Some problems are too severe to make just an entry on a Talk page. Unfortunately I've forgotten (or never knew) the proper Wikipedia page to post such comments.
Hello @James- I didn't know about that article until today. Many of those list articles leave me wondering about their importance or utility. In any case, the place to discuss an article is on its talkpage. Every article has one; it is linked immediately above the article, along with the "edit this page" and "history" links. The editor who posted on your talkpage regarding this provided you with a link to the talkpage guidance. I have reverted your restoration of your comment on the article. You should bring up your point on that articles talkpage. For certain issues that are common to many articles, such as a lack of citations, there are templates that can be placed directly on the article page. Some guidance here: Wikipedia:Templates. Erictalk23:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Eric. As I've explained already, adding a section to the TALK will have no effect -- for the very reason you mention! You and other Wiki experts regard those lists as useless corners of Wiki. Nobody will notice a new message on the Talk. But I felt that one easy way to salvage the page was to change its title. I didn't know how to do that, so I copied the page to a new one, and marked the old page for deletion. Apparently I didn't cross a T or dot an I. Instead of being helpful, Ynhockey just sabotaged my deletion request.
I used to be a great fan; I told people that I'd rather have Wikipedia than all the other websites put together. Now I'm starting to ignore Wikipedia hits. :-( Yes, it's starting to get that bad.
Take the page in question as an example. Surely you understand what Ynhockey does not, that List_of_countries_by_average_wage is where someone might end up if ... gasp! ... they wanted to compare countries' average wages. How do Southeast Asian countries compare with each other? Or with African countries? NO -- the page has ONLY high-wage countries! It takes me 2 minutes to find a non-Wikipedia source but, out of love for what Wikipedia once was and still could be, I spend 2 hours trying to bring this matter to attention. And instead of being helpful, editor Ynhockey just threatens to revoke my editing privilege.
@James, any edits to a talkpage whose article is on your watchlist will appear there, so people interested in that article should see them, and the edit summary will help them to decide whether to take a look. There is an established procedure for renaming (moving) a page. See guidance here: WP:MOVE.
As for the wage list article, I didn't mean to say that I thought it useless; I just don't tend to be interested enough in those articles to edit them. I did post on its talkpage about the wording of the intro, but I haven't otherwise examined the article. Erictalk12:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hi Eric
First of all, thank you for keeping Wikipedia perfect.
Acutely, I was active in Wikipedia 10 years ago, now I started again my activity in some translational way, moving academic research to the public domain. Wikipedia changed a lot, and I forced to change my addition twice... so:
1. Thank you for revert the addition, I will be more accurate in grammatical perspective.
2. The source is a scientific journal, indexed in the web of science; I don’t know about its English problem, but I know there are many non-English scientific journals indexed in Respectable academic databases like Scopus.
3. Acutely, there was some Conflict of interest in this addition, I’m the writer of this article, so it’s (Citing yourself) COI. BUT its relevant and allowed. I will use (WP:SELFPUB) in future if I cite myself. I think this option was not available years ago.
it was just beaning in coming back to Wikipedia.
Is there such a template? I saw some of your messages where you told a user to consolidate their edits, but there doesn't seem to be a template used. Did you subst:? — BladeRikWr14:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BladeRikWr: I don't think so. I've looked a couple times. I have never managed to find any comprehensive index or organized directory of templates. I keep that consolidation message in User:Eric/sandbox and copy it from there. I was thinking of try to create a template from it someday. Erictalk15:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should consider making it a template! It's very useful to remind users to put an edit summary, which is probably my biggest pet peeve when I look at an article's history. — BladeRikWr16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
I suggest that your statement "personal snapshot; nice pic, but this is an encyclopedia, not a travel site or vacation photo album" is unacceptable:
1. It is not a "personal snapshot" but a great picture owned by me of children.
2. I agree that Wikipedia is not a "travel site or vacation photo album" but a history of everything including rivers and their commercial and amateur uses such as canoeists — as on other rivers in America, Europe and elsewhere.
3. I presume that you have been to the Ardeche river. You will realise the magnificence of the river and the international appreciation of it.
