![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
Just a quick note that an editor has asked for opinions on improving the navbox {{ Infectious disease}}. The discussion is here. I saw you've edited it several times, so I thought I'd let you know. I hope you're staying well. Ajpolino ( talk) 15:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you recently removed the lead image of the map of the British Empire that I added to the List of largest empires article. I'm hoping that this is a relatively short discussion between us. I'd like to respectfully present some of my opinions.
I want to make clear that I have no inherent problem with making a map of the Mongol Empire as the lead image of any relevant article. I think if you looked at my edit history you would find that I have a great amount of interest in that empire and time period. But of course I do have some concerns about the Mongol Empire map being used as the lead image for the List of largest empires article because it seems rather obvious to me that the largest empire on that list should be the lead image. - TrynaMakeADollar ( talk) 07:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the article should have only a map of the largest empire of all time. It overemphasizes the top entry to detriment of all other entries. I also don't think that the gallery this article used to have was a particularly good solution. A single map which combines the top two entries would be a good compromise, though having no map whatsoever is also a perfectly valid option.
There's no reason a map of both empires would need to get cluttered. The map you added of the British Empire is fairly cluttered, but that's mostly because there is a bunch of text. It wouldn't be particularly difficult to create a map of both empires which is colour-coded such that we can simply write "The British Empire (red) and Mongol Empire (green) were the largest and second-largest empire, respectively" in the caption—the overlap is minimal and easily solved with shading. I just happen to lack the skills to make such a map. I'll make a request over at WP:GLMAP. TompaDompa ( talk) 12:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Never write text pretending that you are me.
You edited your own comments after I responded.
Your original comment and my original "Your opinion is clear cut. Thank you so much." reply: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986805141
You then edited your own comment to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986805256
I would not have replied to this revision of yours as I did to your original so I too edited my response to.
"Then act like it": https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986806258 Gold333 ( talk) 04:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
You then twice attempted to impersonate me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986806832
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986808900
Impersonate me again and I am reporting you for harassment. Gold333 ( talk) 04:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Reported to ANI-notice: There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic
[1]. Thank you.
Gold333 (
talk)
05:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa: - working on the map now. Amitchell125 ( talk) 15:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
An RV that came under suspicion for reeking of meth, echoing with screams or driving on the wrong side of the road would be a "subsequent suspicious RV". But one catching heat for doing a thing that's only considered suspicious as a consequence of the main subject doing it similarly is a "subsequently suspicious RV". But don't get me wrong, you're also right. I appreciate and respect that! Just saying, think about it. InedibleHulk ( talk) 13:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ TompaDompa: just saw your edit on the Portuguese Empire, is there any exception to that rule on the Spanish Empire? Because I tried to do the same with that article and a user did revert it for no reason. Average Portuguese Joe ( talk) 13:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Spanish Empire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Confine this to the talk page, please. -
Donald Albury
14:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Stop your crazy disruption of World Language article. I am going to undo all the edits you made and restore the article to how it was before. Come to the talk section to discuss. Dajo767 ( talk) 02:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
TompaDompa -
Further to my comments and question in "Talk/World Languages > Two categories?" - here are a few extracts from various sites which may be worth considering as we try to come to some sort of 'equilibrium':
1. I think it's important to retain the English>French>Spanish>Portuguese>other languages hierarchy to accurately reflect the sources - TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC).
2. I would categorize and phrase it like this: English is universally considered a world language. French is generally, usually, or often considered a world language. Spanish is occasionally or sometimes considered a world language. Portuguese is rarely considered a world language. The other languages are generally not considered world languages. TompaDompa (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
3. I'd prefer the following labels: English: universally (in all sources that accept the idea of there being such a thing as a world language); French: generally or usually (in all sources that use the term "world language" in the plural); Spanish: mostly (in most sources that use the term "world language" in the plural); Portuguese: often (still in the majority of sources that use the term "world language" in the plural); The others: occasionally or sometimes (in a minority of sources). Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
4. That^ works for me. TompaDompa (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
5. In: Wikipedia - Global language system [de Swaan]: English is described as'hypercentral' --- At the second highest level, 13 [>12] supercentral languages are very widely spoken languages that serve as connectors between speakers of central languages: Arabic, Chinese, ... French, German, Hindustani, Japanese, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili and Turkish...[Dutch is not mentioned].
and:
6. Pyramid of languages of the world This pyramid illustrates the hierarchy of the world's languages as proposed by Graddol (1997) in his book, 'The future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century', published by the British Council: The big languages: English, French. Regional languages (languages of the United Nations are marked with asterisk): Arabic*, Mandarin*, English*, French*, German, Russian*, Spanish* and Portuguese..[Dutch, Hindi, Malay, Swahili, and Japanese are not mentioned].
7. Also in Wikipedia: Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) ... is a term used mostly by Western linguists to refer to the variety of standardized, literary Arabic that developed in the Arab world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is the language used in academia, print and mass media, law and legislation, though it is generally not spoken as a mother tongue... MSA is a pluricentric standard language taught throughout the Arab world in formal education. It differs significantly from many vernacular varieties of Arabic that are commonly spoken as mother tongues in the area; these are only partially mutually intelligible with both MSA and with each other depending on their proximity in the Arabic dialect continuum.
