User talk:AimanAbir18plus
Hello, AimanAbir18plus, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Peaceray (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
January 2025
[edit]
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 by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which you apparently ignored. You continue to not use edit summaries. Any edit made without a clear and valid reason may be reverted by any editor. Skyerise (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I used edit summaries for most of the edits. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's simply not true, I can see your contributions! And only your most recent edits actually give guideline or MoS based reasons for the change. You will find that there are two types of articles on Wikipedia: those which are completely abandoned by their original authors, where you can get away with whatever changes you like, and those which have one or more interested editors who have contributed actual text content and continue to monitor and maintain the article. The latter want you to leave the article alone unless you can justify the change or show consensus for the change by opening a discussion on the talk page. No valid justification means no reason for a change and policy clearly favors the status quo if you make changes which aren't supported with a valid reason or talk page discussion. Not sure why you think you can go around "tweaking" articles you haven't contributed any content to. It's rude. Skyerise (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I used edit summaries for most of the edits. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which you apparently ignored. You continue to not use edit summaries. Any edit made without a clear and valid reason may be reverted by any editor. Skyerise (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm also confused as to why you would even want to make such inconsequential cosmetic changes. Is edit-warring over the size or position of an image - which was clearly placed and sized with care by the main authors and other contributors to the article when it was originally written and subsequently developed — really the hill you want to die on? As I've said before, the authors of the article have broad editorial discretion as to what images they want and where they want them. I've written content, found better sources, refined citations and presentation, and I've done it for some time on several of the articles you want to remake in your own image. I've also been rightly rebuffed when I've tried to change cosmetic details in articles which are still maintained by one or more of their original creators. What articles have you created? What content have you added? You seem to do nothing but try to move images and even articles around without having contributed even a single word to them. Skyerise (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Skyerise, I don't alter contents. I just want to make them better by ce, links, or adding legitimate contexts and, adding contextual images. I've created 12 articles which are live right now ( including some - Gangstar Rio: City of Saints (2011), Psychological horror (film and television), Third-person (video games), Palis (mythology), Shiqq, Black Div). I've corrected some grammatical corrections and added valid content with resources to existing articles, added legitimate images to Commons and Wikipedia. But, unfortunately, it seems you don't want to acknowledge it. I'm passionate and careful. I just want to make Wikipedia better. I will also use edit summaries correctly. Have some trust on me. Thank you. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I am happy to acknowledge your efforts, which is why I posted the service award below. I do think you need to review our various image guidelines, though, which are in several different places and can sometimes even seem contradictory. Our guidelines tend to favor putting images at the top of sections; this is because it's considered bad form for an image to be "hanging" from one section down into the next. Because of this, our image policies also say that it is not important to try to place images near related text content. Many editors want to put an image immediately before a paragraph mentioning what's in the image, but our guidelines do not require this, due to the fact that doing so frequently is not at all the best image placement. Frequently the image needs to be placed several paragraphs higher, so that its bottom rather than the top aligns with that content to avoid hanging the image into the next section. Images with people looking toward the right of the image are preferred to be placed on the left, while images with people looking toward the left edge of the image are preferred to be placed on the right. At the same time, alternating images left and right is also preferred, but without sandwiching text between them. I have spent some time trying to get the optimal placements incorporating all the somewhat contradictory subtleties of these guidelines without violating them in articles such as Thelema based on 18 years of experience working with other editors.
