WannurSyafiqah74

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grizzy and the Lemmings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. 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) 09:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flaming Moe's, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, no matter. I can fix that. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I recommend you use the "error type" column for the analysis. See the diffs (mine) just before yours. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see! I added one for Oggy and the Cockroaches (since it was very persistent, to the point where Netflix used it) and I didn't consider that aspect. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Piotrus I decided to remove my addition as it didn't work properly. But I'd like to ask, what is an "error type"? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#False_statements_in_articles. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ohh... categorization. Neat. I'm not adding that Oggy hoax back because I'm new to it and don't want to break anything, but for reference: maybe it's type 2a due to how long it's stayed for... and how much for some random anonymous contributors believe in adding it. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, WannurSyafiqah74! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Polyamorph (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, I don't think a bot in 2018 welcomed me either (strange). Ah well. I like cookies!

Either way, thank you for the resources! Have a good day, too. And please, feel free to give me advice - especially if I do something wrong. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since you are hinting here and there that you'd welcome some advice, is there anything specific you're unsure about, or just looking for some random tips and tricks and nuggets of wisdom from us oldies? AddWittyNameHere 07:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Any advice works. Sorry for being late, I was inactive. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

No worries!

Basically the best general advice I can give you when it comes to Wikipedia:

1. Take your time. With very few exceptions, there is no rush. That discussion that gets you keyed-up? It'll still be there in an hour or two to respond to. That edit you plan to make? The page isn't going to explode if you go do something else first. The article you want to list for deletion? Unless it's an attack page or the likes, is the 'pedia harmed all that much by it staying up a few hours longer? Probably not.

2. If working in a series of smaller edits instead of one big one, try to go for edits that can stand alone. By that, I mean that you should try to at all times leave the page in a condition where even if you suddenly are called away from the computer or your internet connection goes on the fritz and you can't immediately continue your planned edits, the page isn't left in a significantly worse state than it was before you started editing.

3. At the same time, there is no shame in making mistakes. If after you make an edit, you find something went wrong anyway? It happens to all of us sometimes. Going back to fix it is a good thing, not a bad thing. (That said, if you find you frequently have to go back to your edits to fix things that would've been obvious if you'd previewed the page--like big fat red error messages, broken tables, etc.? That's a good sign you're rushing a bit too much, not using preview enough, or just aren't quite focused enough at that moment to edit.)

4. Don't jump to conclusions. Yes, some stuff is utterly obvious. People replacing entire pages with "[Admin name] sucks!11!!!1" or "Fifteen lonely women in [area] are waiting for you [link]" or "Check if your bank account has been hacked! [phishing link]" are so blatantly not "improving the 'pedia" that their intentions, while obvious, don't even come into play. Same with dropping pictures of genitalia all over user pages, inserting swears or slurs on politicians articles, making threats left and right, creating blatant hoaxes or nonsense pages, and similar such "anyone not the slightest familiar with the editing side of Wikipedia can still see that's blatantly not the way to behave on Wikipedia" types of stuff.

If it's not that kind of obvious, though? Assume they're well-intended edits and explain to the editor that made them why their edits are a problem. Maybe they'll learn, maybe they won't. If they're actually here with bad intentions, that tends to become clear sooner or later. Muddying the waters with gut-feeling accusations only tends to make it take longer for them to get blocked, though. (And enough of those and folks stop taking you seriously when you report someone even when they are obviously, blatantly engaged in problematic behaviour)

5. Don't jump to conclusions, part II: If you make an edit in good faith, and someone reverts it? Assume they have an actual, well-intentioned reason for doing so (except if they're a blatant troll/vandal, of course) and aren't doing so because they want to annoy you or want to harm the 'pedia, or any such thing. Even if they're being a bit terse or describing your edits in less-than-flattering terms. Hell, even if they describe you in less than flattering terms. People get grumpy sometimes, people leap to conclusions sometimes (even though they shouldn't). That doesn't mean you should respond alike, because all that happens then is that it keeps escalating into a bigger and bigger fight.

