![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
yep there was a mistake about turkish language all people who live in turkey r speakin turkish there z no other offical language so u cannot say 58 million thatz wrong it must be 71 million...c wut i mean? it z a fuckin damn conspiracy...made by some kurdish bastards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.120.254 ( talk • contribs) 15:15, February 9, 2009
Good luck with that, I wish I could help you more with the Koko (Gorilla) article, but I've too much on my plate at the moment. I want to tell you what you are up against. What everyone believes about Koko, that she can use language, is actually false, a fact knowable by you. All you have to do is Google around and find any quotation by Koko that says anything which to a reasonable person constitutes clearly meaningful language. How is it possible that, after all these years of language use, you won't be able to find even one quote from her, even "Me banana want" or anything less, even, that will satisfy you that she can use language? Everything Koko does is explicable by her having learned that Penny will feed her if she makes sign-like motions, isn't it? Don't take this from me, research it for yourself. If Patterson had any proof, why doesn't she make it public? You can find a video of her answering a question, "Why don't you answer your critics?" Penny says that she doesn't feel obligated to deal with such negative people who refuse to believe things without proof! This is a scientist?
The problem is, how to write the section on Patterson's claims? I recommend just gathering the facts on the animal's biography, and stating the facts about how she got famous and what Patterson did claim, without ever giving the impression that it is knowably true, and therefore at least possibly false. Otherwise, the masses of people who believe Patterson's claims will demand proof that it's not true, and you'll have to cite something definative. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder -- I recall the issue and had meant to return to the article to look at it in further depth but in the end forgot to do so. I haven't gone back to the page, but my recollection is that the editor was trying to highlight the fact(?) that the provisions of the legislation applied to legal immigrants and undocumented or "illegal" aliens alike, so the article shouldn't focus exclusively on those in the country illegally. I think the editor was asked to provide a source for the claim, but, if I recall, the source offered was simply the executive summary of the legislation and didn't specifically refer to the issue that was the source of the controversy.
I have a feeling, perhaps unfounded, that there is possibly POV-pushing at play here, especially as regards the issue of terminology, but I have to plead ignorance about the legislation and so can't be sure. My suggestion would be to consult some articles on the bill to see whether what the editor claims is accurate. If the issue is one of terminology, use the terminology that most commonly occurs in reliable sources on the topic. If you feel your changes are likely to be controversial, explain them in advance on the article talk page and see if other editors want to contribute to the discussion, then make whatever changes you feel appropriate. Remember to use an edit summary in which you briefly explain the rationale for your changes and direct editors to the article talk page for a fuller explanation.
Your comment on the user's page is a good starting point. However, this editor appears to be a new user and may not be familiar with the use of a user talk page and so may not respond. -- Rrburke( talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | On 2 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 cargo plane bomb plot, which you created and recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- tariqabjotu 16:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Novem Linguae. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Novem Linguae. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Novem Linguae. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parookaville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDM ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scrum (software development), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the article
AV1. However, do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be
verifiable through
reliable sources, preferably using
inline citations. Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at
Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the
Teahouse. Thank you.—
J. M. (
talk)
15:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Katie talk 16:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Peter Hitchens, did not appear constructive and instead you misused sources to push a narrative that is not supported by the sources that you quote. Therefor you directly misused the wikipedia and spit on it's mission. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you still consider misusing the wikipedia to push your personal agenda consider a different medium for your personal opinions, since the sources you quote are not supporting the narrative you are pushing, and thus wikipedia is not the place for your politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1084:BFE0:95F8:FED6:E188:8D6 ( talk) 00:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The news sources used to describe Ben Garrison are negatively biased toward him. He describes himself as a Conservative libertarian not an "alt-right" extremist. Please refrain from using strongly politically biased sites like the Guardian or Daily Beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.8.21 ( talk) 19:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
What are you saying ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.8.21 ( talk)
Hi,
For the past month some unknown user is continuously trying to vandalize kalaripayattu. Please go through the edit history, you can see how that unknown anonymous user is in edit war and vandalising the article.
