Hi Aszx5000! 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:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Graham 87 01:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Aszx5000,
I've noticed that you have been closing AFD discussions days early. There are a limited circumstances where an AFD discussion can be closed early (read Wikipedia:Speedy keep) but you can't close a discussion after three or four days just because there is general agreement among participants on a certain outcome. You say you don't want to "prolong" the discussion but there is a reason why AFDs last for four days and as a NAC closer you have no power to just close a discussion halfway through because you believe the discussion has ended. Please also review Wikipedia:Non-admin closure so you can better understand the limited instances where an NAC closure is appropriate. I'm posting this notice now because if this continues and someone takes issue with your closures, you could be prevented from acting on AFD discussions. I've seen it happen before with other editors. Better to be corrected now than to be topic banned in the future. I'd hate to see this happen because, in general, I find your efforts very helpful. Just realize that as a NAC closer, there are limits to what you should do. Thanks for all of your contributions. Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry Mr. Ivandjiiski, despite your desire for anonymity, you are a textbook case of Wikipedia notability
(
link)
Whatever your temper or disposition, you can keep these idiotic remarks to yourself, if only because our policies require you to. DFlhb ( talk) 21:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Aszx5000, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.
Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.
Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Administrator noteI'm going alittle out-of-process here as we won't normally consider anyone with less than 20 articles created, but I feel the quality of the few you have created is enough for me to bend the rules a bit. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be too close to the subject. Don't worry, it is not like anyone is going to take away her world record. 2001:2020:329:A113:202B:CD52:5E28:C7F3 ( talk) 14:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Please delete the Controversy section from the Kristin Harila page. Regards Szelma W ( talk) 12:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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:
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.
–– FormalDude (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
You are completely right, Markovich does not have "the". I added it in the citation ino order to make clear that, obviously, while M. intended "checks" as a verb, he also intended "toils and tortures" not as verbs (the commas suggested that) but instead as the object of "checks": Latin words can only be translated in this sense. I see that you also tried to solve the ambiguity, using "keeps in check" instead of "checks" - but this also is not respectful of Markovich's original text... What do you think of "The sower Horus/Harpocrates checks [the] toils and tortures"? I find this would be accurate enough while not inducing readers in any misunderstanding... Or, "The sower Horus/Harpocrates checks [=keeps in check the] toils and tortures" which is perhaps better English? Signo ( talk) 13:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
For a better understanding, take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amansharma111. Thank you 111.92.118.50 ( talk) 03:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Climber (climbing) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 16 § Climber (climbing) until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 06:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Aszx5000 - I saw your comments on my draft for Chris Jones. I did read the WP:NCLIMBER sources and I still think Chris qualifies and I think many of the sources I pulled also have justification.
"Articles about contemporary climbers should include reliable sources from the main climbing media (older/historical climbers may not always be referenced in the climbing media) per Category:Climbing magazines. Climbing WP:BLPs, whose main notability is based on climbing, but who have no record in these publications, are unlikely to be notable.
Quality sources from the climbing media (with well-regarded editorial control), who maintain online-accessible archives"
Given the era that Jones was active as a climber, I think I did a relatively good job of finding the contributions regarding his climbs in the AAJ and some other online references to the era. Plus, the AAJ had pretty strict limitations on who was permitted as a member and which climbs were merited for inclusion in the 60's and 70's. Jones was admired by his peers in that time period.
I know that he was probably discussed in other climbing magazines that have since fallen apart (well before the internet). There are plenty of articles created about other climbers in that era who have far less documentation and may not have done as many groundbreaking alpine climbs.
Anyway, I don't mind the edits you contributed - I think it tightened up the article and arguably I had tried to pull more justifications for notability with unnecessary quotations. Also, I'm sorry if your talk page isn't the appropriate location for me to argue my case. I'm still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia article creation. Feel free to delete this as needed or shift it to my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellowish126 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Aszx5000. I see you've made several categories for female climbers by nationality. Could you please mark these as non-diffusing with the non-diffusing subcategory template? Any people who are in the Category:Female climbers or its subcategories should also be in Category:Climbers or one of its subcategories. See WP:CATGENDER for the guideline. Thanks, gobonobo + c 17:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Keep climbing higher Tamoraboys ( talk) 04:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
Hi - in general we don't put "The" in article titles. So for example we have the Mona Lisa, the United Kingdom, the North Face of Everest, etc. Therefore if the article on the Dawn Wall is created it should be the Dawn Wall, not The Dawn Wall (though the latter would be acceptable as a redirect). See WP:THE for more details. — Voice of Clam ( talk) 20:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Category:History of climbing has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason ( talk) 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your contributions related to climbing. I noticed some of the climbing pages you created have "athlete" categories, for example Category:French female climbers was a member of Category:French female athletes. I don't think this is correct, because if you click on Category:French female athletes you can see "This category is for competitors within the sport of athletics, comprising track and field, road running, cross country running and racewalking."
If there is a category for "French female skyrunners", you could potentially add that to "French female athletes", but for climbers as a whole, I don't think it should be added to the "athletes" category because that's only for events mentioned in the sport of athletics page. If you just want to say that they are "athletes" in the sense of participating in physical activities, Category:French sportswomen should do the trick (which I can see you have already added).
