There at Polish profanity MUST be ĸ into k, and this edit filter prevents me do this WITHOUT fullwidth text! DIY with normal text NOW! 46.134.50.76 (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it! Thanks for signalling it! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 11:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors constantly forget in lede to update fake 2008 1.171 version with real 2023 1.176 version according to: http://www.code2001.com , please do it in this extendedconfirmed-only editable article, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.134.62.195 (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this revert is BAD, see Code2000 talk page. Author himself complained about this all: Special:Contributions/CodeJames. 46.134.62.195 (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, reverted after doubts regarding long-term abuse and impersonation by WP:LTA/Wikinger. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have NOTHING to do with LTA! I am NOT chemist nor w:de:user:Wikinger08!

Please calm down, there is no need for a heated discussion, I was just questioning the situation and mentioning that the situation at this article was pretty delicate. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Kass himself at: http://www.code2001.com/Code2000_Wikipedia_update.txt published update guideline, please re-follow it and this all will be OK from now. Your reverts are nothing but sabotage...

There is a history of Wikinger impersonating James Kass, and the website has been considered dubious. Are there any external sources confirming it as authentic? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try NOW email him at "jameskasscode2001.com" and he will explain you all positively that his page is real. 46.134.62.195 (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We couldn't use his personal website to "prove" anything regardless. It's self-published and not independent (WP:SPS, WP:RS). --ARoseWolf 13:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the information on the web page to make it more accurate. For 20 years false statements were made and these built on themselves. It was time to make it accurate for history. Soccer2080 (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove entire paragraphs, and be sure to source the information you add to reliable sources. Good luck! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 18:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on Yan Limeng is based on US government website.

https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/documents/702%20Documents/declassified/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf https://gaetz.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-matt-gaetz-issues-letter-fbi-requesting-briefing-wuhan-lab Liuminhede123 (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The declassified report does not refer to Li-Meng Yan by name at any point. Regarding the Gaetz letter, you are stretching a brief mention of the FBI's classification into massive original research and speculation. This is far from Wikipedia's territory, and affirming (in Wikipedia's voice) that Yan was "untrustworthy" and "lied [to] the FBI" is a serious BLP violation and could arguably be construed as libel. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 08:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue to think this way.

Please read the congressman press release, it mentioned how FBI labled Yan as counterintelligence threat.

https://gaetz.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-matt-gaetz-issues-letter-fbi-requesting-briefing-wuhan-lab Liuminhede123 (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. It's literally the same one you linked to me earlier. Gaetz doesn't even explicitly say the FBI labeled her as such, but that he is concerned it may have happened. Even then, Gaetz's word on a FBI classification isn't enough for character judgements like "untrustworthy" or any specific accusations. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 09:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have provided reference with clear evidence on my edit on Chutia people language. please read my reference it clearly mentioned that the language spoken by them was known as Chutia language. Please don't remove it.2409:40E6:3F:895C:840B:52FF:FEED:FE1B (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About this: This really isn't a big deal, but ==External links== aren't "content", and the rule at WP:ELBURDEN is unusually strict: If someone pulls a link (and you don't think it's simply a troll trying to hurt the article), then the link can't be re-added unless and until there is a consensus to do so. It's mainly an anti-edit-warring rule, but I figured you like to know about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, didn't know about this specific rule! Thanks for the information, I'll be more careful when patrolling! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 02:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are way too many rules for anyone to know all of them. But if you ever see an edit war underway in that area, now you'll know where to find the official rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 03:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re your request I just reverted, it's better not to draw attention on a public noticeboard if you are requesting revdeletion of privacy issues - I have reported it to the OS team to assess Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, didn't know about the best way to do it. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 09:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - good job spotting and reverting so quickly! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can see you reverted my change on Rosicrucianism and left me a message advising this was due to external links. I was simply moving all the existing information into tables for easier reading and also adding if the groups were active or not (based on their wiki articles). If you look at the reverted change, you will still see the 'External Links' are there, as I did not add them initially. Please could you kindly move the tables back into the article and just remove the external links if these should not be included instead? Thanks for the feedback and hope this response is helpful. I think the tables looked a lot better. 86.1.108.214 (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, rollback automatically reverts all changes from the last user, didn't catch that one. Your previous edits are back!