After all, raging at them is a very good way to confirm whatever negative thoughts they might've had about you or your edit, or trigger such thoughts if they didn't have them—and a good way to give that same impression to onlookers, too. Explaining calmly why you feel your edit is/was a good idea can help a lot in avoiding it becoming a nasty disruptive dispute (and if it turns one anyway, makes it less likely people assume you're at fault simply from your behaviour). AddWittyNameHere 06:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! I've been inactive because I haven't felt like editing here, and you helped with how I should perceive this site. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're very welcome (and thanks for the cup of tea you left me)! Yeah, we're all different people from different parts of the world, and just like every culture has its own rules and etiquette and traditions, Wikipedia has been around long enough to start developing its own culture/etiquette/traditions of sorts as well. Yet at the same time it's well-known enough we get frequent new members who aren't familiar with those written and unwritten rules. Then throw in the usual limitations of all-written conversation (things like tone and body language don't carry too well).

All in all, it means miscommunication is unfortunately a fairly common problem. Awareness of the communication issues inherent to a site like this can help avoid a lot of them (or at least avoid those miscommunications leading to lengthy, draw-out conflicts), though.

Staying calm is generally a good way to handle issues. However, that can be really difficult sometimes, and taking a short break from a conversation—or even disengaging from a particular conversation entirely—are both perfectly valid choices as well. They're certainly better alternatives than shouting at people or accusing them of bad faith or similar such escalations.  

(Though with one note: if the conversation you're taking a break or fully disengaging from is on whether or not your edits/behaviour are okay, consider carefully whether making more such edits is actually a good idea. Sometimes it is—like when there is a clear, existing consensus for your edits and your discussion is with an individual dissenting editor—but very often it's not a good look to go "I'm not interested in discussing this any further" only to go and continue doing the very thing the discussion was about. That carries some strong "lalala I don't wanna hear you" vibes, which folks understandably don't quite appreciate.) AddWittyNameHere 07:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see! You're welcome. I'll just try to keep a watch on articles, add "more citations needed" + cleanup templates (please point out if I misuse them), and prevent vandalism + conflict of interests, for now. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Don't be afraid to tip your toes in the waters beyond your niche, though, and feel free to ask me (either by pinging me to your talk page or posting on mine) if you want some advice on how to do some specific other things. If I also don't know, I can probably at least point you towards the folks who do.   (And you can of course always just ask on the Teahouse or similar places if I'm not around)

I haven't taken a look at your use of clean-up templates yet, so this isn't a comment on your use of them, just a general observation in regards to clean-up templates: if the issue is a small one you know how to fix yourself, try to go for that over drive-by tagging the article. For issues you don't know how to fix, where fixing will take a lot of time you might not have, or where it requires subject knowledge you don't have, tagging is of course perfectly fine--but if dropping the tag on the article is about as much work as fixing the actual issue, please just fix the issue. :)

(To give a bit of an exaggerated example: if you see a three-sentence stub with a stray comma in it, it makes a lot more sense to just remove that comma than to tag it with copy edit needed and then wait for someone else to eventually come along to remove the comma, right? Same goes for similar small things, like one count of day-month-year in an article that otherwise uses month-day-year, a sentence using British spelling on an otherwise American English article, a mostly-alphabetical with a single entry being in the wrong spot, and so on) AddWittyNameHere 08:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I got it. But let me just provide examples, for a moment...

For reference, here are articles I've added such templates on: The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) (regarding voice cast), and List of programmes broadcast by Cartoonito (UK & Ireland) (regarding lack of reference dates). WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

My impression looking at those two examples: your use of clean-up templates is not wrong, but it can be improved a bit by using more specific templates. Benefit of using more specific cleanup templates is that it also adds the article to the relevant more specific cleanup categories, which helps people working on fixing that exact kind of issue find them more easily. 'course, that requires you to know such templates exist—Category:Cleanup templates and its subcategories are a good starting place to look for more specific templates if you suspect one might exist but don't know what it's called.

Onto the actual examples:

For the first one, since the issue is specific to only one section, I'd go for a section-specific template. (You add those right at the top of the section instead of the top of the page, but otherwise they work pretty much the same as the full-article templates) Which exact one is a bit of a judgement call, as this is a slightly more complex situation than most clean-up tagging due to the presence of unverifiable (because no refs) and suspected incorrect content.

Depending on how strongly you suspect some of the info in there is faked, {{unreferenced section}}, {{disputed section}}, or an outright {{hoax}} with the |section=yes parameter added could all work. If you really want to combine them, that's possible with the {{multiple issues}} template, but in this case, simply flagging the section as {{disputed section}} with a note on the talkpage like the one you already left is in my opinion sufficient. (That said, if you've got some spare time, seeing if you can't find references for at least a few of them yourself would be quite helpful!)

