a block (ditto)

* Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks (ditto)

I'm afraid I don't know much about unblocking, and I haven't read those pages in detail. As I say, I think you should take a deep breath and a step back (WP:NORUSH), and reflect on the policies and guidelines. If at some point you are sure that you would be able to stick to the policies and guidelines if unblocked, then follow the steps in the guidance above, and presumably an admin will review your case.

I'm not an admin myself, so there really isn't anything more I can do than point you to those resources, sorry.

Good luck, whichever path you take, Zazpot (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zazpot , I greatly appreciate your time for doing that. I will definitely be appealing it once I read over the policies. I have definitely not edited on more than one account without disclosing it although I did make a few edits with an IP address. Thanks. Just Piping In (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alert—American Politics discretionary sanctions

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

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.

As you've only been editing for a few weeks, and appear to have almost exclusively edited in the American Politics topic area, I need to let you know that in this topic area (and others, see links above), such as at Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud where we are currently having a disagreement, special rules requiring greater adherence to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures than normal are in force and editors are expected to follow editorial and behavioral best practices. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struthious Bandersnatch, are you saying you’re going to ban me? Just Piping In (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator. I really am informing you of the discretionary sanctions in force in the American Politics topic area here. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 13:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MI-14. 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) 06:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Democratic Party Black Caucus moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Michigan Democratic Party Black Caucus, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Florida LGBTQ+ Democratic Caucus moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Florida LGBTQ+ Democratic Caucus, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Just Piping In! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Additions to an article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

California Democratic Party Asian Pacific Islander Caucus moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, California Democratic Party Asian Pacific Islander Caucus, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of DC Latino Caucus

The article DC Latino Caucus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be a notable organization. No independent references, and no substantial coverage found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of DC Latino Caucus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DC Latino Caucus 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/DC Latino Caucus 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What’s going on

I don’t know what’s going on or who to refer to but User talk:Oshwah you set some sort of warning block on my user page. Can you help me out please? Just Piping In (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: or @Oshwah:, could one of you help me? I’m not sure who is the blocking admin but could one of you please answer a few questions for me? It states that the blocking admin is required to. First, no one told me about the Sockpuppet investigation so I didn’t have time to “defend my against claims”. It appears that the claim only lasted for a few hours before I was blocked. I registered in November to start editing about the 2020 election, something I was recently interested in. I had edited as an ip for about 3 days prior. I have had extra time since then so I’ve decided to edit Wikipedia. I don’t have a specific “pace” which I’m not sure what that means. I was just trying to make the Biden article look neater and more like Hillary’s in 2016. I apologize about the edit summary thing but now I’m really good at making them. As for the mobile device, I can use my computer if that makes it better. I have no relationship with Lima Bean Farmer as a Sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I have also read that blocks are only supposed to be warnings to editors but no one warned me about this before an indefinite block. I understand that it says indefinite does not mean forever, but I’m not sure why you wouldn’t set a date since this is not really a warning. I really am not trying to be disruptive. I have taken other editors advice as well. Please give advice. Just Piping In (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just Piping In, based on technical evidence, you have been confirmed by a checkuser to be User:Lima Bean Farmer. If you want to appeal, use the {{unblock}} template. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz:, thank you for trying but this doesn’t answer half my questions. I hope someone still does. thank you. Just Piping In (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer more of your questions. Sockpuppet investigations do not usually have rebuttals or comments by the accused. If there is sockpuppetry, it is usually found and if there isn't, the report is not actioned on. In this investigation, a checkuser accessed technical information about your account and the account Lima Bean Farmer. The information was then used as evidence in deciding whether your accounts are related. It was found that the evidence confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that this account and Lima Bean Farmer are connected to each other. Sockpuppets of users who abuse multiple accounts are nearly always blocked indefinitely, regardless of warning. In this case, the person behind Lima Bean Farmer has been subject to a 3 month topic ban (now extended to indefinite) from the area of editing you were editing in. Therefore, this is ban evasion, which is met with indefinite blocks of the accounts which have been used to evade such a ban. The evidence has been noted to be strong. Simple denial is not going to be enough, and you will need to explain why technical evidence links this account and Liam Bean Farmer together strongly. If you want to come clean, then you will need to proceed with a unblock using Lima Bean Farmer. Evasion of this block, regardless of whether you are or are not this person, will lead to further blocks. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz:, I appreciate you for offering to help. Could you please tell me what the strong evidence is? Also, how do I explain technical evidence? I’m confused on what I need to do. I will come clean that at some points I didn’t use edit summaries and made some edits on my phone. I didn’t make another official account, but I did use ips to edit. I am trying to follow the block removal procedures but I’m a little confused on how to do it. If you can help, that would be great. Thanks. Just Piping In (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JPI, Dreamy Jazz hasn't offered to help. They have actually helped. They explained to you what has happened and why.

I think at this point, rather than asking editors or admins for additional assistance, you need to accept that the onus is on you to read and understand the materials to which editors (including DJ above, and me, previously) have already kindly provided links in response to your requests.

Because we have provided plenty of assistance to you already, I think it's unlikely that additional requests for assistance will receive sympathy. If you want to rehabilitate your account, the next steps are up to you, and you have already been told the form they would need to take. Zazpot (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus

Hello, Just Piping In. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.