User talk:Polygnotus

Hi Polygnotus! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! JarrahTree 11:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree with this edit (the material you removed was largely promotional), such a large edit (you removed over 40% of the article content!) needs an

Thank you. The article was a bit of a mess. It is certainly shorter, but also better now. Polygnotus (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Achnabat. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dl2000: I think you got the wrong guy. ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yeetfakename34567 Polygnotus (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dl2000: While this edit by Polygnotus featured a somewhat humorous edit summary, the edit itself was valid, removing an unsourced bit of information about the town having been founded by the Illuminati, and correcting the spelling of the word crofting. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Maps and Google Streetview Achnabat consists of a house, a farm building, and some sheep. It is beautiful, and it would be the perfect home for a secret society (if they all fit in a single house). Better still, it is very very close to Loch Ness and its monster. But considering the vandal also claimed that a tiny village in Poland was founded by the "illuminate" (sic) I think it is reasonable to remove those claims until reliable sources have been provided. ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rak%C3%B3wiec&diff=prev&oldid=867137355 Polygnotus (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - the removal of unref claims and wording error was valid. The edit summary threw me off, though. Dl2000 (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmer

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ajmer rape case, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore, I now see the source you mentioned on the talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Polygnotus,

I was wondering why you moved

See here. Polygnotus (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! Good point; I should've checked. Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit summaries are not required. Some people love them; others not so much. Previewing changes is difficult on my phone. Polygnotus (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge both of your points. Still, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You have not violated any policies or guidelines but you could help out your fellow editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a stupid question but why are editsummaries useful to you? I've seen people use an intentionally misleading editsummary in the past so I personally don't trust editsummaries. I changed the section header to something less alarming; hope you don't mind. Polygnotus (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be easy to write a script that checks what kind of edit I make and fills in the editsummary for me. E.g. if I edit an article and only change 1 character it was probably a typo. And if an edit is on a talkpage it was probably my 2 cents in a discussion. I can't really promise to use editsummaries consistently because I rarely see a reason to use them. If that means that more people check the actual edit to see what I am doing then that is a good thing imho. Polygnotus (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are part of my

countervandalism efforts. I am not familiar with you as an editor, so I have less inclination to trust what you contribute. At the same time, if you are being useful I would prefer not to waste time checking up on you when there are others to chase down. Edit summaries are just a good practice as a demonstration of collaboration and everyone should be north of 90% usage. There is already a setting in your preferences menu to have the interface warn you if you leave off an edit summary. I appreciate what help you can give us in this regard. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

How do you look for vandalism? What method/tools do you use? Polygnotus (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I was actively searching for vandalism I used

Twinkle is my go-to tool for that. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That is an 18 year old script. Modern anti-vandalism tools are far more advanced and use stuff like ORES to separate the wheat from the chaff. Me using editsummaries won't help or hinder with anti-vandalism efforts. Polygnotus (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment in which you tagged me. It's great that you've managed to find the sources, if you need something in future I'd be happy to help. Alaexis_¿question? 21:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis: Thank you! I haven't found Conceiving Agency: Reproductive Authority among Haredi Women by Michal S. Raucher yet, so I may have to buy it (or ask the author for a copy). Polygnotus (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to it either unfortunately. Alaexis_¿question? 22:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On

13 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grave with the Hands, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Grave with the Hands (pictured) commemorates a married couple, divided by society and religion, clasping hands between cemeteries after death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grave with the Hands. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Grave with the Hands), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 15,818 views (1,318.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

Well, that appeal and that edit certainly didn't have much effect. I'm clueless. Kind regards, Grueslayer 18:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's life sometimes. Polygnotus (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed)‎, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the

@Chris troutman: I shouldn't have bought a cheap phone. Try following this advice on an old smartphone (with an old brain). I would if I could. Polygnotus (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again Polygnotus. Just wanted to leave you a comment that

"editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to

obstruct or defeat the project's purpose

."

@Mathglot: Deliberately introducing misinformation while attempting to hide it by using a misleading editsummary is definitely vandalism. The project's purpose is to give accurate information. Also, we kinda use a loose definition because this is called vandalism here when it is really just an attempt to hide the stupid things someone has done. In the Jupp article case the intent wasn't vandalism, it was helping the person. Polygnotus (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: And please don't forget about Diamond.xza (talk · contribs). Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I did not see a deliberate attempt to mislead on the part of the IPv6; the worst that could be said about it is that it was naive and unsourced, but that's not out of order for a newbie; I was there once upon a time. The edit summary business is more complicated than it looks; fortunately (in some circumstances) and unfortunately (in others—like this one) Wikipedia offers a drop-down containing some canned summaries, and some non-newbies regularly pick one of those that have little-to-nothing to do with their edit–unless you look at it sideways and squint–but since edit summaries aren't required anyway, it's hard to do more than just plead with them to use them because it helps their fellow editors and saves them time. And I do ask. Some say they say they will (and don't), others are quite forthright that they have no plans to change their unhelpful edit summaries any time soon if ever, and there's little one can do about that. Even if they keep it up for years, it just isn't a sanctionable behavior; unfortunate, but that's how it is. With a newbie, I'm

notable.) I'm swamped with other things right now, and may not get to Diamond for a while (who you pinged here, so they are probably reading this; did you want to say something to them?) but if you have a specific question or issue about a particular edit I'll try to help. Mathglot (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hm, I wasn't aware that {{User}} pings the user and that is unexpected, unintended and unwanted behaviour (a bug, according to some definitions) when talking about (and not to) someone. Guess I am not the first one to notice that but no one has fixed it. Statistically the user is incredibly unlikely to return, and if they do it may be good to see that people are trying to clean up the mess.

Wikipedia offers a drop-down containing some canned summaries It does? Where? Is this a Visual Editor exclusive thing or can us common folk use it too?

If someone is using an editsummary that tries to disguise the fact that they are vandalising by pretending its a boring and innocent edit (e.g. "Fixed typo"), isn't that a clear indication that they know they are doing something bad?

I am certain I saw someone getting blocked for not using editsummaries. I will try to find the link. Polygnotus (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wow, good find on that Talk discussion; the confusion doesn't surprise me; it's non-intuitive. There are two dropdowns for summaries under the edit summary field, my (fake) edit summary on this edit is the top one on the right. There's one (non-newbie) editor who uses it constantly for all sorts of things; I've asked him a few times not to, it's irksome, but I've gotten nowhere; it's plain he plans to continue and there's nothing to be done about it. Mathglot (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(post-ec comment) Please do link it; it would be the first I've ever seen. Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that is a

WP:GADGET, more specifically MediaWiki:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js

, which is off by default. The gadget contains a bunch of canned editsummaries, but not the one the IP used. And without an account enabling a gadget requires a bit more work than simply checking a checkbox. So I don't think that is what happened.

Sadly, I am unable to find the link to the user talk page. I think I deleted it because the block was good, even though the justification for it was not. Polygnotus (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good sleuthing; I probably turned it on in my early days here under the recommendation of someone more experienced, and long since forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder. Mathglot (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]