This is an archive of past discussions with User:DIYeditor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you so much for your feedback! I will add page numbers and be sure to clean up my wording in the coming days!! Juliaattie (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've removed your tag as the next source along verifies the information. "Watermelon consists of 92% water, so you're getting the hydration, which is what is so important when you're losing fluids when you're sweating," Long said. "What watermelon (also) has is lycopene, arginine and citrulline, and I think those are three powerhouse elements that we really are wanting to educate the consumer on." .... Citrulline, which increases blood flow, was the element of the juice that most interested Alabama director of performance nutrition Amy Bragg, Long said. Nevertheless, I have asked for a more WP:MEDRS-compliant source on the talk page. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Microsoft Store retail locations until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Dough487201:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: Well I think to call such complaints by a distressed person "bizarre" is both inserting my personal opinion on Wikipedia and implying something untoward about that person. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Grammar question
Hello DIYeditor ! I'm back, but with a heavily reduced pace. Hot weather and real world problems. Nevertheless and if possible - this sentence:
"A strong connection between A and B seems to exist, in this version"
I wrote a summary with the same significance (related to the card game Bridge) - my question is, "seem" or "seems". I guess it refers to the word "connection" , and should hence be as I wrote. But just
"A and B seem to exist" must be plural ? I'm uncertain and this bothers me. And I know nobody better to ask. Boeing720 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes "connection" is the subject so that's what the verb matches. The comma would be probably be omitted unless there were some reason to emphasize "in this version". —DIYeditor (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciated. In the case of Multi two diamonds there are both older and newer versions. If it was a statement in the article, I guess there had been some reason to emphasize it. While at it, I read the word "whereas" at an American page. Is that spelling correct also in British English ? In the beginning here, I used "atleast" once wgich obviously was a wrong. Boeing720 (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Haaaa: I had to look for the edit you are referring to. A self-help book is not really on topic for the nihilism article. Also "any idiot can..." is especially inappropriate. This would be better discussed on Talk:Nihilism if you are serious about including it. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bloodofox: This applies to the second instance of single quotes in that edit as well? I took those for scare quotes or assigning the meaning to particular person. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I missed the second instance. In that case they're there instead of the phrase "so-called", referring to the concept, as the author refers to the idea but doesn't use that exact phrase (so it's not a quote). They're not necessary. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. When I modified my support in the poll on the above page, I struck through my original post and also two of your posts asking for clarification of my original post. I took the view your comments would be left isolated without my original post. However, I've been informed you shouldn't strike through anybody else's edits (which makes sense). I've removed the stikethrough from your twp comments. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Honoring your contribution
Thanks for the message you left on my Talk page, regarding my comment at the Rfc at Trans woman[permalink].
I wanted to commend and recognize your effort and good faith in backtracking from an opinion you later saw in a different light after being criticized for it. You've done a good job in bringing things back on track; striking your previous comment was gracious and civil of you. This doesn't mean we have to agree about everything, and that isn't my point: rather, it's clear to me you are here to build the encyclopedia, and that your efforts and opinions given on Talk pages or elsewhere are dedicated toward that end, and not about staking out a personal positions to defend by hook or by crook. I look forward to collaborating with you on this or any article, irrespective of whether our opinions on some matters happen to coincide or not; in fact, when they don't coincide, I shall pay particular attention to what you have to say, to see whether I need to reexamine my own position. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I think "dog" was more offensive than I intended. I think about them as beloved but there is a strong negative connotation that was unintended. Being here to build an encyclopedia shouldn't be optional. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mathglot: To add, I really value flexibility and trying to see both sides of an issue. There can be a fine line between doing so and equivocating though - or appearing unreliable. Thanks again for your kind words. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
grammar issue
Hello ! This is an example that I've read (in our article Stalinism), but the same "situation" happens to me once in a while. And I'm very uncertain.
text: "Maoists criticised Stalin chiefly regarding his view that bourgeois influence within the Soviet Union was primarily a result of external forces ..."