Hello @Duncanogi:- I'm sorry if you found my edit summary disagreeable, but I assure you it is perfectly acceptable. Images added to an article should represent the subject of the article and inform readers on it. The picture you added there could be on any river, and does not really add to readers' understanding of the Ardèche. It could be a good addition to an article about canoes or river rapids, if the article did not yet have such a pic. Your caption, "Through the rapids!" is suitable for a photo album or travelogue, but not for any encyclopedia article. If it read "Canoeists running the rapids on the Ardèche", it would be more appropriate, but it could still be showing a scene on any river.
Please be so good as to reload. The photo was definitely by me of children on the rapids on the Ardeche river. Yes I agree that a better caption is "Canoeists running the rapids on the Ardèche".Duncanogi (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Duncanogi:- For reasons I state above, I will not be the one to add your photo back to the article. Did you follow the links in my above suggestions? Erictalk19:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you really want your picture on there, don't you, Duncanogi? It's a nice shot, but it does not improve the article. You might consider putting the accent grave on "Ardèche". Erictalk00:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the word beloved is not encyclopedic or formal enough for an article. I let your change stand, but I disagree. In the text of the article, the relationship between the author and his wife was described thus: "He and Mary remained together in Collioure until her death in 1998. Mary's love and support were critical to O'Brian throughout his career. She worked with him in the British Library in the 1940s as he collected source material for his anthology A Book of Voyages, which became the first book to bear his new name — the book was among his favourites, because of this close collaboration. The death of his wife in March 1998 was a tremendous blow to O'Brian." In my view, beloved sums up that very strong relationship. When I came upon the article on O'Brian, the personal and the professional were all mixed up. I came late to reading his novels, that is, I began after he died. I had been unaware of the strong feelings of his readers, feeling somehow let down that O'Brian kept his past private. This showed in the article about him, the confusion on the author versus his private life. I split the personal life from the Literary life, which was easier for me, coming at it afterward. My feelings were not hurt by learning of the media image in contrast to his life before he met his second wife. One of the impressive aspects of his personal life was the very strong link with his second wife, which extended into his research and writing. The lead is the summary of the article; condensing those sentences into the word "beloved" does not seem in any way informal or not encyclopedic. Not all wives are so beloved as his Mary was. Not all authors are so private as he was, and he lost his wife and his privacy at the same time, looking at it from his perspective. You chose to remove the word rather than replace it with an adjective that you would approve. I think your objection is weak, so there it is. Needed to get that off my chest. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Prairieplant: Thanks for writing. I don't think that an encyclopedia bio lead should mention that the subject loved his or her spouse. While it's true that not all spouses are equally beloved, many people do love their spouses dearly. If Patrick O'Brian's love for his wife is seen to have a special bearing on his work, I would say that can be discussed in the body of the article rather than expressed as a single, subjective adjective tossed into the lead. Erictalk12:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know that I reverted your edit here. You can file a new case using the instructions on the main SPI page under "How to open an investigation:". Alternatively, if you just want to contact Bbb23 and Vanjagenije, you're better off posting on their TP instead. With thanks. --qedk (t桜c)06:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again QEDK- I've now added my report in the proper place, I think: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qualitee123. Do you work on SPI stuff regularly? I think it would be helpful if the process that generates an archive page were edited so that the page displays a header or banner to alert those less familiar with the procedures (like me,) that reads something like:
This is an archive, please do not edit it. To add new info to an archived case, re-open the case by following the instructions under "How to open an investigation" here: WP:SPI.
I also think it might be helpful to expand the instruction on the re-opened SPI case page that currently reads "For archived investigations, see..." to read:
It is possible, not as an editnotice (a byproduct of the archive page being a subpage unique to every sockmaster), but it can be implemented through the template (or have a bot add them, I guess). The question is if it's needed enough and you have to ask about that at WT:SPI to see how other people feel about it. As for your first question, I'm a SPI clerk so I work on cases occassionally. That's about it. --qedk (t桜c)17:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
15 years ago wikipedians weren't so pedantic and just helped to improve stuff. Nowadays they just delete.
Instead of explaining how it should be done, you could have showed me how to correctly do it.