Next time, to add external links to table items, please use the format Article<ref>[www.example.com link]</ref> instead of having the link directly in the article space. Have a good day! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, I have amended the rollback to remove the links you flagged. Thanks for the help and all you do on Wiki! 86.1.108.214 (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I noticed you removed the notable alumni that I added to the page. I assume it was labeled as promotion/vandalism due to the multiple sources being from PAweber.org. I want to cite as truthfully as possible rather than promoting, even if that means the removal of external links. I'm new to editing and would love to provide correct information without causing issues. Nquimby (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Usually, "notable" refer to people having a Wikipedia article or independent coverage (cf. Wikipedia:GNG). The way your description was structured also appeared more like a resume or a LinkedIn description than the short description the reader would be looking for (see the other alumni in the list for comparison). Good luck with editing! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 03:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour! I am always fascinated by the speed in which registered users revert the work of IPs, on the assumption that IPs probably don't know what they are doing. I have been supporting WP:POL for over a decade. Please acquaint yourself with the use of the Latin "ibid". Regards, 182.239.152.166 (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at what happened more closely. I accidentally reverted, and immediately undid my actions. The issue isn't that you're an IP, but that RedWarn only shows the last revision, which, out of context, could just as well be unexplained. Please stop being condescending and flaunting your years of contributions - both things that Wikipedia strongly discourages. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 15:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You have reverted my edit to the article Long S, though I believe it is a constructive edit. A rule was given, followed by two examples of how that rule is applied. One of the examples, though, did not contain a long s as it should, so I added the long s back to the example. I do not believe I my edit goes against any policies, so I must be misunderstanding the article, assuming you are correct in your reversion. Would you be willing to explain what I am missing in the article? Thank you, I can do stuff! (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The example on the third line said that before or after an "f", a round s (i.e. not a long s) was used, and gave two counter-examples. In the other example given, "ſatisfaction", you can see how the uses of ſ and s contrast. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 15:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you are the goat thanks for telling me how to cite things

CPACATTENDEE2023 (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!!! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 00:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Had to add that goat to my userpage! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 01:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 November 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Myanmar civil war (2021–present), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 15:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaotic Enby. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY 09:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll double-check the guide, and get Huggle! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 13:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Keurbosia 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/Keurbosia 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 until the discussion has finished.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:35, 27 November 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 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaotic Enby