The anonymous user 2409:4073:380:22F7:B8BC:C04E:4492:B679 has some pending edits on the same page now.
Please either block him or make the page protected only for extended confirmed users.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.76.60 ( talk) 14:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you accepted several revisions at Al Horford which didn't provide reliable sources. Please see WP:BLP (biographies of living persons policy), as on biographies, unsubstantiated claims such as these are not appropriate. I've reverted them. Thanks. Silikonz ( 💬│ 🖋) 21:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lidya (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lidya (company) 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. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
You may want to read through immune system which we recently prepped to run Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 30, 2020; extra eyes are alway appreciated. Graham is well versed in writing for laypeople (see Introduction to viruses), but his time is limited since he has had to go back to work on the pandemic. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Technology platform. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Technology platform until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Novem Linguae,
you put me in a good mood. I am a programmer (Python + Sqlite, wxPython, RegExp, etc.) but also a natural-born philosopher. Unfortunately I have no friends. Why? Maybe because I like breaking stereotypes, though most people love them and experience cognitive dissonance when talking with me. But I would like to be your friend because we have something in common e.g. RegExp ;-) 85.193.228.103 ( talk) 13:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
In your recent edits to the list, the number of list entries dropped from 13 to 6. I don't think it was intentional. It happened in this diff. Can you take a look and restore? -- Green C 21:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
On 13 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at 5,593 pages, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 is the longest bill ever passed by the U.S. Congress? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I started a draft about Michael Weirsky. Can you please make it a full article that is a good article or featured article, please? I would prefer it to be featured article. /info/en/?search=Draft:Michael_Weirsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey there. Yeah he seems to be at it again, sigh. Although he is at least adding more sources this time, but frankly I think all the articles he's creating should be put up for deletion. His English is pretty poor as well which doesn't help as a lot of the articles are in broken English and poorly worded. The references as well appear to be broken in a lot of his articles. If you want to report him to an admin go ahead, I think he'll likely get banned soon anyway as one of his latest articles appears to have attracted admin attention. Inexpiable ( talk) 13:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed you asked about the AfD counter that Scottywong built. I was looking for it too. The updated AfD counter is listed here along with other tools. It's directly available here. Hope you're doing well! - tucoxn\ talk 16:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Is an external link to a google earth page "unacceptable"? I made such a link, and had my entire update to the page subsequently "reverted". The Google earth link was totally relevant to the media link, so the question is, in this era of open source resources, is there a "legal' way to link a Wikipedia page to a Google Earth page? If not, then why? As long as the links are made with total respect to the originally posted material, why should an "external" link to Google Earth, be interpreted as 'Vandalism" or "Malicious"? A "novice" editor reverted my updates, and after hours of cross communication, un-reverted them. I am only trying to be a responsible wiki updater, and have no idea as to "Why" my edit was reverted, and subsequently, restored. Thanks for any relevant input. Shihad x ( talk) 03:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
links should not normally be placed in the body of an article.