"was primarily" or "primarily was" - here is no subject to the verb. I wonder what you think here. And if the answer is obvious, both may work - or perhaps depending of something else. I would very much appreciate your input on this and similar issues, if possible. Boeing720 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I am happy to help but I am not a grammar expert. They have the same meaning to me. I don't know about rules on where to put the adverb. Try google. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems you noticed the new talk page section that I added in recently and made edits based on that. Thank you very much, although I believe something can be done regarding the information that you removed, since Volta is acknowledged as a successor to Pascal architecture, just not on the consumer side (GeForce). Maybe a reference to it in the article itself or other articles like Pascal architecture
I was more than a little surprised to see a relatively new editor nominating for deletion a series of churches that have been around for a century and longer for deletion. (Okay, I was ticked.) A church with a handsome building that was founded a century or more ago is extremely likely to be notable. You are correct that these pages were poorly sourced. But WP:BEFORE has some advice that you really should read. It says things like, Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. and If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}.. Also, when wading into a specific topic area, such churches, it's a really good idea to familiarize yourself with topic-related guidelines and maybe look at a few AfDs on similar topics. If you had familiarzed yourself you might, for example, have been aware that we don't delete articles on the cathedrals of notable religious denominations. I know that this place can be rough, that I got pretty ticked with your edits, and that I, like you, continue to make mistakes. Bur, truly, caution is the better part of valor. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: I have familiarized myself with GNG and NCORP, participated in the refinement of NCORP to its current state (which you may be unaware of), and I cited the last local church deletion nomination I made. Calling these "cathedrals" is not really accurate either, it is a grandiose word for what, in most of these cases, is not a very grandiose building. Being listed in a historical register or being designed by a notable architect are easy ways for a church to qualify. Another way is significant coverage in other-than-local sources. I was ticked as well, when I saw an editor was creating stubs for a string of church articles without any effort to provide sources to establish notability. To me that is just part of creating a stub. Certainly part of cleaning up the stub. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The "Yiasou Festival" seems to be of primarily local interest or perhaps regional, and I think it is on the fringe of what could be considered significant coverage since it is only one thing, but I felt that one was not worth arguing and withdrew it myself. What does that have to do with the other noms? If it is possible to dig up information on them it's what Willthacheerleader18 should've done 8 years ago when creating the stubs - they don't show much in normal searches. And I'll note the Cathedral still does not mention the festival, after all this! —DIYeditor (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe the mention of cathedral was in regards to your nomination, which you later withdrew, of Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral (Charlotte, North Carolina). This church is in fact an actual cathedral (seat of a bishop) of the Eastern Orthodox Church. As for the other churches you nominated, all are historic buildings, most over or nearly a century old. It is more beneficial to tag an article as in need of improvement rather than nominate it for deletion. Also, before assuming irresponsibility, check the edit history and see when the article was created and then perhaps reach out to the creator (in this case, myself) for improvements. I wrote these articles eight years ago when I was new to Wikipedia. I would gladly make improvements on them had it been requested. I honestly had forgotten all about them until they were tagged today, as I have stated in previous discussions regarding their deletion nominations. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Handsome old buildings. Fact is, buildings of this age and caliber are highly unlikely to have been erected by congregations devoid of notability. Which is why it would have been more appropriate to tag them for sourcing/improvement. Glad you're working on them, User:Willthacheerleader18.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Notable buildings is one of the best ways for churches to meet notability in my opinion. Basically A7, in my view, guards against this variety of superfluous article (the worst of those I nominated anyway) that would not pass AfC. Otherwise creating articles for churches (not just in this case) without providing evidence that the article is not subject to CSD A7 seems like a kind of promotion. Churches and religions don't get a special pass to use Wikipedia for that. I notice that when there is a wikipedia article about a church, a nice box pops up on google when you search it that gives a photo and phone number. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
So my comment was removed about Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist).
You stated that it has to be neutral...
Quote : " we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view."