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username TartarTorte and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Nigerien crisis, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 29 § Nigerien crisis.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TartarTorte}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TartarTorte 18:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chaotic Enby! Thanks for the new user welcome, but I've been editing regularly for 20 years or so! I have always chosen not to register an account, partly for personal reasons (if I did I'd spend even more time here) and partly for doctrinal ones (I think all edits should stand or fall on their own merits, and not be influenced by an editor's accrued 'reputation'). I use a "pseudo-sig" (of a static home IP I once had) to maintain continuity in extended exchanges, as my ISP switched to dynamic IPs some years ago. Regards, {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.32 (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! My bad, I've been doing some counter-vandalism on Huggle and these messages send pretty much automatically when I approve contribs! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 08:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 November 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article East African Community, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 16:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the claim that the Woolton in Liverpool is the the one referred to in the play because it cannot possibly be correct. The address given in the play is stated fully: "The Manor House, Woolton, Hertfordshire". In any case, Liverpool is far too far away from London to be consistent with the plot of the play. 2407:7000:8303:9400:CA8C:1EFB:DFD:6767 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know, thanks for explaining! Feel free to re-remove it (as it wasn't sourced anyway). Next time you remove content, please remember to explain why in the edit summary so it doesn't appear to be unexpected content removal. Good luck editing, ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you're cool :) Lazylaces (Talk to me) 03:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! You seem to be pretty cool too! Great job patrolling! 🐶 ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 03:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you slow down, assume good faith and remove the warning from my talk page. 95.149.88.180 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You can remove warnings yourself once you've read them! They're just to inform of a revert more than anything else. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the warning was in good faith, I wasn't assuming it was vandalism or anything - just that beginning one entry in the disambiguation page by "The" unlike the others wouldn't fit the manual of style and could appear disruptive. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The edits you reverted, then reinstated at John Denham (politician) were the work of "Harry the house", an interesting and persistent block-evader. Most of his edits involve going against WP:NOTBROKEN and MOS:NOPIPE, and he will often change the word "after" to "following". His favourite subject areas are British politics, British television, and Hampshire. He operates from a range of IP addresses - mostly in England, but occasionally in the Netherlands - and returns to the same addresses periodically. Following the advice of another editor I've been reporting him to AVI and reverting his edits. I've tried persuasion once or twice without any positive outcome.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I see you've signaled him to AIV already, good job! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful. The IP reset the sandbox. That's not vandalism. That you wrongly issued a warning shows that you're not being careful enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's vandalism because the IP resets the sandbox, repeatedly, while other people are trying to use it, making it deliberately disruptive. They're not resetting it after hours of not being used, but barely two minutes after an edit. The fact that it's repeated behavior absolutely deserves a warning in my opinion. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 23:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor seems to be working on a draft, which isn't appropriate for the community sandbox. I redirected them, which is going to resolve this problem. I don't think firing off a templated warning is the way. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, although again it was considering the IP's repeated behavior of sandbox-erasing. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 23:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, re-setting the sandbox in every minute doesn't make much sense and their allcaps edit summaries were not great, either. It was an edge case. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Ooh, a new button? Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaotic Enby. I work for LastPass. The LastPass page currently has a large "Security Incidents" section. A while back you mentioned the section has "an overreliance on primary informations sourced from the LastPass website itself, assembled together and contrasted from different citations to create a narrative that the sources themselves don't explicitly mention." Building on that, I checked each citation to see if it was a reliable, independent source if whether it actually says what it's cited for. I believe these changes would address your feedback.

As I have a conflict of interest, I was wondering if you would be willing to review those changes and implement whichever changes you feel are justified? Let me know your thoughts. Appreciate your time! AmyMarchiando (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to propose changes and submitting them! I'm going to take a look at them, I'll tell you! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I'm seeing, you did a pretty good job! The Register is also cited near the end of the text, although the discussion about not using it as a source is from 2007 and things might have changed since then. The Verge and especially Ars Technica appear to be good sources for technical matters. The BleepingComputer source could be used to briefly mention how LastPass revealed the breaches, and clarifying that the August and November breaches were two different things. Making the timeline of key events clearer would help more than the many technical details currently in the article, like listing every piece of information breached (which could go in a footnote). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChaotıċEnby! Appreciate your review. I'm not seeing the second use of The Register you're referring to? I do see about five citations to the Verge and Ars Technica, but the proposed edits do not question them as a reliable source. I think the confusion may be that the proposed edits are only to trim the parts indicated in strikeout, not the entire thing. I am not questioning Bleeping Computer as a source either. It just doesn't say what it's cited for, and what it's cited for is just routine phishing strategies-- not related to any specific breach in security. Let me know if there's something more I can clarify to be helpful. Pursuant to WP:COI, I can't make any changes myself. Thanks! AmyMarchiando (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that my editing skills are bad I will try to improve my editing skills by(: Notsayingmyname (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! It's just better to make sure that what you add in the article is correct (usually by adding a source), rather than add info you're not sure about. Happy editing, ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 03:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry it is almost midnight here bye. Notsayingmyname (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Having your robot both remove contributions and write crap on peoples talk page without a person looking at it is rather sinister. What about doing some actual work? 50.231.19.165 (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not a robot, I use a diff browser so it's extremely quick to patrol all recent edits. Sometimes I make errors, in this case I thought the addition you made wasn't sourced, not having seen it was indeed referenced in a different paragraph. In any case, it didn't appear to be a major musical collaboration (only one track and plans for a future album a while ago?), and I wasn't sure it should actually be in the infobox. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]