Stumbleannnn

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #24

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Stumbleannnn, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Whpq (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad

Hello Stumbleannnn, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not elegible for speedy deletion. Article was kept at WP:AFD. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok! Sorry then hi it's me (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Also can you help I'm not able to edit or welcome people hi it's me (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see the above welcome message. I suggest you stay away from things like tagging pages for speedy deletion until you have more experience editing Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok hi it's me (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You must be autoconfirmed before creating other users' talk pages.

You must be autoconfirmed before you can create other users' talk pages by welcoming them. As that information page states, Although the precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances, most English Wikipedia user accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits (including deleted edits) are considered autoconfirmed. You registered at 2024-12-12 23:18, so your account is not even one day old at this time. Peaceray (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I am so sorry! I had no idea, I sincerely apologize and will do what I need to be auto confirmed. hi it's me (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to welcome new editors, after you become autoconfirmed, you may wish to look at enabling the Twinkle gadget in the Gadgets section of your Preferences page. You can find information at WP:Twinkle. Although Twinkle is quite useful for anti-vandalism edits, it has a robust list of Welcome messages, which are documented at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Wel (welcome).

I would recommend becoming an extended confirmed user (account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits first before issuing any anti-vandalism warnings). While this is not necessary, it is probably best if you first become familiar with Wikipedia culture, Wikiculture, & the wikisphere.

I also wanted to comment on your signature. At first I was unsure that hi it's me referred to Stumbleannnn, so your current signature is confusing. See WP:CUSTOMSIG/P for more advice on this. Specifically, this behavioral guideline states A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username, but this is not required. Peaceray (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay hi it's me (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

i think I fixed it {{SUBST:box|Stumbleannnn!}} Talk to me 19:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Why does it get subst?????? {{SUBST:box|Stumbleannnn!}} Talk to me 19:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

is it better now {{SUBST:box|background=lime|align=center|border size=10px|radius=20px|text align=center|Stumblean!}} Talk to me 19:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

oh the markup failed {{SUBST:box|background=lime|align=center|border size=10px|radius=20px|text align=center|Stumblean!}} Talk to me 19:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What is SUBST? {{SUBST:box|background=lime|align=center|border size=10px|radius=20px|text align=center|Stumblean!}} Talk to me 19:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

i set it to mark up but it's not working {{SUBST:box|Stumbleannnn!}} Talk to me 19:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:CUSTOMSIG/P says: Do not use images, transcluded templates, Lua modules, parser functions, TemplateStyles or external links in your signature. If memory serves, the reason is that these things do not work correctly in signatures, although I'm not certain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

welp idk what to do then ig I'll just have to set my signature to basic text {{SUBST:box|Stumbleannnn!}} Talk to me 03:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Use the source editor to examine the Wikitext code that {{SUBST:box|Stumbleannnn!}} produces.

Stumbleannnn!

ends up being quite length & complex, making it unsuitable for a signature. I would suggest that you instead try using inline CSS on a page in your sandbox & then determine what is appropriate. You can find more information about CSS at:

• Cascading_Style_Sheets at Wikibooks
• Learning materials related to Internet Fundamentals/CSS at Wikiversity
• "Learning CSS". W3C. 2010-09-30. Retrieved 2024-12-14.

• "CSS basics". MDN Web Docs. 2024-10-25. Retrieved 2024-12-14.

Peaceray (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Your signature

Your new signature includes a box that produces a horizontal line through your signature. A horizontal line through a signature is an indication that an editor is blocked, if another editor has that function toggled on, as many do. Please consider whether you want to give the incorrect impression that you are blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't show as a line in my signature. It shows as a box around, that's a bug, refresh. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 02:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I will check it out on the pc display. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 02:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Odd, however it can't be mistaken for a real block since my name isnt gray, and it does still look like a box. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 02:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Infact I have the strike out names if blocked feature on, it helps alot when I rev vandalism (i do it alot) and I cannot say it looks fully like an actual block. If you still think it seems like a block, you can send me a bit of markup or html so I can make it not look like a block. Thanks for the info! Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 02:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Additional context: someone gave me this signature but didn't fill it, I asked for a filled version but no response yet. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 02:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Signature markup is not my area of expertise, but I am an administrator and when I see your signature, it looks at first glance like you are blocked. It is not identical to a true blocked signature but close enough that I perceive it that way. Cullen328 (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 oh. ill fix it. Stumbleannnn! Talk to me 04:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 is it better? ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 04:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 ok! thanks! ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 04:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Your caution re:IEI(India)

Could you be more specific ? I have provided edit summaries with my reasoning for those edits. Are my edit summaries insufficient ? Should I explain more ? Arcot Shankar (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

sorry, didnt read, it was tagged as likely bad faith, i sincerely apologize. you can undo it. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 05:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be too new an account to issue such warnings.and revert good edits without explanation.