How is this neutral about Joseph Mercola : " who markets a variety of controversial dietary supplements" and "Mercola and colleagues advocate a number of unproven alternative health notions including homeopathy, and anti-vaccine positions. "
@Aitch & Aitch Aitch: Ok, that needs to go in the edit summary. Every article edit should have one. I revert any blanking that doesn't have a summary unless it is totally obvious why. And if it is obvious I will still tag the editor for not using a summary. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi after seeing that you removed my edit on the bases that I didn’t have a reliable source I would have to point out that I used the Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War 2 as my reference which is already on the references list. It states that the STG 44 have a rate of fire of 500 rpms. Acemaster77 (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, you removed my HQ Trivia edit. As of 3 months ago, this change to the official name of HQ Trivia and Words became apparent to the public, so in theory when I changed the name of the logo title, should it not reference the true name? (Ahajibeigi (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC))
Do you have reason to believe reference associated with the Colonial Era section doesn't speak to these points? If so, there are a number of potential references at Blackbirding that are associated nominally with Kiribati. While guarding against synthesis via presumed narrative is laudable, I wonder what gave cause to flag Blackbirding? Is it not mentioned in the references? Have you reviewed the cited references for either Kiribati or Blackbirding to verify, or is absence a mere presumption based on the circumstance of the editor? Mavigogun (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mavigogun: I'm the one who added the mention of blackbirding in the first place, but I only did it because it seemed to be true from a cursory investigation, not because I had a good source. I wanted to work with the IP editor who wished labour ship to read slave ship. They aren't slave ships unless a RS says that was the clear primary purpose of the specific ships that visited these islands. I have not reviewed the sources yet and we should definitely do that - I make the assumption that the original person who added the citation knew what it said over changes people make without citing that source or a new one. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thoughts on standard of edit summaries for all edits
I thank you for effort to improve Wikipedia. However, I do have some concerns.
Every business system requires some flex in the rules for normal function. That is why "work to rule" is such an effective labor union tactic. We could say, well, we should have better interplay between rules and actual practice, and keep the rules continually updated with best practice. We could say that, but apparently, that is surprisingly difficult to do.
And then there is Doc James' experience. This editor does very valuable work, in that he's a medical doctor who gives his real name. He has worked, for example, to prevent medical device companies from simply promoting their products on Wikipedia.
If we require edit summaries for all edits, where brief pro forma summaries become the norm, it just makes it all the easier for malicious and/or self-serving edits to hide.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
"On January 11, 2013, James Heilman, an emergency-room physician and one of Wikipedia’s most prolific medical editors, was standing watch over the online encyclopedia’s entry for a back procedure called a kyphoplasty. The page originally suggested that the procedure’s effectiveness was “controversial,” and an unidentified Wikipedia user had proposed changing the text to “well documented and studied”—a characterization that Heilman thought wasn’t supported by existing research. He rejected the change. . . "
And he later tracked this change back to, you guessed it, an employee of a company which makes devices for this procedure.
The edit summary is not going to make a huge difference one way or the other in a case like this. But if we add to a norm of non-meaningful edit summaries, in which the same pat phrases are scrolled through again and again, I think it does make it a little more hard to catch the bad edits. For we would have essentially given self-serving edits something to hide behind. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
FriendlyRiverOtter I'm only repeating the community standard which is to leave an edit summary for every edit. Litigating this on my talk page isn't going to accomplish anything. I disagree that even a perfunctory edit summary does not help identify bad edits, it lets one know what to look for and what the purpose of the edit is. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Baba Yaga
The entry for Baba Yaga listed her as appearing in the first and second edition D&D Monster Manuals. She is not mentioned in the first edition D&D Monster Manual; she first makes an appearance in the Dungeon Master's Guide, where it mentions her Dancing Hut as an artifact and she is not statted out. She is also not mentioned in any of the second edition D&D Monstrous Manuals that I was able to check. Hence, erroneous.----Roland14:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
" . . . Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted incorrectly, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. Editors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary; . . . "
I notice that you have a bit of a crusade regarding edit summaries. And nothing wrong with a good crusade. I tend to think we here at Wiki could use a good crusade now and then!
And I don't think you're making this mistake, for you seem pretty seasoned and experienced. But my concern is, I can see how a less experienced editor reading one or two of your edit summaries might get the idea that you are. I think you do good by sending people a reminder to their talk page to please use edit summaries. But I'm less sure whether it's a good idea to mention this in your own edit summaries. Also new people to Wikipedia might think this is why they're being reverted.
Thank you, but then again I might be wrong. Whether or not someone advances from an occasional editor to a more regular editor is maybe a 20% chance at best. With newer members I think we have to be pretty specific of what we are requesting and asking for. For example, "Please give reason if you wish to change back," although maybe that's too long, or people will think it's too "bitey" or something of that sort. If something only works one time out of five, it is kind of hard to tell when something works slightly better, and that's kind of the irony of it! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Gamergate controversy talk page
Hello! Sorry to intrude. For the record, I didn't take what you said as being rude, and I didn't mean to sound curt in return. I simply meant that we might well just see this one in mutually incompatible ways. That's fine by me! Reasonable minds can differ. As I say, I see it as a close call, though I don't think I'm going to be convinced. But as I said, if your argument wins the day, I won't be upset. Have a nice evening! Dumuzid (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
If I am actually trying to promote my YouTube channel, there must be a link embedded on it. Its been a very long time that the userbox has been there until your section in my talk page shows up. That's in the Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisGTAGamer (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@TravisGTAGamer: Per the instructions at the top of my page and customary practice, you should have replied on your talk page, where I left the notice. From the policy:
The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional:
Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. TownvilleWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt).