Hi, can you explain why you reverted on Kyle Kulinski to put back unsourced controversial content in a BLP? Schazjmd (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Frobozz1 has ignored multiple warnings from several editors on Impeachment, has continued to force edits into the article in spite of being asked to discuss them on the talk page, will respond to virtually none of the detailed concerns about accurancy and neutrality that have been raised, and indeed has specifically said "I am in no hurry to try to gain consensus with things like court rulings and dictionary definitions unless I have cited them incorrectly ...". The editor is constructing a personal narrative based on primary sources that clearly attempts to minimise the gravity of the current Trump proceedings, that paints them as being merely party-political, and which attempts to throws doubt on their applicability to a former president. These actions are I believe very clearly in breach of the discretionary sanctions that you notified the editor about on their talk page yesterday. I'm unsure what action should be taken at this point. Should I file a formal report somewhere? MichaelMaggs ( talk) 18:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello MichaelMaggs. You could try looking on the talk pages of where the disruptive edits are taking place ( Talk:Impeachment and Talk:Impeachment in the United States), and (at those talk pages, not here) pinging admins that have posted there. For example, it looks like BD2412, 331dot, and Rmhermen are admins that have posted there. WP:AE is also an option, although I've never used it so I don't know what the dynamic is there. Also, I think only one of the two pages is technically covered by the American politics discretionary sanctions. I'd hesitate to take a WP:SEALION to WP:ANI. I got involved in something like that once, and the community seems split down the middle about whether or not sealion editing is disruptive enough to topic ban over. Although who knows. Maybe an ANI discussion would provide enough pushback to help reign in bold edits. Finally, it looks like GreenFrogsGoRibbit is on the same wavelength as you, so they may be a good editor to speak with. I haven't reverted any of the edits yet, so I don't consider myself as involved as you two. The edits are detailed and I would need to sit down and really read through them before I want to get more involved. I see from your user page that you are a lawyer, so I am certainly inclined to trust your judgment of the content in question, and I commend you for helping to keep our articles free of WP:OR. Hope that helps. Good luck. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that you User: Novem Linguae deleted my contribution and the contribution of RandomCanadian on spurious grounds at 01:01, 13 February 2021 :
"(→Wuhan lab leak story: trim WP:PROFRINGE)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_misinformation&diff=next&oldid=1006462421
Kindly clarify how can the statement of the Director General contradicting the previous claim be considered WP:PROFRINGE?
So, effectively your and the other user's edits gagged the Director General of The WHO as promoting WP:PROFRINGE, which is patently ridiculous
Previously, RandomCanadian deleted a correctly referenced and pithy quote quote from the Director General which clarified the earlier claim on the page (at 22:05, 12 February 2021): https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_misinformation&type=revision&diff=1006512687&oldid=1006437332 What RandomCanadian deleted was this:
"....still open in probe into coronavirus origins|url= https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/who-says-all-hypotheses-still-open-in-probe-into-coronavirus-origins%7Caccess-date=2021-02-13%7Cwebsite=Straits Times|language=en}}</ref> that all hypotheses are still being considered and will be investigated:
“Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded, I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study"
"
RandomCanadian replaced it with this:
"..that all hypotheses were still being considered"
RandomCanadianreason for deleting was:
""all hypotheses" is again vague, but the repetitive quote is not necessary...)"
However, the information was accurate and correctly sourced ,and not a repetitive quotation (where is the other version of teh quote?)
So, please work with me and RandomCanadian to revert your edit as soon as possible, or alternatively improve the deleted text, and then add it again. Billybostickson ( talk) 11:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
.
Kindly revert to my edit as soon as possible. Thank you. Billybostickson ( talk) 11:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Quote
|
---|
"All theories are on the table" is so vague as to indicate ineptness from whoever is managing the WHO social media. In any case, it does not indicate anything about which "theories" these might be. Simply because WHO might be visiting the lab does not imply they are investigating it as a possible origin (linking the mentions together as to imply it is clearly WP:SYNTH) - as far as we know, they might simply be visiting the lab to get up-to-date information from the local virologists (a far more benign aim, no? In any case, neither of these two hypotheses go in because they are not found in any WP:RS). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
User: Novem Linguae I will respond here, as deleted my contribution on the Talk Page as per your suggestion. This seems to be a willfully perverse interpretation of the Director General's opinion on the subject by RandomCanadian. If you wish to "add context", please do so instead of vandalising pages. Why does RandomCanadian or you, say 'so using it to give validity to a FRINGE viewpoint ", when nobody has done anything of the kind apart from factually updating the previous claim with the Director General's comment, which clarifies it. This is clear for all to see. So, on the contrary it seems that deleting it in its entirety is a grossly biased decision, taken without consultation with the wider community. My suggestion is that instead of deleting users' good faith contributions, try to improve them, rather than engaging in unproductive edit warring. Thank you Billybostickson ( talk) 15:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian What exactly is ambiguous about his statement? Here it is:
"Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded."
"I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study."
It is crystal clear that "All Hypotheses" includes "All Hypotheses" including the Lab Leak Hypothesis which was included on a slide shown by the team coordinator, Peter Emberak, during the recent WHO Press Conference.