It would probably be correct to call me pedantic in general, but you haven't seen that yet. I get the impression from your above comment that you have not seen my post on your talk page. It was an attempt to help you improve stuff. Erictalk18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that. And I used to know how it works to, but have forgotten since. And nowadays I only edit here and there a few times per year. You see, I added the comment "please wikify further", as I was hoping someone would be willing to make it better. Unfortunately by deleting my "hasty addition" (is that a Wike rule or guideline now, or did you just make that one up?) that will never happen.
But it is what it it is now. You will not make it better, I will not make it better. So the information will not show up on wikipedia until in the future someone will add the same information _in the correct way_. Enjoy listening to Rage against the machine until that day comes. --188.194.27.215 (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- I am no authority here, and I have no special say in how things are done. Yes, "hasty addition" is my assessment, nothing official. Note: I've left a fair amount of edit summaries that refer to "sloppy" additions, but I didn't think that applied here! It could well be that most experienced Wikipedians would find my actions regarding your edits to be heavy-handed; I don't know. I find WP to be a bit chaotic in general, and I may react too abruptly when I see an edit that looks to me to have been done without regard for accepted style and procedures. None of us likes plodding through WP's often over-long and under-informative guidance pages, by the way.
I have no doubt that if you looked at the guidance I linked for citing a source, and took the time to follow it -- yes, that can be tedious -- you would add good info in a way that improves the encyclopedia. If you really don't want to do that, I will eventually get to it myself. I'm on a trip right now, and not spending much time on the computer. Remember, your edits are not lost; they can always be incorporated later. Erictalk21:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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, 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.
Seriously? Are you deleting the discussion? Wow. You are not a good person although you think you are. I don't waste more time withyou. Good luck in your lonely live. Rubriguez (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that File talk:En.wikipedia rollback links.png, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DannyS712 (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Eric! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767talk!02:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed6767- Thanks for the invite! I noticed RedWarn the other day and was wondering if I should check it out. I've recently been trying to find out if I should ask for rollback rights -- see here. I just added the magic line to my common.js, and it seems to have enabled the tool. Do you think my question re rollback rights is now moot? Another question/comment/FYI: In the RedWarn install instructions, it reads "click 'install' above to install RedWarn" -- I could not see any linked "install" to which that was referring. Erictalk14:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, thanks for pointing out the error on the RW page, I'll clarify that now. Regarding permissions, in RedWarn using rollback is predominantly a speed benefit as rollback works a lot faster than a pseudo-rollback which can take up to a second or two longer. If you decide to request rollback, you can set RedWarn to use it under preferences > behavior > rollback method. I hope RedWarn works well for you! Ed6767talk!14:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, Ed6767. That brings up another question I was thinking of posing: Am I right in my understanding that the rollback I employ via Twinkle is a completely different tool from the one employed by a user with rollback permissions? And that the latter was, prior to RedWarn, accessed exclusively via Huggle? I used to think rollback was a name unfortunately given to two different tools, but now I'm wondering if it is better understood as a function achieved by various tools, and that for some unexplained reason the Huggle rollback requires a higher level of permissions than the Twinkle one. WP's confusing and possibly incorrect or incomplete "guidance" at WP:ROLLBACK has not helped me sort it out. Erictalk14:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, as I understand, the way both RedWarn's rollback-like and Twinkles "rollback" feature works are mostly client-side, so your browser will ask for the latest revision not by the user who made the latest revision, then submitting an undo request for all revisions between the latest and the one. Meanwhile, rollback is completely server-side and performed directly on Wikipedia's databases, which makes things a lot faster. In terms of counter-vandalism tools, rollback has been in use by a few other tools, and in and of itself is a tool as it provides you with a manual rollback link if you wish to use it. Ed6767talk!14:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed6767: So if I read you correctly, we might say that there is a true rollback via Huggle that requires permissions, while Twinkle offers a slower, rollback-like