- @Skyerise, I don't alter contents. I just want to make them better by ce, links, or adding legitimate contexts and, adding contextual images. I've created 12 articles which are live right now ( including some - Gangstar Rio: City of Saints (2011), Psychological horror (film and television), Third-person (video games), Palis (mythology), Shiqq, Black Div). I've corrected some grammatical corrections and added valid content with resources to existing articles, added legitimate images to Commons and Wikipedia. But, unfortunately, it seems you don't want to acknowledge it. I'm passionate and careful. I just want to make Wikipedia better. I will also use edit summaries correctly. Have some trust on me. Thank you. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm also confused as to why you would even want to make such inconsequential cosmetic changes. Is edit-warring over the size or position of an image - which was clearly placed and sized with care by the main authors and other contributors to the article when it was originally written and subsequently developed — really the hill you want to die on? As I've said before, the authors of the article have broad editorial discretion as to what images they want and where they want them. I've written content, found better sources, refined citations and presentation, and I've done it for some time on several of the articles you want to remake in your own image. I've also been rightly rebuffed when I've tried to change cosmetic details in articles which are still maintained by one or more of their original creators. What articles have you created? What content have you added? You seem to do nothing but try to move images and even articles around without having contributed even a single word to them. Skyerise (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- However, others editors' aesthetics vary, and I've gotten bitten hard by editors who have been here even longer than I whose image placements I find ugly and try to fix. Typically they cite WP:IAR ("ignore all rules", which is incidently an official non-optional policy, while following guidelines is encouraged but not required) to justify their variance from the guidelines and WP:STATUSQUO to justify reverting to their preferred aesthetic. I've gotten blocked once or twice for trying to make these articles look better — even though my version followed the guidelines more closely — as admins tend to favor the discretion and time investment of the current active editors over the justifiable but optional changes introduced by the newer-to-the-article editor. It may seem that I am acting like these curmudgeons, but I acknowledge your good faith and good intentions, so I would not take you to the admin notification boards unless you were to break the three revert rule. When it comes to robust articles with attentive editors, it's best to let the matter drop if they don't agree with your cosmetic changes; I'd have avoided several blocks which were completely unnecessary if I'd just left well enough alone.
- Now that applies primarily to cosmetic matters; when it comes to actual content, it's perfectly reasonable to remove unsourced material, add citation requests, and otherwise try to implement the stronger rules that apply to content, and hold reverting editors responsible if the version they are reverting to violates a clear policy like WP:V. But it's simply not worth it to try to force cosmetic changes on active editors who have a different aesthetic, and the guidelines allow for this. Sometimes there is only one active editor paying attention, and the guidelines favor their ability to keep the article's long-term presentation unchanged unless a new consensus is developed on the talk page. When its one newer editor vs a longer-term editor, one can request a third-opinion at WP:3O, but while it's fairly easy to get a third opinion about content, it's much less likely that an editor will respond if the request is just about presentation, because this is considered to be a matter of editorial discretion rather than a work-to-some-specific-interpretation-of-guidelines matter. Hope this helps! Skyerise (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank your for your valuable information. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now that applies primarily to cosmetic matters; when it comes to actual content, it's perfectly reasonable to remove unsourced material, add citation requests, and otherwise try to implement the stronger rules that apply to content, and hold reverting editors responsible if the version they are reverting to violates a clear policy like WP:V. But it's simply not worth it to try to force cosmetic changes on active editors who have a different aesthetic, and the guidelines allow for this. Sometimes there is only one active editor paying attention, and the guidelines favor their ability to keep the article's long-term presentation unchanged unless a new consensus is developed on the talk page. When its one newer editor vs a longer-term editor, one can request a third-opinion at WP:3O, but while it's fairly easy to get a third opinion about content, it's much less likely that an editor will respond if the request is just about presentation, because this is considered to be a matter of editorial discretion rather than a work-to-some-specific-interpretation-of-guidelines matter. Hope this helps! Skyerise (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Service award
[edit]
I notice you've been here a year as of the 10th and have over 3,000 edits, so you are entitled to display this service award on your user page. Cheers! Skyerise (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
(Well, technically it requires 4,000 edits, but most editors have made edits to some article or other that has since been deleted, or have made edits on sister projects, which are allowed to be counted in ones total.) Skyerise (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I really appreciate this. I promise, I will be more responsible to my contributions on Wikipedia. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
reminder to check email
[edit]
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
hi @AimanAbir18plus, would like to send a friendly reminder to check your email. Thank you so much for your time and patience, and have a great weekend! Phoebezz22 (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, yes. I will reply to all the questions tomorrow. Thank you for your patience. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Jagjit Singh Aurora.jpeg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Jagjit Singh Aurora.jpeg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Treasure of Nadia cover.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Treasure of Nadia cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