You seem to be wilfully intent on misinterpreting the very clear statement by Dr. Tedros and accusing him of WP:FRINGE. This will bring WP into disrepute. Regarding "accusations", may I remind you that you accused me of falsely attacking an admin, trying to "fracture discussion" and "harrassing editors" An apology would be in order. also I am not sure why you keep on responding here instead of the appropriate forum, which is the Talk Page, as we agreed. Thank you. Billybostickson ( talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding constant reverts and threats of blocking by gatekeepers. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story".The discussion is about the topic COVID-19 misinformation.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Billybostickson ( talk) 17:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you protect my user page from vandalism and help me add user boxes to my page? Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 00:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I’m having problems doin this Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 23:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to let you know, once you go through the school, don't think that I'm not there if you need any help, or have any questions. Things in NPP can get tricky at times. Onel5969 TT me 04:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, regarding your question at this draft - do you know the Earwig Copyvio Tool we are using? CommanderWaterford ( talk) 14:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
thank you so much for the edits and notes on the page I worked on! Maganolla ( talk) 22:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, the resource has been added and re-requested, so there is no reason for you to undo my edit.-- MNL ( talk) 16:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Jeremy Renner was cast in a TV show called The Mayor of Kingston, a miniseries on the incarceration industry in Michigan, according to Deadline, Variety and others and I’m trying to add it to his filmography but I’m having issues. Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 21:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
No. I’m talking about a TV show that he was recently cast in called “The Mayor of Kingston”. I tried to add it to his filmography but I couldn’t figure out how Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 21:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Did you find the answer to this question? If not, you may be aware of WP:VPT where questions like this are usually asked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you help me put “this user wants to visit Ireland” and “this user has been to Canada” userbox? I can’t find them Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 22:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I’m sorry if my user boxes are so disorganized! I didn’t know how to organize them! Feel free if to if you want! Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 22:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Not to be rude but it looks the exact same. What all did you fix? Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 23:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Yep. Mobile Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 08:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there a way for the article creation to be delayed until near the race, if you say the article is not relevant until it becomes a current event? Prins van Oranje 15:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
yep there was a mistake about turkish language all people who live in turkey r speakin turkish there z no other offical language so u cannot say 58 million thatz wrong it must be 71 million...c wut i mean? it z a fuckin damn conspiracy...made by some kurdish bastards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.120.254 ( talk • contribs) 15:15, February 9, 2009
Good luck with that, I wish I could help you more with the Koko (Gorilla) article, but I've too much on my plate at the moment. I want to tell you what you are up against. What everyone believes about Koko, that she can use language, is actually false, a fact knowable by you. All you have to do is Google around and find any quotation by Koko that says anything which to a reasonable person constitutes clearly meaningful language. How is it possible that, after all these years of language use, you won't be able to find even one quote from her, even "Me banana want" or anything less, even, that will satisfy you that she can use language? Everything Koko does is explicable by her having learned that Penny will feed her if she makes sign-like motions, isn't it? Don't take this from me, research it for yourself. If Patterson had any proof, why doesn't she make it public? You can find a video of her answering a question, "Why don't you answer your critics?" Penny says that she doesn't feel obligated to deal with such negative people who refuse to believe things without proof! This is a scientist?
The problem is, how to write the section on Patterson's claims? I recommend just gathering the facts on the animal's biography, and stating the facts about how she got famous and what Patterson did claim, without ever giving the impression that it is knowably true, and therefore at least possibly false. Otherwise, the masses of people who believe Patterson's claims will demand proof that it's not true, and you'll have to cite something definative. Chrisrus ( talk) 06:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder -- I recall the issue and had meant to return to the article to look at it in further depth but in the end forgot to do so. I haven't gone back to the page, but my recollection is that the editor was trying to highlight the fact(?) that the provisions of the legislation applied to legal immigrants and undocumented or "illegal" aliens alike, so the article shouldn't focus exclusively on those in the country illegally. I think the editor was asked to provide a source for the claim, but, if I recall, the source offered was simply the executive summary of the legislation and didn't specifically refer to the issue that was the source of the controversy.
