en User talk:ElusiveTaker

This is ElusiveTaker's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1

Bikrookanpurgangster15

Hi - this account is not blocked here, but it is already globally locked across all projects, so no action needs to be taken against it here. The tag on its userpage notes that, and you can also check the global account. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the main reasons why I tried to revert it. ElusiveTaker (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm just saying that there's no point in reporting to SPI - the global lock means it can no longer be used here, or on any other Wikimedia project - it's been dealt with. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except for meta but I think the reasoning is so they can still appeal their glock on their talk page there. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing their g-lock? Good luck with that one... ;) Girth Summit _(blether) 18:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. But I think that's the only reason why the gblock doesn't prevent them from editing things on meta. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring broken text is not constructive.

Please stop restoring broken text unless you are actively fixing it and providing the {{Clarification needed}}.

Please read the article talk page.

This is not a difference of opinion, the facts do not support the flawed text. The claim is not sourced, it can and should be removed. Please look at the sources. Please also look at the article body that that the lead section is supposed to be summarizing. The claim that the film is the "fourth" appears to be original research, an overly specific interpretation of vague sources. It is also irrelevant, being first might be noteworthy but being fourth is not.

I welcome constructive changes to improve the article and move things forward. -- 109.76.205.64 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to stop chasing after it after you provided information about it. ElusiveTaker (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The filmmakers are making very specific claims that don't really hold up. They might even believe it themselves but that doesn't make it true, they can only claim to be first in a very small specific way ("major legacy"?), that doesn't make sense when you look at it more closely, and most sources point out plenty of counterpoints. An encyclopedia does not need to take self aggrandizing claims at face value even if they were technically true. It seems other editors poked holes in that claim and we ended up with the WP:OR original research nonsense claiming it was somehow "fourth" which then simply isn't noteworthy. I realize you were editing in good faith, I would encourage you to be more skeptical about Hollywood claims. -- 109.76.205.64 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

I got a tad bit confused by your comment, because you have linked to WP:MINORITY in your edit summary and kept your mention of heavy-hit majority after your opinion changed. Thanks. Ayıntaplı (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

You just passed 3RR at Nicholas Wade. I don't think the other editor's changes count as "obvious vandalism", a 3RR exemption. Just in case, you might consider self-reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I was making sure that WP:NPOV is followed, since I had actually stopped at the 3rd revert to follow the guidelines. ElusiveTaker^(talk) 14:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved draft

Hi ! You just moved the page of one of my draft "Human Reproduction Program -UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction" to "World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction". However, the second name is incorect and do not correspond to the actual name of the programme. I tried to revert it but it seems i'm not allowed to do so. If there is an absolute need for a shorter name, it could go by "Human reproduction Programme - HRP". GuydeBerg (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per MOS:AT and WP:CONCISE, the article name is too long to fit naturally onto Wikipedia. Short names are accepted as per the example of State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations being changed to Rhode Island, both are correct, however one is much shorter and easier to type, read, and search. Going any shorter fails WP:PRECISE and therefore can't be used. This is the best compromise that fits all of the criteria. ElusiveTaker^(talk) 16:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ReferenceExpander

Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It always failed to work for me, so I'm going to disable it for now until it is fixed. ElusiveTaker^(talk) 08:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important: Please update user script installation

Hi there, you currently have a user script installed from Anne drew Andrew and Drew. Several weeks ago, I changed my username to Anne drew, and unfortunately, due to an issue with script redirects, the scripts you have installed under my old username no longer function.

To fix this, please update your JavaScript pages (Special:MyPage/common.js or Special:MyPage/skin.js) by replacing all instances of Anne drew Andrew and Drew with Anne drew.

If any of this is unclear, please ping Anne drew for help. I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding!

Thanks – Anne drew

You are receiving this message because you have installed one of Anne drew's user scripts. If you'd like to stop receiving notifications, you can unsubscribe here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:ElusiveTaker