Regards, David Mc -- DLMcN ( talk) 07:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
References
If reliable sources do this [5] (devote significant amounts of prose to reactions), there's no reason to think it is unreasonable for us to do so. Biosthmors ( talk) 02:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Your edit [6] on Talk:2021 Boulder shooting has an old date for it's signature, I assume from a previous reply you copy/pasted. WikiVirus C (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi TompaDompa, I have reverted all of your edits to the page List of highest-grossing R-rated films. All of your edits has damaged the fluidity of the page. Your edits are not at all correct. All of the reference added to the film Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train was discussed back in the talk page with User: Betty Logan. With discussion being successful, I added the reference and Betty has even thanked me for my edits. He didn't termed my edits as original research. It was accepted by all. You should induce in editing the whole as per your own will. Minor changes like box office count update and adding new film to table is acceptable but changing the entire page is like insulting and negleing the edits of others. These edits were already accepted by all. If you want to check that your edits are correct then better use your sandbox and then discussed back with the talk page before change the contents of the article. I hope in future you won't make any mistake. Thank you. いちか かすが ( talk) 16:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at List of highest-grossing R-rated films and Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. いちか かすが ( talk) 17:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The whole Demon Slayer box office numbers is very up in the air due to various ways of converting. You cited the source of Crunchyroll that has the worldwide gross at $414,385,913. Let us assume that this was the valid amount. This source was published on April 05, 2 weeks ago. Since then there has been further grosses in Japan, South Korea, among regions. I highly doubt that the gross did not increase since the Crunchyroll article (or are you saying that the gross was even lower on the date of the article's reporting date?) I won't get into whether the conversion is correct, just the fact that the source cited is 2 weeks old and most likely does not accurately reflect the total gross even by the standard that Crunchyroll was following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsmaybeLP92 ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk)
21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi TompaDompa, I just came across this edit, where you closed an SPI yourself; I know it may seem silly in some cases, but we generally reserve this for clerks and admins because additional cleanup might be needed – in this case, I've now tagged the sock and requested a global lock. Thanks and best, Blablubbs| talk 19:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I want you to stop removing the template attached to the World Language. i do not want to discuss with you because you are a very difficult person to engage in a productive debate. So I am just going to say this - do not remove that template on the World Language. Goodbye. Full stop. Dajo767 ( talk) 07:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLUS ULTRA CARLOS ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
PLUS ULTRA CARLOS. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
As indicated, you seem obsessed with my contributions which you folloW to simply delete my edits. The last in the infobox empire is self-explanatory. Game over, ma cherie
Hello, I'm
PLUS ULTRA CARLOS. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
Recently, you remove a sub-section of a Box Office (Japan) from the page Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train. I would like to know where do you want to place these promotion events. Catropst Benzt ( talk) 10:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Are you trying to get rid of all the former monarchy articles? I don't necessarily have a problem with that. China's former monarchy is less notable than those of Russia or Italy, which have already been deleted. But I do question some of your edit summaries. "The end of the empire is really the end of the story." Say what? It is a "former throne" article. The end of the empire is when the story starts. "Line of succession" might not be exactly the right phrase. But we can come up with something better. It is not a reason to delete an entire section. If "heir" or "successor" is the terminology used in the sources, it is valid for Wikipedia to follow that. After all the recent subtractions, the article is little more than a stub at this point.
I brought this article back to life when I noticed someone had blanked it soon after an AfD had resolve to keep it. Later, I noticed that many other former throne have been deleted recently. What's going on with the French ones? We can make up an AfD for the three remaining former throne articles. 99to99 ( talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Puyi had one heir with respect to Manchukou and another with respect to China– the fact of the matter is that he had an heir with respect to the Manchukuo throne (until it ceased to exist in 1945) and no heir with respect to the Chinese throne at that point in time. Manchukuo wasn't a continuation of the Qing Empire. The succession to the Manchukuo throne is consequently WP:OFFTOPIC when it comes to succession to the Chinese throne. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
If this article were to present "the current line of succession" to the Qing dynasty throne and go through AfD, it would be deleted.). If we simply remove the ahistorical nonsense parts about succession post-abolition of the monarchy, we have solved the problem. TompaDompa ( talk) 05:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the first and last time I am warning you against frequently disputing edits in the page of Demon Slayer Mugen Train without any mode of discussion just randomly removing statement shows that you are possessing the article and your account was created for single purpose. Don't disturb the success of the film with your own edits. The film has changed history of Cinema in Japan. Many Japanese user cited this article to tell people that how the film has changed Japan. Random making edits to hurt the sentiments of Japanese History might lead to arrest by law of land if your location is/are collected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.203.145.225 ( talk) 04:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I request you to hold a discussion before making any more edits. Your edits seem to be a conflict for many IP Users. Hope that you do not raise any more problems. Catropst Benzt ( talk) 05:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/1347949/box/ use this as source for Demon SLayer movie worldwide gross
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Thank you for your handling of the situation with the Demon Slayer movie article. It was this editor's first encounter with a non-obvious spam/vandalism-type situation, and it was very uplifting to see your arrival bring order to a silly misuse of Wikipedia Horsesizedduck ( talk) 19:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC) |
If I understand your argument correctly, everything that touches on Manchuria and Manchoukou needs to be removed because such things don't belong to an article about Chinese succession. You are aware that Puyi and the other Qing emperors were Manchu? The movie about Puyi's life is entitled The Last Emperor. Everyone understood that to mean last emperor of China. No one thinks of Puyi as the last emperor of Manchukou. You are not contributing anything to the article, just massively blanking sections. If you don't like the article, let's see you do your thing at AfD. 99to99 ( talk) 17:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First of based on your talk page's history, you doesn't response to enquires of no. of IP Users and Wikipedia User which agrue with your edits in Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train. Either you wait for Adminstrator to block or let your Wikipedia Toolkit ClueBot III to archived the thread. Proof of your zero response. [20] [21] [22] [23] Once the users are blocked you placed a edit summary meaning to say you cannot response to the user which are blocked. [24]
Now I am summarising all the problem of your edits in the mentioned page.