I have a feeling, perhaps unfounded, that there is possibly POV-pushing at play here, especially as regards the issue of terminology, but I have to plead ignorance about the legislation and so can't be sure. My suggestion would be to consult some articles on the bill to see whether what the editor claims is accurate. If the issue is one of terminology, use the terminology that most commonly occurs in reliable sources on the topic. If you feel your changes are likely to be controversial, explain them in advance on the article talk page and see if other editors want to contribute to the discussion, then make whatever changes you feel appropriate. Remember to use an edit summary in which you briefly explain the rationale for your changes and direct editors to the article talk page for a fuller explanation.
Your comment on the user's page is a good starting point. However, this editor appears to be a new user and may not be familiar with the use of a user talk page and so may not respond. -- Rrburke( talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | On 2 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 cargo plane bomb plot, which you created and recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- tariqabjotu 16:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Novem Linguae. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Novem Linguae. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Novem Linguae. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parookaville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDM ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scrum (software development), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the article
AV1. However, do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be
verifiable through
reliable sources, preferably using
inline citations. Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at
Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the
Teahouse. Thank you.—
J. M. (
talk)
15:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Katie talk 16:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Peter Hitchens, did not appear constructive and instead you misused sources to push a narrative that is not supported by the sources that you quote. Therefor you directly misused the wikipedia and spit on it's mission. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you still consider misusing the wikipedia to push your personal agenda consider a different medium for your personal opinions, since the sources you quote are not supporting the narrative you are pushing, and thus wikipedia is not the place for your politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1084:BFE0:95F8:FED6:E188:8D6 ( talk) 00:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The news sources used to describe Ben Garrison are negatively biased toward him. He describes himself as a Conservative libertarian not an "alt-right" extremist. Please refrain from using strongly politically biased sites like the Guardian or Daily Beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.8.21 ( talk) 19:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
What are you saying ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.8.21 ( talk)
Hi,
For the past month some unknown user is continuously trying to vandalize kalaripayattu. Please go through the edit history, you can see how that unknown anonymous user is in edit war and vandalising the article.
The anonymous user 2409:4073:380:22F7:B8BC:C04E:4492:B679 has some pending edits on the same page now.
Please either block him or make the page protected only for extended confirmed users.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.76.60 ( talk) 14:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you accepted several revisions at Al Horford which didn't provide reliable sources. Please see WP:BLP (biographies of living persons policy), as on biographies, unsubstantiated claims such as these are not appropriate. I've reverted them. Thanks. Silikonz ( 💬│ 🖋) 21:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lidya (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lidya (company) 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. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
You may want to read through immune system which we recently prepped to run Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 30, 2020; extra eyes are alway appreciated. Graham is well versed in writing for laypeople (see Introduction to viruses), but his time is limited since he has had to go back to work on the pandemic. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Technology platform. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Technology platform until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Novem Linguae,
you put me in a good mood. I am a programmer (Python + Sqlite, wxPython, RegExp, etc.) but also a natural-born philosopher. Unfortunately I have no friends. Why? Maybe because I like breaking stereotypes, though most people love them and experience cognitive dissonance when talking with me. But I would like to be your friend because we have something in common e.g. RegExp ;-) 85.193.228.103 ( talk) 13:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
In your recent edits to the list, the number of list entries dropped from 13 to 6. I don't think it was intentional. It happened in this diff. Can you take a look and restore? -- Green C 21:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
On 13 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at 5,593 pages, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 is the longest bill ever passed by the U.S. Congress? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I started a draft about Michael Weirsky. Can you please make it a full article that is a good article or featured article, please? I would prefer it to be featured article. /info/en/?search=Draft:Michael_Weirsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey there. Yeah he seems to be at it again, sigh. Although he is at least adding more sources this time, but frankly I think all the articles he's creating should be put up for deletion. His English is pretty poor as well which doesn't help as a lot of the articles are in broken English and poorly worded. The references as well appear to be broken in a lot of his articles. If you want to report him to an admin go ahead, I think he'll likely get banned soon anyway as one of his latest articles appears to have attracted admin attention. Inexpiable ( talk) 13:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed you asked about the AfD counter that Scottywong built. I was looking for it too. The updated AfD counter is listed here along with other tools. It's directly available here. Hope you're doing well! - tucoxn\ talk 16:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Is an external link to a google earth page "unacceptable"? I made such a link, and had my entire update to the page subsequently "reverted". The Google earth link was totally relevant to the media link, so the question is, in this era of open source resources, is there a "legal' way to link a Wikipedia page to a Google Earth page? If not, then why? As long as the links are made with total respect to the originally posted material, why should an "external" link to Google Earth, be interpreted as 'Vandalism" or "Malicious"? A "novice" editor reverted my updates, and after hours of cross communication, un-reverted them. I am only trying to be a responsible wiki updater, and have no idea as to "Why" my edit was reverted, and subsequently, restored. Thanks for any relevant input. Shihad x ( talk) 03:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
links should not normally be placed in the body of an article.