I removed something accidentally that caused it to have "unsigned". In my best regards, I still thank you for the warning that helps to upkeep a clean Wikipedia community. It contributes a lot to unaware Wikipedians. Happy editing comrade! TravisGTAGamer (talk02:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I realized I didn't know enough (and hadn't thought enough) about it to have an opinion. I appreciate you honoring the deletion. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
"Not very civil"
Yes yes, you are totally right. Still, how to tell someone in an acceptable way that their words add nothing to the discussion, and that they'd better grow up a bit instead of posting unsupported generalisms like "better go with the times"? Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Royal we? Felix Velarde
@DIYeditor: Sorry about that, regarding the Felix Velarde article and the Royal we. I was really wide of the mark. I thought you were talking about a shared account with me. I noticed the use of we when Jhoward734 first contacted me, after I removed a bunch of puff from Felix Velarde. It seems to be a proverbial slip of the tongue. scope_creepTalk23:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Having said that you "have no particular objection to someone restoring Friggenfright's version (on the Peter Ellis page) at this time" could you do so please? I don't know how to undo what you have done. Friggenfright (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Friggenfright: I left instructions for how to restore a preferred version on the article's talk page. If I have the time I will look at restoring it but I would need to ensure it isn't restoring any bad material like citations to his advocacy site. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
In these edits at TERF, you said,
"no idea why this is in italics" and "never seen this before on a wikipedia article, am I missing something?" Yes, you are missing something; namely, MOS:WORDSASWORDS, and how we handle it when we mention a word, rather than use its meaning. This was previously indicated in the summaries at revs 915817159, 915816906, 913088799, and 904860523. Note the style difference between the articles Trans woman and Lesbian on the one hand, which are about concepts, (thus, not italicized); and articles like LGBT and Gay on the other, which are not about LGBT people, or Gay communities, but about the words LGBT and Gayas words. When we talk about a word, rather than a concept, we italicize it per MOS:WAW. Like when we say, "a word is the smallest unit of meaning", vs. "word is a four-letter noun". See also use-mention distinction. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I am quite aware of WP:NOTFORUM..thank you.I don't need you telling me about it. My comment was very small and simply a comment, as compared to some of the others. I have noticed the misuse of WP:NOTFORUM as a tool of censorship. FYI I've seen enough of your comments to know that you have not earned my respect.00:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson: I don't think you understand the difference between talking about the article and giving your opinions. Also, being in favor of a certain wording or inclusion is not the same as believing a POV represented by it. You might surmise certain things about a person from the articles they edit and positions they defend but I wouldn't assume it is always accurate. For example I think it is very unlikely you know what I thank think about transsexuality or transgenderism. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
But I do understand the diff, except that the TERF talk page is full of opinions, and in fact when discussing something one is actually expressing their opinion, even if it is so trite as an opinion if it is a RS or NPOV.