'grosses for select markets in prose
' on
Talk:Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train.Although I also felt that the box office details for each country are becoming too excessive, I do not agree to delete two tables for worldwide and Japanese box office performance, because MOJO or The Numbers lacks data for Taiwan (3rd most earned) and Thailand, and the box office performance in Japan is the historical one.
For the total box office gross in the US and Canada, both MOJO and The Numbers are not doing their jobs, where several weekday counts are not properly added for the DS.
things were written like promotion and advertasing
. None of the user added statement like : 50% off on first day booking.
or It's a special limited edition available only for a day.
(example)Numerous tie-in merchandise related to the film have been sold in Japan. While combining both the box office collections and merchandise sales, the film has generated total sales of over ¥50 billion ($480 million) in Japan, as of 4 December 2020.
This indiscriminate undoing of 274 edits by over a dozen different users reintroduces a whole host of issues, including non-WP:NEUTRAL language, outright WP:PLAGIARISM, and in general a large part of it just being extremely poorly written. That's rather disruptive. I suggest discussing the specifics of what you think should be re-added on the talk page.
You didn't value other experience user edits like
Orichalcum and
User:Maestro2016, the entire contribution of
User:Ichika Kasuga was removed. Before placing this summary atleast think how much you have depressed these users.Agree:
Phano Mie ( talk) 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
We are perfectly capable of writing the grosses for select markets in prose, as is already done for e.g. the US and Canada.in response to the point about Box Office Mojo and The Numbers not having figures for Taiwan and Thailand—and indeed the version of the article prior to your indiscriminate reversion said
It became the highest-grossing animated film of all time in Taiwan by grossing NT$360 million (US$12.6 million) in 17 days after its release and went on to gross NT$634 million in total. It also became the highest-grossing anime film in several markets, including [...] Thailand where it surpassed the previous record held by Your Name during the first weekend and went on to gross ฿124 million, and you'll see TropicAces and Link20XX agreeing with me that the tables you re-added are detrimental to the article's overall quality. It's not just me taking issue with these things (though I am the main one to perform the edits), is what I'm getting at.Your concerns ring a bit hollow to me considering you indiscriminately undid 274 edits by over a dozen different editors, rather than selectively re-adding that which you think ought not to have been removed. They also ring a bit hollow to me since you completely ignored the existing talk page discussion and reinstated your changes after being reverted and asked to take it to the talk page. Lastly, they ring hollow to me because you re-added a lot of content by blocked users, including Catropst Benzt who was WP:CheckUser blocked for (among other things) WP:Undisclosed paid editing. Do you appreciate the significance of a major contributor to this article having engaged in undisclosed paid editing? Do you understand that by reinstating those edits, you take complete responsibility for them per WP:PROXYING?All in all, reverting to this WP:PLAGIARISM-ridden, WP:UPE-laden, terribly poorly written version of the article was extremely disruptive of you, to an extent I don't think you fully appreciate. I am going to revert to the shorter version without these massive issues, and I implore you to discuss it on the article's talk page instead of WP:Edit warring. TompaDompa ( talk) 12:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, can I ask you something? Fortunewriter ( talk) 09:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Authors with Jr. should be cited as "|last=[Last Name] |first=[First Name][Jr.]". Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 15:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
On 7 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Deseret (film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that James Benning's 1995 experimental documentary film Deseret chronicles 140 years of the history of Utah by way of 93 New York Times excerpts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Deseret (film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Deseret (film)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
Well done rescuing and rewriting a number of low quality articles. Keep up the good job! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) |
Why have you turned many reliably-sourced articles about major insurgent attacks, with double digit death tolls, into redirects? You've given your only reason in edit summaries as content fork, but none of them are that. They're all easily notable enough for articles in their own right & have info in them that isn't in the articles which you've redirected them to. You don't appear to have started any discussions in relation to any of the articles, so there's no consensus for the major changes you've made. Jim Michael ( talk) 15:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
andThe reason I redirected these particular attacks is that the articles were stubs and the attacks were covered in other articles in about as much detail (or rather with more or less the same amount of quality content), making the stubs unnecessary WP:Content forks. If the articles can be expanded and reach a higher level of quality, I would of course be in favour of doing so rather than redirecting them, but having a large number of articles that could be summarized in a paragraph on a larger article is not in my opinion helpful – it just makes it more difficult to maintain the content.
