OliveTree39

Hello, OliveTree39, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 06:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Introduction to navigating Wikipedia
• Using the Search engine
• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

January 2024

Hello, I'm Thewolfchild. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of ships of World War II, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners.

If you take a look at militaryfactory.com at WP:RSN, you will see it has not been generally accepted as a reliable source. Also, along with RSN, another good place to check the suitability of a source for WP is to see if it has been listed at WP:RSP. So in short, using RSN & RSP can help you with your sourcing and help others who maintain the project as well.

Thank you. - wolf 06:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! OliveTree39 (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Endangered species. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. This edit is opinion, a soapbox promotion, WP:SOAP, and provides advice, WP:NOTHOWTO. Follow neutral editing, WP:NPOV. Zefr (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your guidance, I changed the added information according to your remarks. OliveTree39 (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Nice, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles. For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used. In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Graham87 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

got it! Thank you OliveTree39 (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Marine life. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please read the manual of style - your edit of the subhead did not comply with MOS:SECTIONS. Your edit also synthesized what you feel are extinction causes when the sources identified them as threats - this is WP:SYNTH. Zefr (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

RfA

I noticed you created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/olivetree39. Please be aware that while there are no requirements for a certain tenure or number of edits to be an administrator, having less than two months experience and less than 200 edits will mean your RfA is guaranteed to fail if you go live with it. These days, it's not at all uncommon for well qualified candidates to have years of experiences and thousands upon thousands of edits. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates before you consider going live with your RfA. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Abexinostat

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Abexinostat, 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) 09:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rocky Mountain Research Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fire management. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Foreign aid to Haiti. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi OliveTree39! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) 09:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Mandioré Lake. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. [1] [2] [3] Sam Kuru (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Digital Humanitarian Responses

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Digital Humanitarian Responses, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. She was ^afairy 10:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! MarconiCheese (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I must of missed it on this edit. Thank you! I will make sure not to publish without the summary! OliveTree39 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Humanitarian aid in conflict zones

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Humanitarian aid in conflict zones, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A 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) 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Prostate cancer and secondary sources

Hi OliveTree39, I'm sorry to say that I've reverted your addition at Prostate cancer. I understand it's tempting to add information on new research to medical articles, but (counterintuitively, perhaps) we tend to avoid doing so. Individual studies (like the one describing CHRM1 you posted) are numerous -- each claiming to make a meaningful advance. If we include all of them, the article would be unreadable, both in length and in form. Instead of trying to include everything or guess what is most important, we rely on secondary sources to guide us: established experts on a topic summarize the state of a field; we summarize their summaries. Over the years, editors here have codified our guideline on sourcing biomedical information here. I hope that helps. Sorry to appear with unhappy news, but I hope all is clear and that you're well. Happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ajpolino, I understand! you make a great point and i think it is good such an important article is under supervision and includes only necessary information in order to have a relevant and accessible article for readers. Thank you. OliveTree39 (talk) 08:31, 25 March 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) 12:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruption

Your editing at Nakba is disruptive and against consensus, kindly desist. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Was just going to say this. This major rewrite specifically, which is explicity against the consensus of this (ongoing) discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier and IOHANNVSVERVS: Just a note that OliveTree39 and ElLuzDelSur seem to have joined Wikipedia on the same day, 27 December 2023, and to both have gained extended autoconfirmed status extremely quickly, although I do not know whether or not that has any significance, as I likely made mistakes and was overly suspicious when I reverted a few edits by ElLuz, mainly due to how clumsily formatted and hard to overview they seemed to be compared to previously, which was then reverted in turn by OliveTree. [4] [5] David A (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I see this Nakba edit where one user restored the significant changes of the other which had been reverted. Are there any other examples of these two editors acting "together" similarly? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not know. I just thought that it seemed like a strange coincidence worth taking note of regarding this particular topic. David A (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, thanks again. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem. David A (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:ElLuzDelSur per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElLuzDelSur. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OliveTree39

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OliveTree39, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Stale unfiled RfAs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OliveTree39 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Digital humanitarian responses for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Digital humanitarian responses 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/Digital humanitarian responses 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.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)