Hi, can you explain why you reverted on Kyle Kulinski to put back unsourced controversial content in a BLP? Schazjmd (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Frobozz1 has ignored multiple warnings from several editors on Impeachment, has continued to force edits into the article in spite of being asked to discuss them on the talk page, will respond to virtually none of the detailed concerns about accurancy and neutrality that have been raised, and indeed has specifically said "I am in no hurry to try to gain consensus with things like court rulings and dictionary definitions unless I have cited them incorrectly ...". The editor is constructing a personal narrative based on primary sources that clearly attempts to minimise the gravity of the current Trump proceedings, that paints them as being merely party-political, and which attempts to throws doubt on their applicability to a former president. These actions are I believe very clearly in breach of the discretionary sanctions that you notified the editor about on their talk page yesterday. I'm unsure what action should be taken at this point. Should I file a formal report somewhere? MichaelMaggs ( talk) 18:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello MichaelMaggs. You could try looking on the talk pages of where the disruptive edits are taking place ( Talk:Impeachment and Talk:Impeachment in the United States), and (at those talk pages, not here) pinging admins that have posted there. For example, it looks like BD2412, 331dot, and Rmhermen are admins that have posted there. WP:AE is also an option, although I've never used it so I don't know what the dynamic is there. Also, I think only one of the two pages is technically covered by the American politics discretionary sanctions. I'd hesitate to take a WP:SEALION to WP:ANI. I got involved in something like that once, and the community seems split down the middle about whether or not sealion editing is disruptive enough to topic ban over. Although who knows. Maybe an ANI discussion would provide enough pushback to help reign in bold edits. Finally, it looks like GreenFrogsGoRibbit is on the same wavelength as you, so they may be a good editor to speak with. I haven't reverted any of the edits yet, so I don't consider myself as involved as you two. The edits are detailed and I would need to sit down and really read through them before I want to get more involved. I see from your user page that you are a lawyer, so I am certainly inclined to trust your judgment of the content in question, and I commend you for helping to keep our articles free of WP:OR. Hope that helps. Good luck. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that you User: Novem Linguae deleted my contribution and the contribution of RandomCanadian on spurious grounds at 01:01, 13 February 2021 :
"(→Wuhan lab leak story: trim WP:PROFRINGE)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_misinformation&diff=next&oldid=1006462421
Kindly clarify how can the statement of the Director General contradicting the previous claim be considered WP:PROFRINGE?
So, effectively your and the other user's edits gagged the Director General of The WHO as promoting WP:PROFRINGE, which is patently ridiculous
Previously, RandomCanadian deleted a correctly referenced and pithy quote quote from the Director General which clarified the earlier claim on the page (at 22:05, 12 February 2021): https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_misinformation&type=revision&diff=1006512687&oldid=1006437332 What RandomCanadian deleted was this:
"....still open in probe into coronavirus origins|url= https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/who-says-all-hypotheses-still-open-in-probe-into-coronavirus-origins%7Caccess-date=2021-02-13%7Cwebsite=Straits Times|language=en}}</ref> that all hypotheses are still being considered and will be investigated:
“Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded, I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study"
"
RandomCanadian replaced it with this:
"..that all hypotheses were still being considered"
RandomCanadianreason for deleting was:
""all hypotheses" is again vague, but the repetitive quote is not necessary...)"