TompaDompa ( talk) 15:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)The way I see it, we shouldn't have terrorism stubs if the content can be included in an article with a broader scope. Nor should we have list articles or WP:Proseline articles (e.g. List of 2021 Afghanistan attacks or Boko Haram insurgency, respectively) if the content can be summarized—as opposed to enumerated—in prose form. In short, we shouldn't have articles of poor quality. A major part of the problem is that basing articles on news articles does not make for quality content, it (typically) makes for poorly-written, surface-level articles. Sometimes these articles can be salvaged by copyediting to bring them up to at least an adequate standard of quality—I brought 2001 bomb plot in Europe from this state to this state a few years ago, for example—but often the problem is that the sources that would be needed to create a quality article (let alone a high-quality article) simply don't exist. Ideally, we should be using
secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts(to borrow a phrasing from a completely unrelated portion of WP:BLP), but the articles are of course usually written/updated when no such sources yet exist (and sometimes, those types of sources never materialize at all). I think we would be better off if we applied WP:NEWSEVENT much more strictly than we do at present, especially as it pertains to WP:DEPTH and WP:DURATION of coverage.
Thanks for that TompaDompa. Fyi, I was intending to ping you, but when I went to User:TompaDompa, you appeared to have achieved an enviable degree of anonymity. I obviously should have looked a bit further. Remembering to sign here, 86.186.155.146 ( talk) 08:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Immortality in fiction you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Whiteguru --
Whiteguru (
talk)
01:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The article
Immortality in fiction you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Immortality in fiction for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Whiteguru --
Whiteguru (
talk)
01:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be on a spree of removing information from Infoboxes witn the edit summary “unsourced”. Stop it. Generally, infoboxes are not required to have citations because, like the lead, they can rely on cited material in the body of the article. Furthermore WP:V makes it clear that lack of citation in and of itself is not a reason to remove material. You have to have a reason to challenge it i.e. disbelieve the information. the reason for the disbelief should appear in the edit summary. if you don’t want to be blocked for disruptive editing I suggest you follow a different approach. DeCausa ( talk) 19:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.and
Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.and
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.Historical area and population figures are precisely the kind of material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged because ascertaining them is notoriously difficult for scholars to do (increasingly so the further back in time one goes) and the figures they arrive at are usually not uncontroversial due to the inherent uncertainty in the estimates, and furthermore because editors coming up with such figures through WP:Original research and/or claiming that sources verify those figures when in fact they do not is unfortunately not uncommon. Even if that weren't the case, I have challenged those figures by removing them. I suppose I could have been more elaborate in my edit summaries by writing something along the lines of
Removing unsourced historical area and/or population figures—a type of data that is inherently suspect due to the uncertainty of the estimates and the tendency of editors to add WP:Original research—per WP:CHALLENGE. Do not restore without citing a WP:Reliable source that explicitly WP:Verifies the figures., but I figured that people would recognize that by removing unsourced material while noting in the edit summary that the material was unsourced I was indeed challenging the verifiability of the material in question. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.directly contradicts your assertion that
WP:CHALLENGE isn’t a licence to remove material only because it lacks a citation.And clearly, I'm a lot more skeptical about these figures in general than you are; "it's plausible" or "seems about right" simply isn't good enough for me, because experience has taught me that a lot of these figures that "seem about right" to a lot of people are actually way off when compared to what WP:Reliable sources say. What's more, I don't expect that all these figures were added by editors who found them in reliable sources they failed to cite, I expect that these figures are the products of WP:Original research—which is itself a reason to remove the content because original research is not allowed.My general view on this is summarized fairly well by Wikipedia's WP:Editing policy:
Unsourced content may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content—Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia depends on the content in articles being verifiable and reliable.TompaDompa ( talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
When you are removing information from state templates as you did at South Kasai, please do not remove the entire parameter; it makes it harder to back and fill in the information. - Indy beetle ( talk) 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
On 10 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Immortality in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the concept of immortality has been featured in fiction since fiction's oldest known work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Immortality in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Immortality in fiction), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.
— Maile ( talk) 00:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Your close at NSPORT: Tennis: remove Fed Cup and Davis Cup from criteria does not seem to be sound and I believe you should reexamine your closure. We had 8 folks for an 6 against changes.... that's not consensus be any stretch to change long-standing consensus. And it was looking like "narrowing" was starting to gain traction. Please re-open or close with no consensus to change. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 07:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
If a criteria does not reliably indicate that a person has almost certainly received significant writing about their lives in reliable sources (beyond trivial mentions) then it isn't serving as a proper criteria for an SNG.This formed the main argument for removal; Fram likewise remarked that
it looks as if for many players, having played in these cups doesn't really guarantee sufficient coverage at allin their opening argument, RandomCanadian said
The SNG is not adequate, since it does not adequately act as a reliable indicator of meeting GNG (that is the only and single purpose of an SNG - it's not an alternative to GNG)., and Tvx1 made the somewhat more specific argument that
players meeting the GNG will already meet one of the other criteria and those who don't meet any of the other but just this one do not meet GNG.Considering that WP:NSPORT does indeed say
The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline., I determined that argument to hold a lot of weight. I consequently expected the editors who favoured keeping the status quo to rebut that argument. The only real attempt at doing so came from Iffy, who said
The players who play in the Davis/Fed cup are usually the best in the country and receive significant local coverage, to the point that even the top players from countries that don't play in the Davis/Fed cup meet GNG (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Adegoke). The small number of possible exceptions found so far don't justify gutting or removing the SNG.and
the very top tennis players from most countries usually do meet GNG, and the simplest way to identify those top players is to check whether they've played in the Davis cup or the Fed cup, which is the whole point of having these SNGs in the first place.I found that to be a comparatively weak counterargument, relying fairly heavily on generalizations and qualifiers ("most", "usually").