You seem to be a new account to issue warnings with such ease and revert my edits without explanation see difference ? In all good faith I must ask if you were previously blocked or banned ? In which case you should stop editing immediately and cease your vandalism. Arcot Shankar (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you can check my logs. Please don't accuse or i might have to report you, thanks!

I am auto confirmed and have gotten 3 vadals permed, and 4 temp blocked.

I have apologized and you are allowed to undo what I did, again, sorry. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 05:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Your account is relatively new aswell, and not even auto confirmed, so please make sure you read the guidelines. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 05:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Some (unsolicited) anti-vandalism advice

Hi! I'm Staraction - I've been involved in anti-vandalism a bit longer than you have, so I just wanted to say a couple of things. First, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia positively and in good faith! I think you've got the passion & desire and will be an excellent editor if you keep at it :)

As someone who (similarly) started out with anti-vandalism, I wanted to tell you a bit of my experience: when I first started out, I was just like you, and was very zealous in reverting edits that I thought was bad faith. A couple of my mistakes were pointed out by other editors and I realized that it was better for me to strictly assume good faith when doing anti-vandalism work. Some of your edits and the ensuing conversations on your talk page, including "sorry, didnt read, it was tagged as likely bad faith, i sincerely apologize. you can undo it", suggest that you haven't been doing this - in fact, I strongly recommend that you view diffs and only revert when you're 100% confident that it's vandalism, disruptive, etc. There's a good essay on this idea here: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.

Apologies if this comes off as rude because that's not the intention - I just saw a bit of how I began my Wikipedia journey in you! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you again for your good faith efforts; best of luck, and happy editing! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll read into it, thanks! ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this, as asked by you, I have checked your logs. You are editing in a reckless manner using automated tools and making rash unverified remarks like I am not autoconfirmed. Unlike you I am very conscious that I am a new editor and need to proceed cautiously. Arcot Shankar (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You need your account to be 4 days old befor being auto confirmed (if you have 10 edits), i recommend reading about wiki and the guidelines. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I am autoconfirmed. Arcot Shankar (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

your account rights say otherwise. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Click here to check. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

and i meant block log. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If you continue being hostile, i may need to report you. (to arcot) ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not being hostile. I am communicating in good faith that your edits are potentially damaging to this encyclopedia. You may report me. Keep an eye out for the boomerang though. Arcot Shankar (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Threatening to report other editors all the time generally isn't the best way to ensure collaboration. Additionally, being autoconfirmed isn't anything too special - if anything, it just means that you've been editing a bit longer, and it shouldn't be a point of contention. I think you both are good-faith editors, but have had differences - could we try to move past those for now? Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, they are saying they are when they arnt auto confirmed. But im sorry for the threat. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 06:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you should address your apology to Arcot - but I'm glad you're taking steps to de-escalate and move on. Arcot, same for you - I personally would not have reverted the original edits you made so quickly since I wouldn't have known the context behind the subject matter - but I hope you can still believe that Stumbleannnn is acting in good faith and work to move on as well (which I think you do). I think it's probably the best course of action here to move on for now, since arguing over something like autoconfirmed status is, I think, a silly way to be angry on the Internet. Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I am verifiably autoconfirmed. Perhaps the tool is not updated in real time to reflect my status. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcot Shankar (talk • contribs) 06:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Stumbleannnn, I suggest you do not rely too heavily on other editors' autoconfirmation or age of account. I have been a regular and frequent editor on Wikipedia for around 20 years, mostly on the Reference and Help desks, and I have never created an account at all, because it's not necessary for the editing I want to do. Some other editors are in similar positions, and someone with a recently created account might also have a long IP-editing history. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.223.204 (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Stumbleannnn! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Is there a template?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)