function to the great unwashed, and that RedWarn can go either route according to its settings, presuming the user has permissions for the "true" rollback? Thanks for your patient indulgence with the slow-witted... Erictalk15:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matilda Maniac- I didn't think it necessary or helpful to add those specific century cats when the list is not specific to any of them, but spans many centuries. I'm no authority on WP categorization, but I'm sure those who are would agree that Category:Epidemics is sufficient. Erictalk14:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On July 2, you reverted the inclusion of the name Spock in "top ten essential Star Trek original series Spock episodes" with the summary "rv unexplained, nonsense edit, part of campaign of such edits". However, the top ten list mentioned were specifically about a top 10 Spock episode list (a ranking put out following the death of Spock actor Leonard Nimoy). The article that is being reference is titled "Long Live Spock: 10 essential Star Trek: The Original Series episodes" with the lede to the SyFy article saying, "[...] but if you turn to the original 79 segments in which this icon of pop culture first made his mark, here are 10 that we feel are among his [Spock's] finest moments." I'm unsure why you removed "Spock" from the WP article when what was being discussed there was specifically a list centered on the best Spock episodes, nor why you described it as "unexplained" (the obviousness shouldn't need explanation, it actually follows WP guidelines), or why you considered it nonsense. All these reverts are now insufficiently clarified statements which would be counter to WP guidelines. Not meaning any offense, I'm just confused and asking for clarification :/ (I'm not even involved in the text in question; I just noticed the confusing reverts while looking at article histories). Many thanks in advance. — al-Shimoni (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- Thanks for catching that. I think I've now undone all those reverts. I didn't look at the ref when I made them, as those articles attract so many problematic editors and the edits were unexplained. This is a good example of where an edit summary might have prevented my error and kept us from wasting our time. That editor has left only a handful in his entire wp career. It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit! ;) Erictalk15:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just dropping you a quick note in the event you might have been puzzled as to why I thanked you for your partial reversion of a minor edit I made in the above named article. Not only did I come to agree in retrospect with your eliminating the explanation for the edit in parenthesis, but I had doubts as to its propriety when I inserted it. Your reversion confirmed my doubts, thus my thank you! 😊
As a side note, as I assume you have some interest in this subject to have responded so quickly (I assume you follow the article), I wanted to inquire if you read my note on the article’s talk page and, if so, if you find my hypothesis as to the origin of the photo to be plausible or off base.
Hi- I wasn't puzzled as I figured your thanks meant you agreed. I occasionally do the same when I make a tentative edit or an error/omission and someone else changes it.
I have to confess that I only came across the article when cleaning up a multi-article mess left by an editor on a campaign. That's a good point you make regarding the likelihood of the girl actually being bound. You go way into the Land of Conjecture on the possible origin story for the pic, but not unreasonably! The whole thing's a creepy and sad story. The poor mom. Erictalk00:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the diff here you seem to have reverted a lot more than you may have intended to? Every edit I made to the page since July has been reverted, except for the one I made after yours just now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also to make sure, what exactly was redundant about either category I added? Flea beetle (or at least the redirect "Alticini") is stated in Category:Alticini to be the main page of that category, and being a beetle tribe it belongs also in Category:Beetle tribes, which Category:Alticini is not in so it is not redundant. If anything, Category:Galerucinae ought to be the one removed from the page arguably because Category:Alticini is already a member of that category. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Monster Iestyn- Holy cow, what a blunder, sorry! I certainly did not mean to roll back all your edits there. I was coming off a rollback blitz of IP edits just prior, and I mistakenly swung the same blunt instrument at flea beetle. Just undid the error. Then added the flea beetle tribes cat to Alticini; please let me know if that is for some reason not appropriate. Erictalk18:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Eric. I noticed that you undid an edit that changed "committed suicide" to "died by suicide" and was wondering if you had seen my comments on the talk page about this from late last year. I would appreciate your input on this on the talk page. Thanks! Doctormatt (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - 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 these sanctions. 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.
Hi Eric. Let's continue here so as to not bother others. I would suggest removing all lines from your common.js except the one about Testing.js. It should definitely work then. Then add back the other lines one by one – always testing in-between – to see which line breaks things. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Robby, thanks for doing this. I tried your suggestion, but I still don't get the tool to de-link common terms. screenshot here. Ah, I now realize what it probably is. I was directed to that Village Pump discussion when I posted on the bug report page for the common terms tool: User_talk:Ohconfucius/script#Common_Terms_tool_disappeared. That tool is apparently not included in CAPTAIN MEDUSA's script. I did not pick up on that when I read through the pump posts, and did not think until now to search Cap M's testing.js for "common terms". Sorry about this! Erictalk00:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eric,
You reverted the changes I added to the introduction paragraph and I was wondering why. You mention good faith edits , which i believe they also are but you mention them as hasty and thus I imagine, according to you, worthy of being fully removed. While I agree the additional information I added was subject to some "editing" I do not fully get why it had to fully disappear. I took some elements from the French page, leading me to consider why you say that the info provided does not belong on wiki. I added some valuable general information that enhances the very short intro pragraph of this city (compared to most other cities of such size and arguably importance) nothing nothing less : champagne industry (worth mentioning), Art déco facades and some fact about being a populated non-prefecture city (the kind information you can find in many other intro paragraphs).Foulques1996 (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- I just didn't think the info belonged in the intro. I'm sure the detailed population/prefecture observation does not belong in the third sentence of the article; if it does have value, I'd say it could go in the Administration section. It seemed to me that you might not have read through the article to see where the material you wanted to add might fit better. The cultural/historical heritage observation might go down under Architecture or Culture. Note: It seems you directly translated a sentence from the fr article; keep in mind that fr important quite often translates to en significant. Stating that the heritage is "important" reads a bit unencyclopedic. Likewise, champagne is already discussed down in the Wine and food section. Also, re that bit, "enjoys a privileged position" comes off a bit travel-writy for an encyclopedia. I see you are adding to the intros of other French city articles. You might want to consult with others, maybe at WP:France. Erictalk12:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, though nothing specifies that intro paragraphs can't display information that appears later in the body of the article. My aim is just to enhance the Introduction, once again, to get a better quick overview of the city. I will for sure take into consideration the observations you made.Foulques1996 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted the changes I made to the entry on Jonathan Sumption, which referred to his judicial review application against Greenwich council, saying that they were "not an improvement". They were an improvement because they corrected an obvious error. The judge in that case was Mr Justice Collins, as the law report confirms. That judge is Andrew Collins, now retired, and never a judge of the Court of Appeal. You reverted the text to refer to Lord Justice Lawrence Collins, later Lord Collins of Mapesbury. This is incorrect. When he was a High Court judge, that judge's title was "Mr Justice Lawrence Collins" (to distinguish him from Mr Justice (Andrew) Collins) and he was a judge of the Chancery division, not of the Queen's Bench division, and would not have heard planning judicial review. Please don't revert it again unless you can show a source which records that the judge was Mr Justice Lawrence Collins. You will not find such a source, because it was not the case. Regards Ironman1104 16:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ironman1104- Sorry about that, I don't know why I did it. I at first very nearly replied to you that you had the wrong editor, but I checked and there it was. And I was obviously in error. I wonder if I for some reason didn't like your second change there, from "double" to "also serve", for some reason, and then blundered with RedWarn into doing a rollback instead of a revert? Anyway, glad you caught it, and your next pint is on me. Erictalk19:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for your recent edits on Bhakdi's page. The recent edits by others that have demolished this page really need to be undone but there are threats of discretionary sanctions. The page clearly needs to be protected from vandalism like the great barrington declaration page. I dont really know what to do since I am quite new to wiki I would appreciate your help. I am worried I may be at risk of being blocked from editing by the outraged sounding aggressive people on the talk page. I think we should look at notifying an administrator on edit war conflict notices or WP:NPA notices. I would appreciate your advice because I feel I could say the wrong thing and the article may remain calling Bhakdi a "conspiracy theorist" with the likes of "david Icke" which is so untrue it is quite appalling. Gd123lbp (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- Before I saw your message, I posed an unofficial question to an admin whose name I saw on your talkpage: User_talk:Newslinger#Question_re_threats_of_sanction. I thought it would be best to pick someone who had both cautioned you on some editing issues, but also seems willing to guide you. I hope you agree with my approach, and I hope to hear back soon from Newslinger. Erictalk14:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, thankyou for your support in the talk page, I really appreciate it. The most recent edit appears to be about discrediting Bhakdi, rather than explaining his views and other peoples views on him. It really needs challenging. Gd123lbp (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you made that ANI post. And while I don't have a problem with you copying my sentences there, I think that could rub some people the wrong way, and might be a practice to avoid in the future unless you present such material as a quote. I see from your recent editing history that you are keen to present the views of prominent people who are skeptical of the various authorities' response to the coronavirus outbreak. As much as I might agree that this is lacking from Wikipedia, and appreciate your efforts and energy, I would like to offer the suggestion that you temper your passion with diligent attention to sourcing and presenting the material objectively. The more sensitive a topic is, the more editors will be watching for any omission or failure to follow protocols. A lack of perspective on seasonal and annual excess mortality, aided by unprecedented media coverage, has many people frightened of last winter's cold virus outbreak. That seems to be feeding the zeal of some editors here in refuting any skepticism of the mainstream narrative, no matter how well founded the skepticism. So you will have to be all the more diligent in your efforts. Also, keep in mind that editors who appear to work on only one topic can get categorized WP:SPA, which can understandably put other editors on a sort of heightened alert regarding such editors' neutrality. Halt die Ohren steif. Erictalk01:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry about that, you just put it so well. Im still new to this and so and quite naive in situations like this with such aggressive editors. Best wishes. Gd123lbp (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, my only concern would be if it were to draw ill favor onto you.