players meeting the GNG will already meet one of the other criteria(and Joseph2302 made basically the same point:
Most notable tennis players will satisfy one of the other criteria anyway.). This is not an argument for removal in itself, but it does weaken arguments for keeping "to be on the safe side" (such as
There may be a few that shouldn't be notable, but that doesn't mean mean with throw out the baby with the bathwater.). The second half—
those who don't meet any of the other but just this one do not meet GNG—is both an argument for removal and something that weakens arguments for keeping "to be on the safe side", but it seems like Iffy disputes this part of the argument (even if the part about not meeting any other criteria was not explicitly specified, it seems likely enough that that's what they meant that I can't say that it's undisputed).
Now International players in any sport playing official matches are notable.), which is not a counterargument against the main argument for removal at all.The possibility of restricting the criteria for presuming notability to some specified subset of those who have played in these cups was raised (specifically, the suggestion was to restrict it to those who have played in the main tournament), but this was not sufficiently discussed for consensus to emerge either for or against it. It does however seem likely that consensus would emerge one way or the other if this were to be discussed separately, rather than as a part of this discussion.The discussion was opened on 31 August. The consensus was correctly interpreted and implemented by RandomCanadian on 6 October, when there had been no new comments since 23 September. That was entirely proper even though they were involved in the discussion; the discussion had come to a natural conclusion and the consensus was clear. That was however quickly reverted, a WP:Closure request was posted, and a notice was added to WT:TENNIS. Then, three new editors including you joined the discussion within a few hours of each other. None of these editors addressed the core argument made in favour of removal—not predicting meeting WP:GNG strongly enough—and their contributions consequently did not materially affect the consensus.I really have no personal opinion on this particular WP:SNG, but the WP:CONSENSUS based on the strength of the arguments was clear. If you think wider community input is necessary, I have no opinion on that either. But I also don't think that is an issue with how or when the discussion was closed. When I closed the discussion, no new editors had joined the discussion in roughly three and a half days (and the last ones who joined did so very shortly after the notice was posted to WT:TENNIS) and there had been no new comments at all for over 60 hours. I saw no reason to expect any significant influx of additional editors or arguments.I'll crosspost a slightly edited version of this to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Tennis: remove Fed Cup and Davis Cup from criteria?, and I think that any further discussion should happen there rather than here. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm seeing myself getting pinged a bit here. My advice here for
TompaDompa is to be more detailed when writing the initial closing summary. The brief summary of Consensus is that having played in these cups does not predict meeting
WP:GNG strongly enough to justify presuming notability based solely thereon
isn't enough except in
extremely clear cases. In general, it's a good idea to list out the main arguments given for and against particular proposals, at minimum, when they're relatively contested. Something I learned when making
non-admin closes early on was that non-admin closes get an extra amount of scrutiny compared to admins (for better or for worse). It's often better to just lay out the reasoning up front so that these sorts of reactions to short closing summaries don't take up lots of time on a talk page. In a more altruistic sense, it helps to be transparent so that others can understand your reasoning and apply it in similar contexts going forward. That being said, if
Fyunck(click) would like to open up a
challenge to the close on
WP:AN, the editor would be free to do so if they believe that the closure is not a reasonable summation of the discussion. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
00:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Please check: [25]. -- Znuddel ( talk) 02:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa thats fine. It just seemed to me at the time that like the other noun based wars (Poverty, Cancer, Drugs etc.) it was really ill defined but I'll concede it's probably what it's most known as by now. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you redirect many Embassy of India articles. Was there any discussion related to massive move? I did not find any talk page discussions or notes other than copy-paste summary for all articles. There was referenced information on all pages. Can you please elaborate reasoning behind it? India-xyz country bilateral page could have been a better choice if redirect was needed? AbhiSuryawanshi ( talk) 15:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.I don't know if the sources exist to expand the embassy articles into full-length articles, but considering the state the articles were in when I came across them, it seemed better to redirect them, at least for now. All that said, my edits were bold and can be reverted by anyone who disagrees with them. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The colon/asterisk sequencing that existed before you changed it in this edit was totally compliant (it's the usage with the third green check). -- JBL ( talk) 21:34, 26 October 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 4 | Archive 5 |
Just a quick note that an editor has asked for opinions on improving the navbox {{ Infectious disease}}. The discussion is here. I saw you've edited it several times, so I thought I'd let you know. I hope you're staying well. Ajpolino ( talk) 15:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you recently removed the lead image of the map of the British Empire that I added to the List of largest empires article. I'm hoping that this is a relatively short discussion between us. I'd like to respectfully present some of my opinions.
I want to make clear that I have no inherent problem with making a map of the Mongol Empire as the lead image of any relevant article. I think if you looked at my edit history you would find that I have a great amount of interest in that empire and time period. But of course I do have some concerns about the Mongol Empire map being used as the lead image for the List of largest empires article because it seems rather obvious to me that the largest empire on that list should be the lead image. - TrynaMakeADollar ( talk) 07:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the article should have only a map of the largest empire of all time. It overemphasizes the top entry to detriment of all other entries. I also don't think that the gallery this article used to have was a particularly good solution. A single map which combines the top two entries would be a good compromise, though having no map whatsoever is also a perfectly valid option.
