CodeTalker

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Haris rauf

Rauf was born on 7 November 1993 in Rawalpindi, into a working-class family originating from the village of Sharkool in the Hazara region, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He belongs to the Swati tribe of Pashtuns and, being from the Hindko-speaking Hazara region, speaks Hindko, in addition to pashto Punjabi and Urdu. And Check the facts before talking. 2paknartopa (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@2paknartopa, I would love to check the facts. But you have not provided a reference for where you got this information. That is why it keeps getting reverted. All information on Wikipedia is based on what has been previously published by reliable sources. If you would just tell us what your source is for this information, there would be no problem. CodeTalker (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@CodeTalkerReliable sources:

Haris Rauf:

The information about his performance can be verified through ESPNcricinfo and the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB). You can check the Pakistan vs Australia odi Series (2024), where Haris Rauf was named Player of the Series. These are standard, reliable sources for cricket statistics and records.

Regarding his linguistic background, Haris Rauf is from the Hazara region, where Hindko is widely spoken. According to multiple linguistic surveys and regional reports, most people from this area speak Hindko as their mother tongue. This aligns with census data showing Hindko as a major language of the region. 2paknartopa (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@CodeTalkerharis rauf speaking hindko https://www.facebook.com/reel/1139010873727598/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v link of the video 2paknartopa (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Chicken Run

Please see what I recently posted in the Chicken Run talk page regarding Zionism, since you're the one who reverted my edit. (I don't want to get into any edit wars.) AnyGuy (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Avenida da Libertade

Hi, thanks for your note about removing the link to Avenida Da Libertade, I added it thinking I was adding an independent source that proved that it was home to different embassies. Is there a better way to improve the page? Thanks. CandelaWiki (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@CandelaWiki, articles normally do not contain bare external links like the one you added (see WP:ELBODY). Instead, you should use a properly formatted reference to support the statement. The reference may contain a link to the site. See WP:REFBEGIN for an introduction on how to use references. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions about how to do this. Thanks. CodeTalker (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Eduard Rügemer

Hello CodeTalker,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Eduard Rügemer for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Eduard Rügemer to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

Less Unless (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, CodeTalker. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

revert tree topping

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pruning&oldid=1324457560 you reverted this edit but i don't understand, there isn't any external link has you commented and yes tree topping was already explaine on another part of the article but it's not the only bad pratices that coul be listed there. Haymillefolium (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Haymillefolium, your edit added an external link to https://arboristnow.com/news/topping-trees-controversial-yet-common-practice. This could have been fixed by formatting it as a reference rather than an external link. However I reverted the whole edit rather than doing that because Wikipedia generally prefers not to have separate sections for "Controversies" or "Bad practices" or things like that. It's better to discuss such things in the context where they are originally mentioned. So instead of having a separate section, it would be better to discuss the pros and cons of topping where it is originally defined. You should also be careful to avoid making definitive statements in wikivoice about things that do not have universal agreement. Instead of saying "tree topping is discouraged" it would be better to say something like "some arborists discourage tree topping". CodeTalker (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

"controversies" is a very common section in wikipedia, where is it states it shouldn't be done ? Were should i add bad practices around tree wound dressing for example or over pruning  ?

Actually tree topping is a bad practice, this is a common knowledge and it's very consensuel, this is what is learned in tree pruning schools and it's even sometime illigal to do tree topping. So If you prefer we could say "most arborists discourage tree topping" Haymillefolium (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, many articles have a controversies section, but this is nevertheless discouraged, although not prohibited. See WP:CRITICISM. We even have a template {{Criticism section}} to mark such sections. In most cases it's better to integrate criticism of practices into the section of the article where the practice is described. So in the Pruning article, a statement about the negative aspects of tree topping should go in the Types of pruning section where topping is described.

For the sake of neutrality, in order to say that "most arborists discourage tree topping", you should provide a source that says exactly that, using the word "most", rather than just providing sources that show one or two particular arborists discouraging the practice. CodeTalker (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Ping @Haymillefolium. CodeTalker (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

okey thank for the reference :) We could say "tree topping is discouraged" if we use scientific source ? Since there is a consensus I don't see why we should be "careful" about this. I also not true to say "some arborist" because this make think it's not a commonly accepted knowledge when it is. Haymillefolium (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Haymillefolium, It doesn't have to be a "scientific source", just a reliable source; see WP:RS. But the source needs to say that "most arborists" agree on this. We can't just cite one or two specific arborists that say this. We just need to make sure that the source that we cite supports what the article says. If we make the article say that "most arborists" agree on something, then we need a source that says exactly that. If we didn't require this, some other editor could find one or two arborists who claim that topping is ok, and then change the article to say that "most arborists" say that topping is fine, citing those specific arborists. CodeTalker (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@CodeTalker I didn't write that "most arborist" agree on this, I writed that tree topping is a bad practice and I used scientific sources that explain why. We don't care about what "most arborist" think, even if most of them think killing cats is cool it doesn't make it a reality. Haymillefolium (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Haymillefolium You didn't add references to "scientific sources", you added one reference to one commercial arborist in San Francisco, and one reference to a law in a tiny Indiana town. You will need much better sources than that to say in Wikivoice that a common practice is harmful. I was trying to compromise by suggesting the "most arborists" language, for which it would probably be easier to find sources. I suggest finding the best sources that you can find (much better than the two you used previously), and then write text that summarizes what those sources say. CodeTalker (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

sources added Haymillefolium (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Jack Senior

The match between doncaster rovers and chesterfield fc has just concluded so there are multiple sources available. Please revert back my changes as they are authentic. ~2025-38914-21 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38914-21 if there are multiple sources, then go ahead and add one to the article along with the new content. You cannot add content to the article without a source and expect the reader to find a source. See WP:REFBEGIN for information on how to do that. You will also need to provide a source to support the statement that he is known as "the Ginger Roberto Carlos". CodeTalker (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

That editor

I'm wondering if that editor doesn't understand English, or if this a WP:CIR. It's like they have no idea what's going on. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 Yeah, I don't know. They seemed pretty open to correction when I discussed some issues with them on their talk page on 30 Nov and 1 Dec, and my impression is they're trying to be constructive. In almost all their edits, their edit summary refers to the MOS or a section of it, so I think they're trying to edit in conformance with the MOS, but they seem to have misunderstood it several times. CodeTalker (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Rojer James2209

I assume you've also seen Charlotte Evans3110? Obviously the same editor. Do we have to wait for the whole multi-level warning thing? That's a lot of undo work. GA-RT-22 (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22, the editing style does seem similar. I'm always unsure about how to handle these cases where an editor is editing contrary to the MOS and ignoring communication, but their edits are not grossly harmful.

@ToBeFree perhaps you can offer some advice? These two new accounts Charlotte Evans3110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (created 26 November) and Rojer James2209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (created 2 December) have been making numerous edits which simply add spaces before <ref> tags, contrary to MOS:REFSPACE. They have both received multiple warnings but neither has replied or ever edited a talk page. I'm not sure if they are the same editor but I am sure that their editing is disruptive. Can you advise us as to how to handle this? Should we report to ANI or give them more time? I spent a fair amount of time yesterday reviewing and reverting a bunch of Rojer James2209's mistakes. CodeTalker (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The same username style, similar account creation dates, same disruptive behavior ... a simple WP:SPI would have worked :) Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much ToBeFree! I have never filed a SPI and find the process rather intimidating, but next time something similar happens I'll try that approach. Thanks again for your quick handling of this. CodeTalker (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The same. Thank you! I tried to make a SPI report once and found it almost impossible. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)