Ihave noticed that editors who object by plastering templates about WP:FORUM unless it is blatant, are really objecting to the issue raised, and are using the template as a form of censorship..a substitute for telling someone to shut up. But you can do us both a favor. Provide me a link to the comment I made that you consider forum. I am capable of objectively evaluating my own words, especially from a distance (of time).Oldperson (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Rrzzzz; your troll notice. Provide a link to the diff that you are referencing.Thank you.Blanket (non specific) accusations are simply a demonstration of personal spite. Considering our experience. Oldperson (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson: I have felt like part of what you do is waste others' time. Should I really take the time to link you to the comments that have been hatted explicitly for violating WP:NOTFORUM. Do I need to link to the many examples of you not WP:AGFing and making spurious allegations against other editors and admins? Do I need to point out the many cases of you not using preview (transcluding rather than wikilinking things, not reading the wikilinks - if even successfully formatted - of references you make to pages that don't even exist like WP:STALK, botched formatting in general with comments not having a new line or starting a new paragraph, accidental deletions)? I don't feel like I should have to build a case against you to say "hey, not sure what is up, but you are acting in a way that makes collaboration difficult." Sometimes demanding evidence for obvious things just compounds the disruption. It's ok to be new, and being quick to learn how to code on Wikipedia is not a requirement. Just wondering if you can "chill" a little bit. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
{{DIYeditor))I take it from your comment, that you have actually wasted your time, checking on my many edits, browsing through them to locate my "sins", which you can then point out. I guess I should be flattered by such attention but would wonder the source of it, did I not recall that I made a statement that most probably wounded your ego. You are correct about me making accusations. My problem, not holding my tongue, but also the problem of others who despite their claims of NPOV, their bias comes through loud and clear. That they aren't called out on their bias is because those that could call them out, find themselves in sympathy. I have also learned, through observation that tags like FORUM, SOAPBox, NPOV are actually censorship tools in the hands of the more skilled and "credentialled" of editors and admins. There are quite a few "senior" editors and admins whom I genuinely respect. They exercise good (but tough) judgement, are willing to listen, not caught up in ego and vengance for being wounded, and are helpful with their edits, even their RfC denials. I can't say that for everyone. Perhaps you don't care about being respected by flunkies like myself, but I think you do, it is my assessment that you felt wounded by me so you launch a diatribe of wrongs I have committed, and who in the heck hasn't left behind a string of wrongs. One thing is obvious, since I informed you that, based on my observation of your posts, especially on TERF, that I don't respect you and resented you slapping a template on my user page. It ias also obvious that from that moment I have become an object of obsession and that is not healthy. There is a positive side to this dustup. I have learned quite a bit, about. And learning is always good. Oldperson (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Oldperson: That you have singled out admins Drmies and TonyBallioni for your ire, as far as I'm familiar with them, is nearly comical, that's why I called it troll-like. I'm not saying you're a troll, I'm saying the missteps are to the point that one might have some slight suspicion that they are intentional. The failure to do simple things like utilize preview, or otherwise review your edits for very frequent mistakes relating to templates and wikilinks, combined with trigger-happy accusations of POV, harassment, etc. against respected editors and admins, and a refusal to learn what it means to not use Wikipedia talk pages for a forum after it having been pointed out repeatedly, add up to me having some question that if this is not intentional disruption, is it disruption that you are unable to avoid? —DIYeditor (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
DIYeditorAnd where did I singled out Drmies?Tell me. Looks we have a case of WP:Hound. He certainly isn't mentioned on this talk page, and your use of IRE is untoward and unseemly. I have not singled out Drmies for my ire. I have chided him for use of foul language, and will do so anyone who poses as an adult and can't holdtheir temper and tongue (or typing finger as it were) and Ididn't single out Tony Ballioni either. This time you have to post a diff to where I singled out Tony, that is a vile and inaccurate accusation.Oldperson (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Changes
If you are going to edit information and claim citation as the issue, but leaving incorrect information that isn't cited either, and then have the audacity to claim an edit war, at least have the courage to explain yourself. I'm sorry if language translation doesn't suit your purposes, but it doesn't change the accuracy.
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.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
First you simply refer to WP:TPO, while it clearly states that such edits are permitted. The only "irritating" point is a misspelled meaningless word, which does not help the discussion nor the readers and required research to understand the sentence. By maintaining the sp error, you are wikilawyering over a most reasonable improvement. The error is not helpful for anyone, and no harm or misleading is done by removing it. -DePiep (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct others' spelling errors, grammar, etc. and doing so can be irritating.No need
Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.Any objection - I objected.
You do not indicate the section of WP:TPO which contradicts its clear direction at the top not to correct spelling errors. This is not mentioned in any of the examples.
You leave no indication that the original post has been modified and that what others responded to is different than your version of the proposal.
How do you know it was supposed to read "accepted"? You indicate one might google "accepmoted" yet you are certain you know the correct word?
No you did not object, you only linked to WP:TPO. That is not an objection in itself.
"Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed ... If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by DePiep (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: " — my edit is minor, and stil I *did* ping the author [phttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&curid=75321&diff=927595912&oldid=927595750&diffmode=source at first occasion].
Then follows an extensive list with some two dozen examples, which could have helped you in getting the grasp of the TPO guideline.
