Evaporation123

Edits regarding Spanish

Hi, if you are going to ping me specifically regarding an article, I suggest using the user talk page instead of an article's discussion page. That being said, have you looked through the various discussions regarding Western Sahara on the talk page for Spanish language? Your edits are disruptive and looking at your history, you've been warned about this manner before. - Moalli (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for bad ping protocol. Anyways, I don't see any discussion whatsoever on the talk page (regarding Western Sahara) for that article except what I brought up. Evaporation123 (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Dembow

Please do not move pages unless there is a consensus or compelling reason to do so. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed restrictions

Hello,

Please be aware that all articles related to politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are subject to an extended confirmed restriction. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I know this is about the Kurdish Republic of Lachin article: I am aware of the policy and will refrain from involving myself in articles about those subjects in the future. Thank you for not removing the article as well, knowledge should not just be eliminated based on a technicality. Evaporation123 (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dominican dembow has been accepted

Dominican dembow, 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

gobonobo ^{+ c} 08:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Columbia University Apartheid Divest (April 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbritti was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Columbia University Apartheid Divest and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Pbritti (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Evaporation123! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Pbritti (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

ISW Gaza Map

Hi, I saw the discussion about the map in the infobox of the Israel-Hamas War article, and wanted to clarify that the ISW does in fact show total extent rather than current control. The reason for this is that at the beginning of the war this distinction wasn't necessary, and it only became necessary when the IDF started withdrawing from areas at the end of December. They never changed the way their map works, which has led to a very confusing situation where only the "reported Israeli clearing operations" layer of their map is useful in any way, as it shows the total extent of Israeli operations throughout the entire war based more or less entirely on satellite imagery (that I also have access to). The "claimed furthest Israeli advances" layer of their map does not really correspond to anything, they've used it so far maybe three times that I remember, once because they misinterpreted an IDF statement, once because they misinterpreted what someone in a popular Palestinian telegram channel said, and once because they thought Israel could've potentially taken an area but didn't know whether they had or not, at no point did this layer ever correspond to what it's titled as. The third layer of their map is "claimed palestinian reinfiltration" which is the worst one of the three. They use this layer whenever the IDF start a raid into an area they previously withdrew from in Northern Gaza, so really this layer should be called "israeli reinfiltration", since the Gazan factions are present everywhere *except* those areas. Even after the raid ends, they don't change the map and keep it shaded as reinfiltrated, which causes the confusing and incomprehensible web they have in the North. The reason for why their map is this way isn't possible for me to comprehend, you can see where the IDF is still active on the same satellite imagery they use to assess where the IDF has operated in total, so why they never updated the map I can't fathom. It would be better to remove the map entirely from the article than the current state, which simply doesn't correspond to reality in any way. Alternatively, Wikipedia should only show the simple "reported Israeli clearing operations" layer and title it "furthest Israeli advances" since that one at least shows something that is true in reality. Gaza War Unit Tracking (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I also found the map on the ISW website very confusing to understand. I also discovered that even on its own wikipedia article it is labeled as "neoconservative", which I assume correlates with a pro-Israel stance and hence I can see how they'd be doing mental gymnastics on their map to deemphasize Israeli withdrawals. Evaporation123 (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory, I hadn't previously considered that the map and its description might be intentionally misleading. Gaza War Unit Tracking (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

For your work on coverage of Israel-Hamas War protests in NYC

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 00:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Computer-ergonomics My sincerest gratitude for the Barnstar. Evaporation123 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"Latin peoples" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Latin peoples has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 4 § Latin peoples until a consensus is reached. Joy (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Selfstudier (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)