However, the information was accurate and correctly sourced ,and not a repetitive quotation (where is the other version of teh quote?)
So, please work with me and RandomCanadian to revert your edit as soon as possible, or alternatively improve the deleted text, and then add it again. Billybostickson ( talk) 11:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
.
Kindly revert to my edit as soon as possible. Thank you. Billybostickson ( talk) 11:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Quote
|
---|
"All theories are on the table" is so vague as to indicate ineptness from whoever is managing the WHO social media. In any case, it does not indicate anything about which "theories" these might be. Simply because WHO might be visiting the lab does not imply they are investigating it as a possible origin (linking the mentions together as to imply it is clearly WP:SYNTH) - as far as we know, they might simply be visiting the lab to get up-to-date information from the local virologists (a far more benign aim, no? In any case, neither of these two hypotheses go in because they are not found in any WP:RS). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
User: Novem Linguae I will respond here, as deleted my contribution on the Talk Page as per your suggestion. This seems to be a willfully perverse interpretation of the Director General's opinion on the subject by RandomCanadian. If you wish to "add context", please do so instead of vandalising pages. Why does RandomCanadian or you, say 'so using it to give validity to a FRINGE viewpoint ", when nobody has done anything of the kind apart from factually updating the previous claim with the Director General's comment, which clarifies it. This is clear for all to see. So, on the contrary it seems that deleting it in its entirety is a grossly biased decision, taken without consultation with the wider community. My suggestion is that instead of deleting users' good faith contributions, try to improve them, rather than engaging in unproductive edit warring. Thank you Billybostickson ( talk) 15:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian What exactly is ambiguous about his statement? Here it is:
"Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded."
"I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study."
It is crystal clear that "All Hypotheses" includes "All Hypotheses" including the Lab Leak Hypothesis which was included on a slide shown by the team coordinator, Peter Emberak, during the recent WHO Press Conference.
You seem to be wilfully intent on misinterpreting the very clear statement by Dr. Tedros and accusing him of WP:FRINGE. This will bring WP into disrepute. Regarding "accusations", may I remind you that you accused me of falsely attacking an admin, trying to "fracture discussion" and "harrassing editors" An apology would be in order. also I am not sure why you keep on responding here instead of the appropriate forum, which is the Talk Page, as we agreed. Thank you. Billybostickson ( talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding constant reverts and threats of blocking by gatekeepers. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story".The discussion is about the topic COVID-19 misinformation.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Billybostickson ( talk) 17:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you protect my user page from vandalism and help me add user boxes to my page? Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 00:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I’m having problems doin this Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 23:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to let you know, once you go through the school, don't think that I'm not there if you need any help, or have any questions. Things in NPP can get tricky at times. Onel5969 TT me 04:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, regarding your question at this draft - do you know the Earwig Copyvio Tool we are using? CommanderWaterford ( talk) 14:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
thank you so much for the edits and notes on the page I worked on! Maganolla ( talk) 22:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, the resource has been added and re-requested, so there is no reason for you to undo my edit.-- MNL ( talk) 16:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Jeremy Renner was cast in a TV show called The Mayor of Kingston, a miniseries on the incarceration industry in Michigan, according to Deadline, Variety and others and I’m trying to add it to his filmography but I’m having issues. Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 21:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
No. I’m talking about a TV show that he was recently cast in called “The Mayor of Kingston”. I tried to add it to his filmography but I couldn’t figure out how Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 21:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Did you find the answer to this question? If not, you may be aware of WP:VPT where questions like this are usually asked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you help me put “this user wants to visit Ireland” and “this user has been to Canada” userbox? I can’t find them Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 22:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I’m sorry if my user boxes are so disorganized! I didn’t know how to organize them! Feel free if to if you want! Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 22:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Not to be rude but it looks the exact same. What all did you fix? Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 23:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Yep. Mobile Filmmaker8306 ( talk) 08:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there a way for the article creation to be delayed until near the race, if you say the article is not relevant until it becomes a current event? Prins van Oranje 15:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)