There's no reason a map of both empires would need to get cluttered. The map you added of the British Empire is fairly cluttered, but that's mostly because there is a bunch of text. It wouldn't be particularly difficult to create a map of both empires which is colour-coded such that we can simply write "The British Empire (red) and Mongol Empire (green) were the largest and second-largest empire, respectively" in the caption—the overlap is minimal and easily solved with shading. I just happen to lack the skills to make such a map. I'll make a request over at WP:GLMAP. TompaDompa ( talk) 12:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Never write text pretending that you are me.
You edited your own comments after I responded.
Your original comment and my original "Your opinion is clear cut. Thank you so much." reply: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986805141
You then edited your own comment to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986805256
I would not have replied to this revision of yours as I did to your original so I too edited my response to.
"Then act like it": https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986806258 Gold333 ( talk) 04:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
You then twice attempted to impersonate me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986806832
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986808900
Impersonate me again and I am reporting you for harassment. Gold333 ( talk) 04:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Reported to ANI-notice: There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic
[1]. Thank you.
Gold333 (
talk)
05:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa: - working on the map now. Amitchell125 ( talk) 15:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
An RV that came under suspicion for reeking of meth, echoing with screams or driving on the wrong side of the road would be a "subsequent suspicious RV". But one catching heat for doing a thing that's only considered suspicious as a consequence of the main subject doing it similarly is a "subsequently suspicious RV". But don't get me wrong, you're also right. I appreciate and respect that! Just saying, think about it. InedibleHulk ( talk) 13:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ TompaDompa: just saw your edit on the Portuguese Empire, is there any exception to that rule on the Spanish Empire? Because I tried to do the same with that article and a user did revert it for no reason. Average Portuguese Joe ( talk) 13:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Spanish Empire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Confine this to the talk page, please. -
Donald Albury
14:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Stop your crazy disruption of World Language article. I am going to undo all the edits you made and restore the article to how it was before. Come to the talk section to discuss. Dajo767 ( talk) 02:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
TompaDompa -
Further to my comments and question in "Talk/World Languages > Two categories?" - here are a few extracts from various sites which may be worth considering as we try to come to some sort of 'equilibrium':
1. I think it's important to retain the English>French>Spanish>Portuguese>other languages hierarchy to accurately reflect the sources - TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC).
2. I would categorize and phrase it like this: English is universally considered a world language. French is generally, usually, or often considered a world language. Spanish is occasionally or sometimes considered a world language. Portuguese is rarely considered a world language. The other languages are generally not considered world languages. TompaDompa (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
3. I'd prefer the following labels: English: universally (in all sources that accept the idea of there being such a thing as a world language); French: generally or usually (in all sources that use the term "world language" in the plural); Spanish: mostly (in most sources that use the term "world language" in the plural); Portuguese: often (still in the majority of sources that use the term "world language" in the plural); The others: occasionally or sometimes (in a minority of sources). Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
4. That^ works for me. TompaDompa (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
5. In: Wikipedia - Global language system [de Swaan]: English is described as'hypercentral' --- At the second highest level, 13 [>12] supercentral languages are very widely spoken languages that serve as connectors between speakers of central languages: Arabic, Chinese, ... French, German, Hindustani, Japanese, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili and Turkish...[Dutch is not mentioned].
and:
6. Pyramid of languages of the world This pyramid illustrates the hierarchy of the world's languages as proposed by Graddol (1997) in his book, 'The future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century', published by the British Council: The big languages: English, French. Regional languages (languages of the United Nations are marked with asterisk): Arabic*, Mandarin*, English*, French*, German, Russian*, Spanish* and Portuguese..[Dutch, Hindi, Malay, Swahili, and Japanese are not mentioned].
7. Also in Wikipedia: Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) ... is a term used mostly by Western linguists to refer to the variety of standardized, literary Arabic that developed in the Arab world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is the language used in academia, print and mass media, law and legislation, though it is generally not spoken as a mother tongue... MSA is a pluricentric standard language taught throughout the Arab world in formal education. It differs significantly from many vernacular varieties of Arabic that are commonly spoken as mother tongues in the area; these are only partially mutually intelligible with both MSA and with each other depending on their proximity in the Arabic dialect continuum.