For the second example you gave me, a more specific template than the generic cleanup needed template you used exists: {{full citations needed}}. The additional citations template is perfectly fine. (If there'd been fewer places where citations were missing, an alternative would be just tagging those specific listings with {{citations needed}}, but with 24 of the listings lacking references, a full top-of-the-page template certainly is justified.)

Also, please try to remember to date your clean-up templates. Not a huge deal if you forget, since a bot usually comes along to do it for maintenance templates, but good habit to get into nonetheless. (If you don't know how to, I'm happy to explain, but this post is getting quite long so I figured I'd not do so when there's a chance you already know it) AddWittyNameHere 10:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's fine. I'll be using specific templates from now on! P.S. I recommend linking me a page for article templates I can use, s I can know what to use. Thank you! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I believe most (maybe all, I haven't checked) of them found here, though you'll still have to click on the actual template (those links in {{ }} on the left side of the table) if you want to know the exact nuances like what parameters are supported and such. AddWittyNameHere 10:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, it's good you stopped by, too. I honestly considered admitting my flawed edits in the Teahouse and now I'm happy to accept criticism.

In other words, I don't know how else to say thanks again... uhh... crap, there's no synonym!! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Once again, you're welcome! (Not a lot of synonyms for that, either, is there?  ) There's quite a barrier between "quietly fixing a typo or two" and "feeling like you actually know what you're doing on en.wiki", isn't there? Doesn't help the information beyond the utter basics is seemingly scattered practically everywhere, and while it's usually in places you can find once you're familiar with the way things are ordered on Wikipedia, well, that doesn't really help when the problem is that you don't quite have that familiarity with wiki-work yet... Figure that since I've been around a while, the least I can do when I see a struggling editor with a little less familiarity with this place is help them out a little. :) AddWittyNameHere 10:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

That works out. I've fixed the templates on the two articles by the way! This has been a good discussion, too. But I figured since this was getting long, we'll leave it here, yeah? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Long" might be a bit of an understatement. :P And yeah, I think the conversation about reached its natural end, anyway, so might as well leave it here. Have a great day & a good time editing on Wikipedia! (& feel free to hop over to my talk page if you ever want more advice.) AddWittyNameHere 12:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi--please refrain from posting there. I know it's tempting to provide a response, but the user is blocked and all they can do is post on their own talk page. No need for Wikipedia:Gravedancing. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Was coming to post the same thing, there's no point in engaging. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for my immature gravedancing. It seems as if they are denying evidence of how they behaved in Wikipedia, but also asking for admins' advice. You can plan out on what to do with the user. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

And please don't use ANI to further whatever it is you are doing with that editor. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Drmies @FrederalBacon I see. Well, you can close my ANI entry if you want. Not sure how to mute user notifications, though. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

P.S. is it okay to admit I'm sorry for gravedancing there? I also said I will stop engaging in the page. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dorayaki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bean paste.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

So a contributor (who I assume is the same person that assumed EvergreenFir was a fundamelists [sic], which is obviously false) apparently tried to message me about what I said. Can't someone joke in peace? Either way, whatever nonsense they spout out, I'm sending thanks to those who undid it. Lmao WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, WannurSyafiqah74. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Oggy and the Cockroaches Next Generation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I'm fine with that. Someone else did it for me, anyway. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why are you responding to bots? Display name 99 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, WannurSyafiqah74. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Oggy and the Cockroaches Next Generation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alright, feel free to remove it. It was old, anyway WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Was on hiatus for a bit. I might occassionally edit, but for now, I'll not be on here as often.

Sorry for treating Wikipedia like a social media site, so I won't be on Display name 99's talk page anymore. Unless an important thing or something happens, please inform me. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for replying to myself, but I decided to explain my grammar, my intentions and then quit.

Do not expect me to contribute there anymore. I only did so due to notifications. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you have received a fair number of personal attacks in the last few months [1]. Nice job keeping your cool, and I encourage you not to let it get you down! Wikipedia can be a toxic place sometimes, but I hope that you can continue to be a productive contributor.  — Freoh 20:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't edit much anymore, so thank you! I think the biggest takeaway is that I'm not treating this like social media, but it's a shame the dude just doesn't get what I'm saying... as much as I want to sound coherent, of course.

Side note: only logged in just to check notifications. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply