![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Just a heads up, the article is under 1RR. [1] [2] PackMecEng ( talk) 21:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much yeah. It is to the right, it just depends on where you want to put the pin. I am sure we could go back and forth on what that means for reliability here. These days I tend to only use it on talk pages to have fun with people and only when I have a few other sources backing it up. It's rarely worth the hassle using it in article space. PackMecEng ( talk) 22:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit on Beyonce iwkipedia page that was reverted by some stans due to they are non-notable awards. I want to clarify that most of the awards you reverted actually exists but they don't have wikipedia page here. I'll provide you with some sources proving they are real and not from "blog"
I hope it clarifies my concern. THis awards exists but since they don't have a page here, they are not valid? THEY ARE VALID AND NOTABLE. It hurts me to see those person deleting those awards with proper links, I can understand them deleting it if that doesn't have proper citations but all of those have. I hope you get my point. Thanks Beyhiveboys ( talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Examples please
Hello JzG: Please explain why you have reverted all my carefully planned edits to the biopsychosocial model page. If I do not hear from you, I am going to explore this matter further. Sandyshore ( talk) 18:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I'm not seeing what indicates that
[3] is a preprint? The paper itself shows it was published in Vol. 37:1185.
Also, you reverted too much - the third edit was a REFSPC correction not related to that paper.
73.69.184.160 (
talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I heard back from Bethany Berger (the author of the paper under discussion). She said she had found multiple spellings for the various sons' names in her research — including some sources with "Wong Yook Fun" — and that she had chosen the "Wong Yook Fun" spelling "just to have a common spelling".
I am still waiting to hear back from the WikiProjects with any ideas on the proper transcription, or why the four sons apparently had different " generation names" (even if the generation names reportedly sounded the same, my limited understanding has been that this part of each of their names would normally be identical for all the brothers).
In the meantime, I would recommend that the "Wong Yoke Fun" spelling (from the young man's immigration hearing transcript) should be kept as is, but subject to possible revision depending on what additional information can be found. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand that blog are not good sources, and I generally don't use them. However, for the subject of this article, the blogspot piece appears to be the best source. It is a translation of an article in Hindi that was written for the subject's birthday. I was going to write on the talk page that I will draw on it extensively. To me there seems to be no doubt about its authenticity. I request you to take a look at the source and, if you are convinced, to restore the deleted matter. Thanks a lot. Amuk ( talk) 04:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo. Please read blogs for blog in the first line. Amuk ( talk) 04:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking up the source. I still feel it has the ring of authenticity, but won't press the point. Stay safe. Amuk ( talk) 09:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello JzG,
Whilst patrolling the BlockList recently for Supreme Genghis Khan sockpuppets, I noticed that you blocked the user StopFnLyinnn and suppressed their edits, even though they haven't edited since 2015. As somebody who hasn't regularly edited Wikipedia in a while, I am just curious as to why you decided to block them after this long period of inactivity, as well as suppress their edits - is it some new policy or consensus to do so? Were their edits particularly offensive to warrant suppression, or just ordinary vandalism, and who's to say that (all possible username violations aside) they couldn't have come back to contribute in good faith at some point since they didn't vandalise enough to get blocked the first time around?
Thank you,
Passenger pigeon ( talk) 19:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you recently deleted article List of early Slav rulers per basic Wiki guidlines. I consider the article to be quite good and with solid refs. Is it possible and would it be okay for me to restore it? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I shan't unrevert on the VC article, but can you please avoid snarky comments like " You know better than this". You are confusing unreliable content with reliable facts. If an unreliable source says 'it is the case that p', then we cannot claim p. But the fact that the unreliable source claimed p is indeed a fact. As I said, I shan't unrevert. Peter Damian ( talk) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Given how the situation at Alan J. Cooper appears to have settled somewhat, I'm thinking it might be helpful for us to un-revdel one or more of the intervening edits on the page, so that non-admins trying to improve the article in good faith can see what had previously been done and take helpful advantage of their earlier work. Perhaps the last revision prior to the point where I stepped in with my chainsaw? Your thoughts on this? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Here's a digital cup of coffee for you! Thank you for believing in me and for your help!
StrangeloveFan101 (
talk) 14:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if it's of interest to you, but I just ran into it and thought it might be. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Guy,
Thanks for the comments. Just one question. Why do you assume that I have some improper relationship with the gallery or its owners? I rather resent that. I am planning to rewrite, but can you give me any specific examples -- actual words or phrases -- that make it sound like advertising? I have asked the same question of other Wikipedia editors, and my question has been ignored.
Thanks. -- Moleppa ( talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Good day. I didn't know that typing with ALL CAPS is shouting here, my apologies. Beyhiveboys ( talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I am new to this at Wikipedia and know that I may not be following protocols in communicating with editors, but I'm not sure what is going on.
First, I see that you have deleted the page "Pilar Corrias Gallery" because "(Repeatedly recreated)." I have not recreated the page. Please explain this to me.
Also, there seems to be a page with the same title from 2018, which I didn't make.
Finally, in an earlier exchange, I asked to you give me examples of words or phrases that make the article too much like an advertisement. I just need an idea where to start. I haven't received any response.
These questions are not asked in anger, but out of real curiosity and a willingness to learn: Have you ignored my earlier requests for information because I have somehow offended you or because I have unwittingly transgressed some kind of Wikipedia standards of politeness? I have had at least a couple of editors speaking very critically about the article, but no one has responded to my actual requests for help. Any help would be appreciated. -- Moleppa ( talk) 14:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. A little background. I had nothing to do with any earlier versions of this article. I created my version first on 27 March 2020. My daughter, who knows someone from the gallery, made me aware of the gallery and the important work it does in promoting female and avant-garde artists. I’m a professional writer who often writes about the arts. When I failed to find anything about it on Wikipedia, I thought it might deserve a Wikipedia page. I asked for some more information about the gallery and, based on what I received, I wrote the article. I have never visited the gallery (I live in Denmark) and have never met the gallery’s owner or staff. So, the question is, is there a way forward? Or has the past spamming completely disqualified the gallery as a Wikipedia subject? Can I re-access the article and rewrite it with less “promotional” language and better references, although I’m not sure how many really reputable references there are? Thanks again for the help. -- Moleppa ( talk) 14:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, thanks for your time and trouble, but I really don’t understand what you mean by “you probably have a dog in this fight.” I looked at the statistics page and, while not understanding it 100%, I think it backs up my story: I started to create a page on 26 March and finished it on 27 March. I created two pages: one for the gallery and one for the gallery owner. What DOESN’T makes sense to me, however, is that I NEVER edited these two pages: “Women for Trump” and “Seyntex,” although they are listed as if I edited them. I have no idea where those two came from. I don’t even remember ever visiting them. I feel that you are accusing me of doing something that I didn’t do, but I don’t understand what it is. Maybe I have made some kind of mistake in how to do things, but I have not done anything unethical, if that is what you are implying. I really hate to keep questioning you, but I really want to know what’s going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moleppa ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC) -- Moleppa ( talk) 16:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Just a heads up, the article is under 1RR. [1] [2] PackMecEng ( talk) 21:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much yeah. It is to the right, it just depends on where you want to put the pin. I am sure we could go back and forth on what that means for reliability here. These days I tend to only use it on talk pages to have fun with people and only when I have a few other sources backing it up. It's rarely worth the hassle using it in article space. PackMecEng ( talk) 22:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit on Beyonce iwkipedia page that was reverted by some stans due to they are non-notable awards. I want to clarify that most of the awards you reverted actually exists but they don't have wikipedia page here. I'll provide you with some sources proving they are real and not from "blog"
I hope it clarifies my concern. THis awards exists but since they don't have a page here, they are not valid? THEY ARE VALID AND NOTABLE. It hurts me to see those person deleting those awards with proper links, I can understand them deleting it if that doesn't have proper citations but all of those have. I hope you get my point. Thanks Beyhiveboys ( talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Examples please
Hello JzG: Please explain why you have reverted all my carefully planned edits to the biopsychosocial model page. If I do not hear from you, I am going to explore this matter further. Sandyshore ( talk) 18:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I'm not seeing what indicates that
[3] is a preprint? The paper itself shows it was published in Vol. 37:1185.
Also, you reverted too much - the third edit was a REFSPC correction not related to that paper.
73.69.184.160 (
talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I heard back from Bethany Berger (the author of the paper under discussion). She said she had found multiple spellings for the various sons' names in her research — including some sources with "Wong Yook Fun" — and that she had chosen the "Wong Yook Fun" spelling "just to have a common spelling".
I am still waiting to hear back from the WikiProjects with any ideas on the proper transcription, or why the four sons apparently had different " generation names" (even if the generation names reportedly sounded the same, my limited understanding has been that this part of each of their names would normally be identical for all the brothers).
In the meantime, I would recommend that the "Wong Yoke Fun" spelling (from the young man's immigration hearing transcript) should be kept as is, but subject to possible revision depending on what additional information can be found. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand that blog are not good sources, and I generally don't use them. However, for the subject of this article, the blogspot piece appears to be the best source. It is a translation of an article in Hindi that was written for the subject's birthday. I was going to write on the talk page that I will draw on it extensively. To me there seems to be no doubt about its authenticity. I request you to take a look at the source and, if you are convinced, to restore the deleted matter. Thanks a lot. Amuk ( talk) 04:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo. Please read blogs for blog in the first line. Amuk ( talk) 04:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking up the source. I still feel it has the ring of authenticity, but won't press the point. Stay safe. Amuk ( talk) 09:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello JzG,
Whilst patrolling the BlockList recently for Supreme Genghis Khan sockpuppets, I noticed that you blocked the user StopFnLyinnn and suppressed their edits, even though they haven't edited since 2015. As somebody who hasn't regularly edited Wikipedia in a while, I am just curious as to why you decided to block them after this long period of inactivity, as well as suppress their edits - is it some new policy or consensus to do so? Were their edits particularly offensive to warrant suppression, or just ordinary vandalism, and who's to say that (all possible username violations aside) they couldn't have come back to contribute in good faith at some point since they didn't vandalise enough to get blocked the first time around?
Thank you,
Passenger pigeon ( talk) 19:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you recently deleted article List of early Slav rulers per basic Wiki guidlines. I consider the article to be quite good and with solid refs. Is it possible and would it be okay for me to restore it? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I shan't unrevert on the VC article, but can you please avoid snarky comments like " You know better than this". You are confusing unreliable content with reliable facts. If an unreliable source says 'it is the case that p', then we cannot claim p. But the fact that the unreliable source claimed p is indeed a fact. As I said, I shan't unrevert. Peter Damian ( talk) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Given how the situation at Alan J. Cooper appears to have settled somewhat, I'm thinking it might be helpful for us to un-revdel one or more of the intervening edits on the page, so that non-admins trying to improve the article in good faith can see what had previously been done and take helpful advantage of their earlier work. Perhaps the last revision prior to the point where I stepped in with my chainsaw? Your thoughts on this? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Here's a digital cup of coffee for you! Thank you for believing in me and for your help!
StrangeloveFan101 (
talk) 14:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if it's of interest to you, but I just ran into it and thought it might be. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Guy,
Thanks for the comments. Just one question. Why do you assume that I have some improper relationship with the gallery or its owners? I rather resent that. I am planning to rewrite, but can you give me any specific examples -- actual words or phrases -- that make it sound like advertising? I have asked the same question of other Wikipedia editors, and my question has been ignored.
Thanks. -- Moleppa ( talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Good day. I didn't know that typing with ALL CAPS is shouting here, my apologies. Beyhiveboys ( talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I am new to this at Wikipedia and know that I may not be following protocols in communicating with editors, but I'm not sure what is going on.
First, I see that you have deleted the page "Pilar Corrias Gallery" because "(Repeatedly recreated)." I have not recreated the page. Please explain this to me.
Also, there seems to be a page with the same title from 2018, which I didn't make.
Finally, in an earlier exchange, I asked to you give me examples of words or phrases that make the article too much like an advertisement. I just need an idea where to start. I haven't received any response.
These questions are not asked in anger, but out of real curiosity and a willingness to learn: Have you ignored my earlier requests for information because I have somehow offended you or because I have unwittingly transgressed some kind of Wikipedia standards of politeness? I have had at least a couple of editors speaking very critically about the article, but no one has responded to my actual requests for help. Any help would be appreciated. -- Moleppa ( talk) 14:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. A little background. I had nothing to do with any earlier versions of this article. I created my version first on 27 March 2020. My daughter, who knows someone from the gallery, made me aware of the gallery and the important work it does in promoting female and avant-garde artists. I’m a professional writer who often writes about the arts. When I failed to find anything about it on Wikipedia, I thought it might deserve a Wikipedia page. I asked for some more information about the gallery and, based on what I received, I wrote the article. I have never visited the gallery (I live in Denmark) and have never met the gallery’s owner or staff. So, the question is, is there a way forward? Or has the past spamming completely disqualified the gallery as a Wikipedia subject? Can I re-access the article and rewrite it with less “promotional” language and better references, although I’m not sure how many really reputable references there are? Thanks again for the help. -- Moleppa ( talk) 14:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, thanks for your time and trouble, but I really don’t understand what you mean by “you probably have a dog in this fight.” I looked at the statistics page and, while not understanding it 100%, I think it backs up my story: I started to create a page on 26 March and finished it on 27 March. I created two pages: one for the gallery and one for the gallery owner. What DOESN’T makes sense to me, however, is that I NEVER edited these two pages: “Women for Trump” and “Seyntex,” although they are listed as if I edited them. I have no idea where those two came from. I don’t even remember ever visiting them. I feel that you are accusing me of doing something that I didn’t do, but I don’t understand what it is. Maybe I have made some kind of mistake in how to do things, but I have not done anything unethical, if that is what you are implying. I really hate to keep questioning you, but I really want to know what’s going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moleppa ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC) -- Moleppa ( talk) 16:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)