Thanks, -- Habst ( talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! Just wanted to let you know that I’ve reverted your recent edit here on Talk:Dune: Part Two - please do not add replies to closed discussions that are marked with the {{ hat}} template. However, feel free to add the reverted reply as a new thread on the talk page. TIA, Masterofthebrick talk 23:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Aszx5000! 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:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Graham 87 01:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Aszx5000,
I've noticed that you have been closing AFD discussions days early. There are a limited circumstances where an AFD discussion can be closed early (read Wikipedia:Speedy keep) but you can't close a discussion after three or four days just because there is general agreement among participants on a certain outcome. You say you don't want to "prolong" the discussion but there is a reason why AFDs last for four days and as a NAC closer you have no power to just close a discussion halfway through because you believe the discussion has ended. Please also review Wikipedia:Non-admin closure so you can better understand the limited instances where an NAC closure is appropriate. I'm posting this notice now because if this continues and someone takes issue with your closures, you could be prevented from acting on AFD discussions. I've seen it happen before with other editors. Better to be corrected now than to be topic banned in the future. I'd hate to see this happen because, in general, I find your efforts very helpful. Just realize that as a NAC closer, there are limits to what you should do. Thanks for all of your contributions. Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry Mr. Ivandjiiski, despite your desire for anonymity, you are a textbook case of Wikipedia notability
(
link)
Whatever your temper or disposition, you can keep these idiotic remarks to yourself, if only because our policies require you to. DFlhb ( talk) 21:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Aszx5000, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.
Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.
Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Administrator noteI'm going alittle out-of-process here as we won't normally consider anyone with less than 20 articles created, but I feel the quality of the few you have created is enough for me to bend the rules a bit. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be too close to the subject. Don't worry, it is not like anyone is going to take away her world record. 2001:2020:329:A113:202B:CD52:5E28:C7F3 ( talk) 14:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Please delete the Controversy section from the Kristin Harila page. Regards Szelma W ( talk) 12:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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:
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.
–– FormalDude (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
You are completely right, Markovich does not have "the". I added it in the citation ino order to make clear that, obviously, while M. intended "checks" as a verb, he also intended "toils and tortures" not as verbs (the commas suggested that) but instead as the object of "checks": Latin words can only be translated in this sense. I see that you also tried to solve the ambiguity, using "keeps in check" instead of "checks" - but this also is not respectful of Markovich's original text... What do you think of "The sower Horus/Harpocrates checks [the] toils and tortures"? I find this would be accurate enough while not inducing readers in any misunderstanding... Or, "The sower Horus/Harpocrates checks [=keeps in check the] toils and tortures" which is perhaps better English? Signo ( talk) 13:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
For a better understanding, take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amansharma111. Thank you 111.92.118.50 ( talk) 03:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Climber (climbing) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 16 § Climber (climbing) until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 06:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Aszx5000 - I saw your comments on my draft for Chris Jones. I did read the WP:NCLIMBER sources and I still think Chris qualifies and I think many of the sources I pulled also have justification.
"Articles about contemporary climbers should include reliable sources from the main climbing media (older/historical climbers may not always be referenced in the climbing media) per Category:Climbing magazines. Climbing WP:BLPs, whose main notability is based on climbing, but who have no record in these publications, are unlikely to be notable.
Quality sources from the climbing media (with well-regarded editorial control), who maintain online-accessible archives"
Given the era that Jones was active as a climber, I think I did a relatively good job of finding the contributions regarding his climbs in the AAJ and some other online references to the era. Plus, the AAJ had pretty strict limitations on who was permitted as a member and which climbs were merited for inclusion in the 60's and 70's. Jones was admired by his peers in that time period.
I know that he was probably discussed in other climbing magazines that have since fallen apart (well before the internet). There are plenty of articles created about other climbers in that era who have far less documentation and may not have done as many groundbreaking alpine climbs.
Anyway, I don't mind the edits you contributed - I think it tightened up the article and arguably I had tried to pull more justifications for notability with unnecessary quotations. Also, I'm sorry if your talk page isn't the appropriate location for me to argue my case. I'm still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia article creation. Feel free to delete this as needed or shift it to my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellowish126 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Aszx5000. I see you've made several categories for female climbers by nationality. Could you please mark these as non-diffusing with the non-diffusing subcategory template? Any people who are in the Category:Female climbers or its subcategories should also be in Category:Climbers or one of its subcategories. See WP:CATGENDER for the guideline. Thanks, gobonobo + c 17:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Keep climbing higher Tamoraboys ( talk) 04:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
Hi - in general we don't put "The" in article titles. So for example we have the Mona Lisa, the United Kingdom, the North Face of Everest, etc. Therefore if the article on the Dawn Wall is created it should be the Dawn Wall, not The Dawn Wall (though the latter would be acceptable as a redirect). See WP:THE for more details. — Voice of Clam ( talk) 20:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Category:History of climbing has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason ( talk) 02:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your contributions related to climbing. I noticed some of the climbing pages you created have "athlete" categories, for example Category:French female climbers was a member of Category:French female athletes. I don't think this is correct, because if you click on Category:French female athletes you can see "This category is for competitors within the sport of athletics, comprising track and field, road running, cross country running and racewalking."
If there is a category for "French female skyrunners", you could potentially add that to "French female athletes", but for climbers as a whole, I don't think it should be added to the "athletes" category because that's only for events mentioned in the sport of athletics page. If you just want to say that they are "athletes" in the sense of participating in physical activities, Category:French sportswomen should do the trick (which I can see you have already added).
Thanks, -- Habst ( talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! Just wanted to let you know that I’ve reverted your recent edit here on Talk:Dune: Part Two - please do not add replies to closed discussions that are marked with the {{ hat}} template. However, feel free to add the reverted reply as a new thread on the talk page. TIA, Masterofthebrick talk 23:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)