Regards, David Mc -- DLMcN ( talk) 07:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
References
If reliable sources do this [5] (devote significant amounts of prose to reactions), there's no reason to think it is unreasonable for us to do so. Biosthmors ( talk) 02:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Your edit [6] on Talk:2021 Boulder shooting has an old date for it's signature, I assume from a previous reply you copy/pasted. WikiVirus C (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi TompaDompa, I have reverted all of your edits to the page List of highest-grossing R-rated films. All of your edits has damaged the fluidity of the page. Your edits are not at all correct. All of the reference added to the film Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train was discussed back in the talk page with User: Betty Logan. With discussion being successful, I added the reference and Betty has even thanked me for my edits. He didn't termed my edits as original research. It was accepted by all. You should induce in editing the whole as per your own will. Minor changes like box office count update and adding new film to table is acceptable but changing the entire page is like insulting and negleing the edits of others. These edits were already accepted by all. If you want to check that your edits are correct then better use your sandbox and then discussed back with the talk page before change the contents of the article. I hope in future you won't make any mistake. Thank you. いちか かすが ( talk) 16:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at List of highest-grossing R-rated films and Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. いちか かすが ( talk) 17:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The whole Demon Slayer box office numbers is very up in the air due to various ways of converting. You cited the source of Crunchyroll that has the worldwide gross at $414,385,913. Let us assume that this was the valid amount. This source was published on April 05, 2 weeks ago. Since then there has been further grosses in Japan, South Korea, among regions. I highly doubt that the gross did not increase since the Crunchyroll article (or are you saying that the gross was even lower on the date of the article's reporting date?) I won't get into whether the conversion is correct, just the fact that the source cited is 2 weeks old and most likely does not accurately reflect the total gross even by the standard that Crunchyroll was following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsmaybeLP92 ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk)
21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi TompaDompa, I just came across this edit, where you closed an SPI yourself; I know it may seem silly in some cases, but we generally reserve this for clerks and admins because additional cleanup might be needed – in this case, I've now tagged the sock and requested a global lock. Thanks and best, Blablubbs| talk 19:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I want you to stop removing the template attached to the World Language. i do not want to discuss with you because you are a very difficult person to engage in a productive debate. So I am just going to say this - do not remove that template on the World Language. Goodbye. Full stop. Dajo767 ( talk) 07:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLUS ULTRA CARLOS ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
PLUS ULTRA CARLOS. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
As indicated, you seem obsessed with my contributions which you folloW to simply delete my edits. The last in the infobox empire is self-explanatory. Game over, ma cherie
Hello, I'm
PLUS ULTRA CARLOS. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse. Thanks.
Recently, you remove a sub-section of a Box Office (Japan) from the page Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train. I would like to know where do you want to place these promotion events. Catropst Benzt ( talk) 10:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Are you trying to get rid of all the former monarchy articles? I don't necessarily have a problem with that. China's former monarchy is less notable than those of Russia or Italy, which have already been deleted. But I do question some of your edit summaries. "The end of the empire is really the end of the story." Say what? It is a "former throne" article. The end of the empire is when the story starts. "Line of succession" might not be exactly the right phrase. But we can come up with something better. It is not a reason to delete an entire section. If "heir" or "successor" is the terminology used in the sources, it is valid for Wikipedia to follow that. After all the recent subtractions, the article is little more than a stub at this point.
I brought this article back to life when I noticed someone had blanked it soon after an AfD had resolve to keep it. Later, I noticed that many other former throne have been deleted recently. What's going on with the French ones? We can make up an AfD for the three remaining former throne articles. 99to99 ( talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Puyi had one heir with respect to Manchukou and another with respect to China– the fact of the matter is that he had an heir with respect to the Manchukuo throne (until it ceased to exist in 1945) and no heir with respect to the Chinese throne at that point in time. Manchukuo wasn't a continuation of the Qing Empire. The succession to the Manchukuo throne is consequently WP:OFFTOPIC when it comes to succession to the Chinese throne. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
If this article were to present "the current line of succession" to the Qing dynasty throne and go through AfD, it would be deleted.). If we simply remove the ahistorical nonsense parts about succession post-abolition of the monarchy, we have solved the problem. TompaDompa ( talk) 05:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the first and last time I am warning you against frequently disputing edits in the page of Demon Slayer Mugen Train without any mode of discussion just randomly removing statement shows that you are possessing the article and your account was created for single purpose. Don't disturb the success of the film with your own edits. The film has changed history of Cinema in Japan. Many Japanese user cited this article to tell people that how the film has changed Japan. Random making edits to hurt the sentiments of Japanese History might lead to arrest by law of land if your location is/are collected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.203.145.225 ( talk) 04:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I request you to hold a discussion before making any more edits. Your edits seem to be a conflict for many IP Users. Hope that you do not raise any more problems. Catropst Benzt ( talk) 05:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/1347949/box/ use this as source for Demon SLayer movie worldwide gross
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Thank you for your handling of the situation with the Demon Slayer movie article. It was this editor's first encounter with a non-obvious spam/vandalism-type situation, and it was very uplifting to see your arrival bring order to a silly misuse of Wikipedia Horsesizedduck ( talk) 19:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC) |
If I understand your argument correctly, everything that touches on Manchuria and Manchoukou needs to be removed because such things don't belong to an article about Chinese succession. You are aware that Puyi and the other Qing emperors were Manchu? The movie about Puyi's life is entitled The Last Emperor. Everyone understood that to mean last emperor of China. No one thinks of Puyi as the last emperor of Manchukou. You are not contributing anything to the article, just massively blanking sections. If you don't like the article, let's see you do your thing at AfD. 99to99 ( talk) 17:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First of based on your talk page's history, you doesn't response to enquires of no. of IP Users and Wikipedia User which agrue with your edits in Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train. Either you wait for Adminstrator to block or let your Wikipedia Toolkit ClueBot III to archived the thread. Proof of your zero response. [20] [21] [22] [23] Once the users are blocked you placed a edit summary meaning to say you cannot response to the user which are blocked. [24]
Now I am summarising all the problem of your edits in the mentioned page.