That Bhakdi intro really irks me as it stands. It seems to me that he is best known, at least professionally, for his work related to arterial sclerosis, not for "spreading misinformation" about Covid-19. But I'm so busy with projects in the great outdoors that I haven't had time to address it. I assume you read German? The de.wp article is much longer than en, and much more even-handed. I notice that no one has taken me up on my offer to translate that Pharmazeutische Zeitung article; almost like they don't want to know...
Separate topic: Have you noticed how we typically indent each post incrementally on talkpages? That is the accepted practice to make it easier to follow the flow of a discussion. To see what I'm referring to, look at the diff for my edit here and note the number of leading colons. Erictalk02:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
is that right? haha I added that. Yeah unfortunately the ANI case fell through because I didnt format it correctly with "diff" not sure what those are really (and dont have enough time to study every edit and format it correctly because I have work to!) and now I might be in trouble. Yeah I completely agree on Bhakdi but I think if either of us try to edit on this topic we will be banned, especially me! Not sure its worth the risk. Best to steer clear of it I think, unfortunately. I'm concerned I may be banned in the next few days if I'm not careful. Cool that you work outside! Thats a good place to avoid catching the virus, in the sunlight! My German is a little patchy especially with in depth medical journal type stuff which is difficult to understand in English! Gd123lbp (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gd123lbp: Oh yes, it is certainly helpful to your case and often required by convention to provide diffs in discussions and to provide evidence. It is shorthand for "difference between two page revisions". See Help:Diff for an overiew. It can be tedious assembling them, but it makes it much quicker and easier for anyone whose help or attention you are trying to draw to an issue.
I don't think you would risk being topic-banned blocked if you are careful and objective. If I could make a general comment on something I think I notice in your editing, it seems that you are sometimes a tad hasty in what you write, which can backfire on you. I would say to take your time and make careful edits that are consistent with any relevant guidelines. You definitely want to avoid a topic ban such as Sebastian mentioned on your talkpage. It would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban and WP:Ownership of content. That said, I don't quite agree with him that you are necessarily demonstrating ownership tendencies; I think it's more that you were irked at having your work deleted--something we all must remember not to take personally--and that you might not yet be accustomed to that aspect of collaborative editing. On the other hand, I think certain other editors have certainly shown a strong tendency to behave as if they are the Holier-than-Thou Defenders of the One True Narrative. The best approach in working on those or any articles will be to carefully compose any material you want to add, and to be as meticulous as possible in citing sources. Take a look on my cheatsheet for links to guidance: User:Eric#Article_sourcing. (My cheatsheet is not comprehensive, there are surely better ones out there) Erictalk14:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you've said definitely. I can get a bit hasty on this out of frustration sometimes, Im working on it haha! Yeah I didnt really understand why the admin thought I was demonstrating ownership tendencies... that took me by surprise.
Also, well done on your recent translation of that article from German that was some great work. Although, I think it really should be the job of the person citing it to have actually read it, rather than leave it for others. Lets hope we can get somewhere with this article now, though it looks like its going to be an up hill struggle.
