User talk:~2025-31563-08

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

You are welcome to edit without logging in; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages and upload media). An account also has more protection against revealing your IP address.

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Quotation marks

I accept your good faith in your attempt to add to the (summarising) infobox, but I have had to revert it again because there is nothing in the article to support it. On the contrary, the section Quotation mark#Chinese, Japanese and Korean says that the double mathematical angle brackets are the equivalent of italics, for book titles. Infoboxes, like the lead section, may only summarise body content and must not include anything unique.

Either way, the best place to discuss this is at talk: Quotation mark, because it may be that you will gain consensus there that it should be included.

Finally, welcome again to Wikipedia! Please do consider getting a regular account. You can choose how much, how little, or even no, personal information you wish to disclose. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JMF. My talk page is under development right now, so I appreciate it. I know you reverted my edit but these are important for Chinese, Japanese, & Korean. ~2025-31563-08 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a wp:reliable source, then of course your contribution will be accepted. But it needs to be explained in the body of the article before it can be summarised in the infobox (and the lead). That is a general rule for every Wikipedia article unless they are very short. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your keyboard has the symbols so, assuming not, here they are for your copy/paste convenience if you need them:

U+27E8 ⟨ MATHEMATICAL LEFT ANGLE BRACKET
U+27E9 ⟩ MATHEMATICAL RIGHT ANGLE BRACKET
U+27EA ⟪ MATHEMATICAL LEFT DOUBLE ANGLE BRACKET
U+27EB ⟫ MATHEMATICAL RIGHT DOUBLE ANGLE BRACKET

Enjoy! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Android keyboard doesn't do these symbols, but I have the following when I press & hold on greater than & less than symbols.

U+3008 〈 LEFT ANGLE BRACKET
U+3009 〉 RIGHT ANGLE BRACKET

~2025-31563-08 (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be reading the information I've written for you, so I have had to revert your change again. There is nothing at Quotation mark#Chinese, Japanese and Korean to support your assertion that angle brackets are valid quotation marks in Japanese or Korean. In fact it says that they are not quotation marks (but rather that they are used to identify book titles). It may be that, because angle brackets can be invoked easily from Android, that some people have adopted them as quotation marks but that is not good enough. Let me spell out the rules for you so that there can be no misunderstanding:

you must not add content to the lead section or the infobox unless it is summarising body content. So write the body content first.
you must cite a wp:reliable source for any assertions you make, especially if their veracity is being challenged.
you must not rely on your own experience, analysis or observations (see Wikipedia:No original research)

So please stop trying to bulldoze that change through because it will just be reverted until you have complied with the rules that I have given you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham (typeface) Code.org quote

Hi, despite a thorough search on the linked reference and elsewhere, I cannot find any links to the blockquote regarding code.org's switch from gotham to figtree on the Google font website or elsewhere, so I've removed it from the article. If I've somehow missed it on that page, or you have a better reference to it, feel free to re-add it with a ref link more directly pointing to the quote. Also, the link to the google font site incorrectly began with "www.". Thanks, SpinningCeres 03:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent message to SpinningCeres

Hello everyone. I recently noticed SpinningCeres (talk) for deleting a quote without an explanation on the article's talk page. Let me know about why I made this message. Thank you. ~2025-31563-08 (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I did not remove content without explaining why. As noted above, I looked for the blockquote on the referenced link and through multiple variations of a google search for the quote and could not find it, and then removed it. I'm trying to double check previous versions of the fonts.google.com page for the quote but wayback machine seems to be down right now. If you could point out a live or currently accessible archive link to any website for the block quote I removed, that alone would be sufficient to restore it to the article. Sidenote, the updated short description seems a tad too detailed for a typical short description with all the re-release dates, I would just include the initial release date. Thanks, SpinningCeres 04:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SpinningCeres, Always remember to add more quotes in Gotham (typeface), so I can be happy with it. :) ~2025-31563-08 (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking for. I've looked for an appropriate replacement for the discussion of code.org's usage of Gotham and transition to Figtree and have failed to find one, despite fairly thorough efforts. With respect, your personal satisfaction with the number of quotes on the article is irrelevant to the completeness of Wikipedia's coverage of the font. Please see WP:QUOTE or MOS:QUOTE for more details. I personally think(yes, I note the irony) that the article has a sufficient number of quotes and primary references to its use by multiple sources. Again, if you can point to any link that directly shows the blockquote I removed, feel free to re-add it with a reference to that link. Thanks, SpinningCeres 04:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I always appreciate it, but I found another font change on Code.org in the Wayback Machine. SpinningCeres, I will put up a new reference to say it is true! :-) THANK YOU! ~2025-31563-08 (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Propaganda. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 05:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does "This page extends beyond this information" even mean? Please stop reverting other editors using nonsensical edit summaries. And the other editor's summary was clear and appropriate; you had no business templating them with a warning about edit summaries. General Ization ^Talk 04:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Gotham (typeface)) for a period of 1 week for repeated disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, I'm waiting for you:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

~2025-31563-08 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits are not disruptive.

Decline reason:

You were engaged in a (slow) edit war on the article in question. If you are trying to make a change that others have reverted please discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus before hand. I will not remove the block without an understanding from you as to why it was placed. CoconutOctopus talk 22:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.