User talk:Riskit 4 a biskit

Hello, I'm Bharel. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Jonathan Sacks, Baron Sacks—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Bar Harel (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. To thr contrary, as a jew, i recognise his hebrew name more than his english name. I (perhaps not you) find it constructive-it is mentioned on his gravestone. I think you meant to delete the hebrew transliteration of his english name, which doesnt mean anything to anybody, only on the hebrew version of wikipedia Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was missing a source where he's named Ya'akov Zvi ben David Arieh. You can add it back with the following source: https://korenpub.co.il/collections/rabbi-jonathan-sacks just write Ya'akov Zvi though. If you want, I can help you do it 😊 I have already done it on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Bar Harel (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Monty Python's Life of Brian. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Robynthehode (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Riskit 4 a biskit! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Bar Harel (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Thanks i luv choc chip cookies but i hav to keeP mY f1Gur:( But never warm, my friend[reply]

For the one wich you luv Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I’m constantly clicking on reference links to paywall articles-is there a WP policy on using them? Where would I find it?

WP is supposed to be free!

Ta Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I’m constantly clicking on reference links to paywall articles-is there a WP policy on using them? Where would I find it?

WP is supposed to be free! Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please stop removing references because they're behind a paywall or no longer working. The latter can often be fixed by adding an archive link, as was the case here (and see generally some more info about this issue here: Wikipedia:Link rot)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources for the answer to your question in the above section - we do not reject a source because they're not freely available (how would you cite a book if so?). In general, please have a read of Wikipedia:Citing sources. EditorInTheRye (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunately true that many sources are pay-walled. However, the policy we chose was to allow the best sources even when access to them is limited. It is to benefit of article quality. Two things you can do: (1) The Wikipedia library gives access to very many pay-walled sources if you satisfy some conditions; (2) If you need a source in order to improve an article, you can ask for it at WP:RX and almost always someone will provide it to you. Make sure you have an email address in your preferences. Zero^talk 11:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ta I can get a source at WP:rx for anything??!! Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the intention is that you want to use the source for improving an article, not just that you want to read it. The editors on that page work very hard and we shouldn't abuse their generosity. There are also copyright reasons for this. Zero^talk 01:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the editor who posted a now-defunct link should be notified and update the link. I’m not doing it Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

isn’t it better to delete a defunct reference and replace it with a tag “citation needed”?? That would avoid readers wasting their time chasing a duff link…

No, because having the link which is now dead can be very useful in finding a live link for the same material. For example, it will often be archived at archive.org . You should tag it with {{dead link}}, which both serves to inform readers to not bother clicking, and to prompt editors to fix it. Zero^talk 01:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your edits today to Abraham Accords and Hanukkah were simply vandalism, and have been undone. Please understand that repeated vandalism will led very quickly to you being blocked. Sincerely, Debresser (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Define vandalism. Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism. Debresser (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Abraham accords include 4 countries today + Israel. The article just mentioned 2 countries - it was not up to date. Do you want Wikipedia to be out of date?. My edits were correct.

My mistake. I have undone my edit and apologize. Debresser (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not a mistake, the Accords were initially just the two, with a big signing ceremony, Trump and lots of hoopla. Morocco was later without the fanfare but maybe some documents and Sudan has been going nowhere for a while now (this is on the talk page " ..it signed the declarative section of the agreement in the presence of U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin but did not sign the corresponding document with Israel). For PR reasons, the Trump admin kept saying that Morocco and Sudan had "joined" the Accords even when it wasn't precisely so. Selfstudier (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your motive is Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:About Debresser (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit to Hanukkah/Chanukah was finally just a reference to how common these 2 names are. Very informative imo. Better than some rabbis uncorroborated opinion. Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"last=Gggle |first=Ngram"? Changing "correct" to "incorrect". In general, Google searches are not really a source, see Wikipedia:Google_searches_and_numbers#Google_searches_are_not_references. Debresser (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ngram is not a record of google searches, it is a count of the number of mentions in English and American books.

Your recent addition to the tlk page was problematic for many reasons, we are not a wp:soapbox or wp:forum, nor do we engage in wp:or and do not promote wp:fringe concepts. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All visitors very welcome to review the interesting comparison of 911 in New York and the massacre of Jews in (old) York (UK) that has been deleted Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]