User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment

Discussions on this page may turn into heated arguments. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. ( no personal attacks · assume good faith · be kind )

	Daily pageviews of User:ImprovedWikiImprovment
Graphs do not work. You can go to the graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org.

Archives
2017–2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

An amusement park ride isn't nonsense, so please undelete the page. Gemink (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page's content made no sense, thus fits the G1 criteria, so I will not undelete it. --IWI (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "deaths in month" pages have some confusing wording. Take Deaths in August 2021: it says 'For deaths that should be noted before the month that the world is in, please see "Months".' This makes sense when it's the current month, but for previous months, it doesn't make sense. How do you think this should be changed? (I previously brought this up here.) Lights and freedom (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lights and freedom: Yes, I see, that is an issue. I don't think we need a sentence anything like that in the lead, so I would suggest removing the sentence. --IWI (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions. 1) Do the deaths in month pages need the links at the bottom to other months? 2) For the deaths in year pages, like Deaths in 2021, do you think the second paragraph is needed, that says all entries must have a source? Lights and freedom (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{re|Lights and freedom} Sorry only just saw this. I would say no to both, especially (in the second case) considering the editnotice I added saying virtually the same thing. --IWI (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lights and freedom: Oops, looks like I messed the ping up. --IWI (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IWI, I just put in place at the presentation (first lines) of the articule what is stated in the following paragraphs to improve it by making it briefer to read without loosing any of its content. You state in a message that I should not put personal comments, so it goes in alignment with the no-bias politics (neutral point of view).

Well, a discredit (just as any insult) is not a neutral point of view. A praise also is not neutral. Both are given as opinions, and as such might be true or false, it is not our dutty to attest it INSIDE wikipedia. That would be in a court of other places. A neutral point of view is only possible by asserting that an opinion is an opinion and not a fact. Thus, unless something is widely really proven, both possible interpretations of a single fact MUST BE INCLUDED in a wikipedia article.

What I am saying is that water is wet, so I know you know it and agree with it. Just writing to see if you attest to this langage logic.

So, a person that in its job at the Congress is always batlling in political issues, lives and breaths between honest and corrupt people, bribes and transparent accountings. When she EXPOSES a "hidden crime" or "hidden criminal agenda" or "faulty behavior", of course she is a whistleblower. It does not mean that what she expreses is truth, it just means she is asking for attention on the subject for public and possible legal scrutiny. Only later her exposure could be labeled as truthfull or just thoughtfull (fact or unsubsantianated theory). Thus, the characterization of ANYONE as "conspiracy theorist" reduces the logic of what is said. Any can create a theory.

This Congress woman would not create a "conspiracy explanation" out of thin air. She has some facts. Which are obvious all around the political shceme. So, some people would call her a "conspiracy theorist", exactly those that would wants to keep on going with the conspiracy, or those who are so naive or numb or hypersensitive that cannot tolerate that possible reality.

Then, she is, by pure logic a whistleblower and also a conspiraty theorist. Both at the same time. And THAT IS A NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW! 2.138.180.33 (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong; we go by what reliable sources say. You did not provide any source for your change, so I reverted it. If a reliable source is provided, the content may be able to stay. However, reliable sources seem to state that she is a far-right conspiracy theorist. --IWI (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1700:5110:EA0:B5FE:E0C3:FFAD:8C56 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Lights and freedom (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We gotta put a filter or something in place to catch these guys.... Derpdart56 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the 64 range for a month, thank you Lights and freedom. --IWI (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to tell you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Simple talk regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "#Did you know". Thank you. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ImprovedWikiImprovment: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Ferien (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I haven't seen you around in a good while now. Hope all is going ok :) --Ferien2 (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien: Hi I’m back now, had some serious heath issues to deal with. Best, --IWI (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. I'm glad to see you're back and hope you're getting along well now. --Ferien (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven’t seen you in a while and looks like you haven’t edited in 6 months. I hope all is well with you! Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 14:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb: I had some serious health issues to deal with, but I’m going to try and come back now. --IWI (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IWI, this is just a notice to inform you that you haven't made a logged action/edit since 21 July 2023. Per Wikipedia:Inactive administrators, along with the 100 actions/year requirement, admins who have not made a single logged action/edit in a normal year also have their rights removed, so I thought I would give you a month's notice to make you aware. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment.

As pointed out, you haven't edited any page in a year. You have less than 100 edits/admin actions, and are considered inactive. I have removed your admin flag. Since you are a trusted editor, I have given you the rollbacker & patroller rights.

When you come back, you can ask for the admin flag to be re-instated, but will have to go through a request for adminship.

Let me thank you for the work you did when you were still active. Eptalon (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the 100 edits/year measure is done on a calendar year basis, on 1 January. Doing no logged actions within any 365 days is a separate measure. --Ferien2 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have asked for it to be removed had I been around as I haven’t been involved here in a while, thank you for removing it Eptalon. Cheers, --IWI (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to tell you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Inactivity concern of Special:Contributions/ImprovedWikiImprovment". Thank you. MathXplore (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested deletion of Game (simulation), a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the page meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Game (simulation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Deaths in 2023, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the page meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Template:Editnotices/Page/Deaths in 2023 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested deletion of Template:Calculate, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the page meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Template:Calculate and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Batrachoseps (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I edited the article and fixed its shortcomings and added some more in-depth sources to it, I suggest you remove the delete tag,

Thank you. Ali76567gf (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I request that this article be saved,

(~~~~) Emojg2000444 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this article as deep sources have been added to it Emojg2000444 (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete jadidi Alireza article. Emojg2000444 (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete Alireza's new article. Emojg2000444 (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]