On another note, have you thought about starting any new pages on other critics of lockdowns/ covid? I have been thinking I might for the Harvard man who was the 3rd signatory of the great barrington declaration. There have been quite a few more scientists coming to light recently against this general consensus but i'm a little wary of doing so given all the heat the Bhadki page has been getting... Gd123lbp (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
Hi! I would like to suppress the article Siege of Cardiff. To justify the suppression, I would like to point out that Isabella and Mortimer could not besiege Cardiff from the 25 October 1326, because on this very date they were busy besieging Bristol, which surrendered the following day. Similarly, Edward II and Despenser the Younger were on the run on that date and trying to find a boat to flee to Lundy. Finally, a siege of the castle was not mentioned, neither by the chroniclers, neither by nowadays historians, although the city belonged to the Despensers. I don't know why such an article was created but I believe there are many mistakes made on topics related to this era. Nonetheless I don't know how to proceed with the deletion of an article: I made several suppressions on WP:FR but WP:EN is quite different on that matter. Could you help me with that? Thanks! --Edouard2 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I would also like to suppress the articles Capture of Cambridge and Capture of Oxford. To justify the suppression, I would like to point out that Isabella and Mortimer basically just entered Cambridge (and Oxford) and and that no royal army was ever routed by their force. Furthermore, a battle was not mentioned, neither by the chroniclers, neither by nowadays historians, and I don't think that the arrival of an army in a city justifies the creation of a new article, otherwise you would need to create hundreds of articles. Could you help me with that? Thanks! --Edouard2 (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Salut @Edouard- All three of those articles were created by a user who was only active for half a year, then blocked ten years ago. I'm sure all you will have to do is follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article(s)_for_deletion, and, if your reasons are accepted by other editors, the articles will be deleted, or some other action will be taken. You might want to follow the procedures given there for nominating multiple related articles in one nomination, but I'm not sure of that, so you'll have to read that section thoroughly. Don't be intimidated by the length and density of that guidance page; I think your proposal is quite straightforward. Let me know if you encounter problems.
Nota bene: supprimer veut dire et suppress, et delete en anglais. En ce cas, c'est delete qui convient. Suppress s'emploie, par exemple, comme ceci: The king suppressed a rebellion ou Voter suppression is a problem under some authoritarian regimes. Erictalk14:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric: Actually, nothing mentions a siege in 1326 in your link. The sieges mentioned are 1) the one led by Owain Glyndwr in 1403, which is correct 2) a mysterious siege in 1320 (actually I think the author hinted the sack of Cardiff by the Marcher Lords in 1321). --Edouard2 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Edouard2: Oh, ok, good. I only looked quickly and saw "the siege of Cardiff against the Despensers in 1320", and didn't read further. I'm working outside today -- du bardage au vent croissant, avant qu'il ne pleuve! -- with just brief stops at my desk. Erictalk18:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Cambridge 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. Edouard2 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Oxford 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. Edouard2 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Cardiff 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. Edouard2 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<quote>Hi Yadsalohcin- Thanks for your participation on the Bhakdi article. I can't access that GA article. I'm wondering if we might change the wording on the bit you added re Mainz distancing itself. Without seeing the original text, I would normally think something like this would be expressed The U of M issued a statement to the effect that it does not support/agree with B's views..., but I would not want to edit what you put without seeing how it was presented in the GA. Erictalk15:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)</quote>[reply]
Hi Erictalk, and thanks to you for your work on the Bhakdi article too. My apologies to you and the wikiworld if I was inaccurate or misleading with my edit- after all the raging on the talk page and the delay before being able to re-instate lost text I was perhaps over-eager and hasty in my addition, which came out rather too informally. I have been trying to avoid being inflammatory or contra-BLP policy, but on this occasion my wording was a bit hastily thrown up and I can see it might be taken in a way I had not intended. Alternative ref supplied as I now realise I had based the words on sight (some days ago) of the reference web-page's title and summary, so 'accessed' would have been better expressed 'header accessed' or similar.Yadsalohcin (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--qedk (t 桜 c) 17:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