IOW, you leave out the guidelines that condones such an edit, and from there you keep changing your argument. In the end, you keep WP:WIKILAWYERING by hammering on cutout sentences. You have not responded to the reasonability to fix sp errors in a nom's opening statement. You are not helping the reader (for sure not this one). -DePiep (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It takes big brass balls to revert my edits without thinking and, when I correctly accuse you of stalking me, telling me to assume good faith. Good faith is a two-way street, buster, and you've already shown me that you don't have any toward me by refusing to respond to me at Talk:Black Hebrew Israelites. I will repeat myself, and I hope you hear me this time: STOP STALKING ME!They call me the Big Pill (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok maybe there is an honest misunderstanding? Isn't Meir Kahane mentioned in the relevant article on the sect in question? It seemed like sea-lioning and I had already replied to your basic point about your other examples. How is this a crucial example? You should discuss this in the RfC then. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfair and biased, please refrain from contacting me any further.
You write that I am engaged in edit warring when it is my sourced and referenced edits that are continuously reverted.
This doesnt strike me as the actions of a reflected wikipedia user and I would suggest that you reflect on your behavior. Please refrain from contacting me any further.
OnsceneBoos (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@OnsceneBoos: Antisocial belligerent disobedience of rules and norms is not the way to get the article changed to what you think is appropriate. You will just be blocked from Wikipedia and quickly spotted if you come back to that article with the same agenda. I am not saying your POV is right or wrong, just that your approach is not how things are done here. You can't just keep re-asserting yourself in the edits when other editors disagree. Use the talk page. And BTW, neither men's rights activism nor Johnny Depp fandom are going to go over well here if any of that is going on. Accusing editors of being sexist is not going to fly. Chill out. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
"Antisocial belligerent disobedience of rules and norms", dude pass the bong, I want to take a hit of that narcotic that you are inhaling. OnsceneBoos (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
So, I wasnt playing by the rules but the people reverting my VERIFIABLE AND SOURCED claims were? Im going to need to see proof of your claims. OnsceneBoos (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Cite something more relevant as I am within the 3RR. But while I have your attention, can you explain why you have an issue with me, yet not with anyone that removed the VERIFIABLE AND SOURCED information that I added? OnsceneBoos (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it constitutes 'user-generated content', It is curated and aggregated feedback provided by thousand users from around the world for nearly two decades; you know, like a very popular site, where users can go and suggest content to make it more accurate ... I think you know Wikipedia ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.239.168 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
By "provoked" I wasn't meaning to imply that you were intentionally baiting him, simply that because you were posting on his talk page it was potentially making him feel he was implicitly allowed to respond.
Ultimately, Boeing was warned in 8 November that pretty much anything you say about the person who you were blocked for saying certain things about [Greta Thunberg] will get your talk page access revoked. Since that time Boeing has made 15 edits, 10 of which have been about Greta Thunberg. If Boeing actually does undertake to shut up about this bizarre obsession with a teenage girl (we're not asking him to change his opinions, just to accept that Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum in which to share them), I have no issue with an unblock, but his conduct post-block is to me a clear indication that he has no intention of letting it go. (Boeing is also indefinitely blocked from Swedish Wikipedia; him being blocked on en-wiki isn't the manifestation of some kind of failure on our part to understand his culture.) ‑ Iridescent14:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Apologies, I did get the feeling you probably meant "provoked" only in the neutral sense but I wanted to let it be known exactly how I felt. To be honest, the indefinite block is well-deserved; his behavior is problematic all around, as is clear from the repeated mention of Greta. This is a continuation of my prior encounters with him that I summarized during the ANI discussion, where trying to explain problems results in a refusal on his part to accept wrongdoing or responsibility that can take an extremely long and frustrating effort to get past - or seemingly so, only to have the same problem rear its head again later. I think my continued efforts on his behalf came down to feeling sorry for him. Thanks for getting back to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
To: —DIYeditor - Yesterday you came to my talk page and falsely accused me of having "unsourced impressions and conclusions" - you were/are wrong and you owe me an apology.
Then you falsely accused me of "being here to discredit Reade" - you were/are wrong and you owe me an apology.
Then you falsely accused me of "littering my talk page with betrayals of how [I] personally see the topic" you were/are wrong and you owe me an apology.
Then you falsely accused me of pushing a POV - you were/are wrong and you owe me an apology.
