User talk:DMH223344

License tagging for File:Gaza inquest.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gaza inquest.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Black Friday (bombing campaign)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Black Friday (bombing campaign), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Black Friday (bombing campaign)

The article Black Friday (bombing campaign) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The name "Black Friday" is very misleading. It does not appear in most of the sources cited in the article and it seems that there is OR and Synth here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eladkarmel (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lieutenant Hadar Goldin

The article Lieutenant Hadar Goldin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is already an article about Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eladkarmel (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lieutenant Hadar Goldin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lieutenant Hadar Goldin 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/Lieutenant Hadar Goldin 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.

GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-EC user

I have just reverted a bunch of your edits because you are non aloud to edit in ARBPIA per WP:30/500. If you continue to do this, I will report you. Dovidroth (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you explain more please. I have not edited any extended protection pages. DMH43 (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to edit (or create) any pages relating to ARBPIA (basically anything to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict), even if the page is not protected. Dovidroth (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. In that case can you undo your change here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Friday_(bombing_campaign)&oldid=1188571177

since your revert decreases the quality of the page? If you have issue with the individual edit then please suggest an improvement. Reverting as you have done makes the page worse. DMH43 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi DMH43! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Palestine/Israel conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to Palestine/Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to your being blocked from editing.

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! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. DMH43 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had an edit reverted by another user, but the revert reduced the quality of the page. Can I request that the revert be undone? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Friday_(bombing_campaign)&oldid=1188571177 DMH43 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can, yes, though you should provide more detailed reasoning than the revert reduced the quality. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you, I will write it on the talk page. DMH43 (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is DMH43. Thank you. Dovidroth (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Your recent editing history at E-values shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DoctorMatt (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gaza inquest.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gaza inquest.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wordpiece tokenization

The article Wordpiece tokenization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article doesn't explain how WordPiece works (because there is no paper that explains it, except Schuster & Nakajima (2012), which describes an early version of BPE), and is full of inaccurate language -- for example, WordPiece as described in 2012 starts at the character level, not the word level. At most, WordPiece should be explained in a paragraph in an article on subword tokenisation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed revoked

I have revoked your extended-confirmed permissions for gaming 30/500, and returning immediately to ARBPIA, including restoring some of your original ECR violations, upon reaching 500 edits, as well as immediately ending all editing outside of ARBPIA. You may request the permission be restored at WP:RFPERM after you have demonstrated significant productive editing outside of ARBPIA and that you have a firm grasp on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, I had also posted on your talk page. Since you mentioned here explicitly that I should also be editing outside of ARBPIA I wanted to ask: how mixed should my edits be between ARBPIA and non-ARBPIA? I go through phases where I am more interested in certain topics than others, so while I am editing ARBPIA content now (I think it has been less than a week of such edits) I am still interested in editing non-ARBPIA content in the future. Is your point that I need to consistently (on a daily basis?) show that I am editing non-ARBPIA content? DMH43 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you rushed to 500 total edits and then immediately switched entirely to editing ARBPIA topics exclusively. That is a clear case of WP:GAMING just to regain access to ARBPIA. The purpose of the extended-confirmed restriction is twofold. First, it makes it more difficult for the enormous amount of sock puppeteers in the area to edit. Second, it ensures that editors are familiar with how Wikipedia works and have experience working with other editors. Pushing as fast as possible to reach extended-confirmed with small edits and minor copyedits bypasses both reasons the sanction exists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so is there a clear path forward for me then? Is it just to make larger edits on a wider variety of topics for a few weeks? DMH43 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest something in the course of a few months. The point is to demonstrate that you're here to improve the encyclopedia, not to edit in a single contentious topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I can do that, but it does seem unfair an unjustified based on the Gaming page you linked. That page describes restrictions as being preventative rather than punitive. I would consider your removal of my permission as punitive since no one has brought an issue with the contents of my edits (which I don't think have been controversial in any sense).

The Gaming page you linked even describes the case of making "dummy" edits to achieve a certain access level. The case described is a clear manipulation whereas my edits have been valuable phrasing, formatting, citation and content improvements. If you disagree please provide me with an example. DMH43 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that a few months is MUCH longer than the 30 days tenure described by the EC criteria. I'm willing to go a few months, I don't have a problem with that, but this also suggests that the removal of my EC permission is punitive. DMH43 (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of edits like this and this, while not patently disruptive, demonstrate that you were making edits specifically to gain the permission. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can accept that view even though I personally disagree. Can you point to where in the guidelines such edits are considered as "rushing" and where "rushing" is not permitted? DMH43 (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two recent discussions at ANI demonstrating that minor edits to gain extended-confirmed, especially with ARBPIA edits immediately afterward, result in revocation of the permission. They're are many more but those are both recent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Those cases seem unlike mine, specifically, the user mentioned in first link has ~296 edits wikilinking "genus". The user mentioned in the second link has a HUGE number of very tiny, arguably useless edits. In contrast my edits are arguably much more substantial, very few are under 20 characters changed.

I think I have a pretty good case that I shouldnt have EC removed, where can I appeal this decision? Is it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFPERM ? DMH43 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I logged it as an Arbitration enforcement action you can appeal the action at WP:AN or WP:AE, where it will require a clear consensus to overturn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Appeal_of_the_removal_of_EC_membership_for_User:DMH43 DMH43 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reading and reflecting on the discussion, I believe that the compromise brought up by several editors will be more than sufficient. On January 1st, 30 days after your first edit, and (I'm pretty sure) 576 mainspace edits (visible here) I, or another admin if you request at WP:RFPERM, will restore your EC permissions. If I forget to assign the permission, you can just ping me.

I'm sorry for coming on as strong as I did, and I certainly should have assumed a bit more good faith on your part and reached out before pulling the permission. I saw the large number of small edits, many with minor wording changes, and the immediate return to ARBPIA at 500 edits and assumed bad faith. That is on me, and I'm sorry for that.

I urge you to read the policies and guidelines linked to in the welcome template and CTOP notice that I placed earlier. A review of WP:REVERT and WP:1RR will also be helpful. The ARBPIA topic area is more contentious than most of our contentious topics, especially with the current war, and it is very easy to slip up. Please edit carefully in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: This looks like a good resolution. Can you explain the significance of 576 main edits? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-ecr-violating mainspace edits, based on my rough count. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Wumpus Search Engine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Wumpus Search Engine 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/The Wumpus Search Engine 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.

Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 18:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine has been accepted

Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BuySomeApples (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli humanitarian aid to Gaza

Hi, DMH. Please sign your contribution over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli humanitarian aid to Gaza. Thanks, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I missed that DMH43 (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, DMH223344. Thank you for your work on Postings list. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work. Is this a duplication of Inverted index which says that postings list is a synonym for Inverted index?

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: thanks for your question. I think this might sometimes be a matter of terminology, but usually an inverted index is a dictionary of words, each of which maps to a postings list. So the answer to your question is no, but I could see a case for merging these pages. DMH223344 (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMH223344: So it looks like it it isn't out of line to be a separate article but it might be better to merge it. I'll just copy this to the talk page and mark it as NPP reviewed. If you (as perhaps the best person to do it) or someone wants to merge it, so be it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

about your revert

you reverted the information i added with no reason or explanation... OliveTree39 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]