I know that certain topics are more contentious than others & understand that others may intend good-faith, and are good people, but their heated passion may sometimes get in the way of their good-faith. Like you, and I'm sure like most editors on here, I joined WP to edit and help improve articles with facts for the WP reader. And that's what I will continue to do, and in good-faith. I look forward to continuing to edit articles with you, and, you owe me 4 apologies. :) ~Regards BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
COI
Please strike/remove your accusation that I'm trying to troll. That is not AGF nor does it help the discussion. Springee (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I was not looking at the "Paid Editor" section. You are welcome to say my reading was wrong (ie I made a mistake). Claiming I am trolling however crosses the line into an accusation of bad faith by implying I'm being disruptive for my own enjoyment. Also note that this whole discussion is based on a hypothetical so why the accusation of bad faith. Again, please remove it as it doesn't make you argument any stronger but it does take the level of discussion down a notch. Springee (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
You quoted something that said Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency). "or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)". It's not necessary to see the specific mention of being a stakeholder, "or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)" is even more to the point. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I understand I have had a problem with implementing unsourced pronunciations. But are any of these valid sources and can I base the pronunciation on these?
Mithun, Marianne (1999). The languages of native North America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
A Dictionary of the Verbs of South Slavey, (2004) Published by the Dehcho Divisional Educational Council, Ft Simpson NT Canada.
Phillip Howard. (1990) A Dictionary of the Verbs of South Slavey. Yelllowknife, Government of the Northwest Territories, Department of Culture and Communications.
MacySinrich I'm not sure. I think what we are looking for is a source that includes the pronunciation of the individual word you are looking to give IPA for. It's not enough, as I've said, to know how the phonetics of a language work and to use sources on the phonetics of the language in general to determine the pronunciation for a specific word. I can't see those sources so I can't see if they have an entry for the word you are trying to add that contains the word's pronunciation. I see three of those are dictionaries of verbs, and I don't see how a dictionary of verbs would help with many Wikipedia entries, so I am a little concerned with what you might be trying to use these for again. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the sources use orthography to base the IPA, for example: The pronunciation of the Chipewyan language, [tènɛ̀sũ̀ɬìnɛ́jàtʰìɛ́] is not mentioned in any sources, but it is based solely on the orthography. So, for the article Wrigley, Northwest Territories, the orthography is from the language of South Slavey, the orthography is consistent so the pronunciation, like [tènɛ̀sũ̀ɬìnɛ́jàtʰìɛ́], is [pɛdzɛ ki]]. Macy Sinrich (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
MacySinrich As I've said, my personal opinion is that in general this is not a valid method for determining the IPA of a word. I am not familiar with these languages and I don't know if the orthography is entirely consistent with no variation, but for example in English this is not true. English orthography, French orthography and Danish orthography, for example, are highly irregular, whereas the orthographies of languages such as Russian, German and Spanish represent pronunciation much more faithfully, although the correspondence between letters and phonemes is still not exact. Finnish, Turkish and Serbo-Croatian orthographies are remarkably consistent: approximation of the principle "one letter per sound". So if we are talking about a language in which you are fluent and for which you know the pronunciation of the word and in which it is "one letter per sound" your method may be valid. I think you should ask Nardog because I believe they are much, much more familiar with IPA than I am, or that we should seek wider input. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
MacySinrich - Please indent one more than what you are responding to. WP:THREAD explains. MOS:LISTGAP is also good to note. If the orthography is exact what you are doing sounds ok but I think we should wait for Nardog's input since they were involved. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the information. Is it possible that we are placing undue weight to race from articles that lack editoral rigor? Some articles do not include "white" in their lead sentence about the event, while others do. Is it possible we are being bias? Can we not improve our dissemination of the articles? Thank you Frozenranger (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Frozenranger It seems obvious to me that there is a lot of racial controversy mentioned in the coverage about this event. I don't think this line of inquiry will be fruitful. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard template to inform editors of more stringent rules on articles that have been tagged under discretionary sanctions. And yes, I have templated multiple people editing the article. O3000 (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
And then I was interrupted. Most people that edit such articles have already been templated in the last year. You only template once per year and you have to check the logs to make certain they haven't been. I did answer your question. O3000 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Objective3000 My mistake then. I thought I had been singled out for some reason. You are going to manually go through all the contributors, check the logs, and template any that haven't been templated? Seems like a waste of energy. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Quesion of Swom 444
Hi, you know that Swom 444, my adjustmen was definitely good because it yyyy.mm.dd looked like vandalism. Swom 444 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi DIY, just a quick note that I would never have considered you "that guy" for voting one way or another on the move RfC. You were grounding your arguments and rationale in policy and logic and when it comes to BLP issues there's never any shame in being in the minority. Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpeg)