'grosses for select markets in prose
' on
Talk:Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train.Although I also felt that the box office details for each country are becoming too excessive, I do not agree to delete two tables for worldwide and Japanese box office performance, because MOJO or The Numbers lacks data for Taiwan (3rd most earned) and Thailand, and the box office performance in Japan is the historical one.
For the total box office gross in the US and Canada, both MOJO and The Numbers are not doing their jobs, where several weekday counts are not properly added for the DS.
things were written like promotion and advertasing
. None of the user added statement like : 50% off on first day booking.
or It's a special limited edition available only for a day.
(example)Numerous tie-in merchandise related to the film have been sold in Japan. While combining both the box office collections and merchandise sales, the film has generated total sales of over ¥50 billion ($480 million) in Japan, as of 4 December 2020.
This indiscriminate undoing of 274 edits by over a dozen different users reintroduces a whole host of issues, including non-WP:NEUTRAL language, outright WP:PLAGIARISM, and in general a large part of it just being extremely poorly written. That's rather disruptive. I suggest discussing the specifics of what you think should be re-added on the talk page.
You didn't value other experience user edits like
Orichalcum and
User:Maestro2016, the entire contribution of
User:Ichika Kasuga was removed. Before placing this summary atleast think how much you have depressed these users.Agree:
Phano Mie ( talk) 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
We are perfectly capable of writing the grosses for select markets in prose, as is already done for e.g. the US and Canada.in response to the point about Box Office Mojo and The Numbers not having figures for Taiwan and Thailand—and indeed the version of the article prior to your indiscriminate reversion said
It became the highest-grossing animated film of all time in Taiwan by grossing NT$360 million (US$12.6 million) in 17 days after its release and went on to gross NT$634 million in total. It also became the highest-grossing anime film in several markets, including [...] Thailand where it surpassed the previous record held by Your Name during the first weekend and went on to gross ฿124 million, and you'll see TropicAces and Link20XX agreeing with me that the tables you re-added are detrimental to the article's overall quality. It's not just me taking issue with these things (though I am the main one to perform the edits), is what I'm getting at.Your concerns ring a bit hollow to me considering you indiscriminately undid 274 edits by over a dozen different editors, rather than selectively re-adding that which you think ought not to have been removed. They also ring a bit hollow to me since you completely ignored the existing talk page discussion and reinstated your changes after being reverted and asked to take it to the talk page. Lastly, they ring hollow to me because you re-added a lot of content by blocked users, including Catropst Benzt who was WP:CheckUser blocked for (among other things) WP:Undisclosed paid editing. Do you appreciate the significance of a major contributor to this article having engaged in undisclosed paid editing? Do you understand that by reinstating those edits, you take complete responsibility for them per WP:PROXYING?All in all, reverting to this WP:PLAGIARISM-ridden, WP:UPE-laden, terribly poorly written version of the article was extremely disruptive of you, to an extent I don't think you fully appreciate. I am going to revert to the shorter version without these massive issues, and I implore you to discuss it on the article's talk page instead of WP:Edit warring. TompaDompa ( talk) 12:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, can I ask you something? Fortunewriter ( talk) 09:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Authors with Jr. should be cited as "|last=[Last Name] |first=[First Name][Jr.]". Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 15:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
On 7 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Deseret (film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that James Benning's 1995 experimental documentary film Deseret chronicles 140 years of the history of Utah by way of 93 New York Times excerpts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Deseret (film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Deseret (film)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
Well done rescuing and rewriting a number of low quality articles. Keep up the good job! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) |
Why have you turned many reliably-sourced articles about major insurgent attacks, with double digit death tolls, into redirects? You've given your only reason in edit summaries as content fork, but none of them are that. They're all easily notable enough for articles in their own right & have info in them that isn't in the articles which you've redirected them to. You don't appear to have started any discussions in relation to any of the articles, so there's no consensus for the major changes you've made. Jim Michael ( talk) 15:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
andThe reason I redirected these particular attacks is that the articles were stubs and the attacks were covered in other articles in about as much detail (or rather with more or less the same amount of quality content), making the stubs unnecessary WP:Content forks. If the articles can be expanded and reach a higher level of quality, I would of course be in favour of doing so rather than redirecting them, but having a large number of articles that could be summarized in a paragraph on a larger article is not in my opinion helpful – it just makes it more difficult to maintain the content.
TompaDompa ( talk) 15:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)The way I see it, we shouldn't have terrorism stubs if the content can be included in an article with a broader scope. Nor should we have list articles or WP:Proseline articles (e.g. List of 2021 Afghanistan attacks or Boko Haram insurgency, respectively) if the content can be summarized—as opposed to enumerated—in prose form. In short, we shouldn't have articles of poor quality. A major part of the problem is that basing articles on news articles does not make for quality content, it (typically) makes for poorly-written, surface-level articles. Sometimes these articles can be salvaged by copyediting to bring them up to at least an adequate standard of quality—I brought 2001 bomb plot in Europe from this state to this state a few years ago, for example—but often the problem is that the sources that would be needed to create a quality article (let alone a high-quality article) simply don't exist. Ideally, we should be using
secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts(to borrow a phrasing from a completely unrelated portion of WP:BLP), but the articles are of course usually written/updated when no such sources yet exist (and sometimes, those types of sources never materialize at all). I think we would be better off if we applied WP:NEWSEVENT much more strictly than we do at present, especially as it pertains to WP:DEPTH and WP:DURATION of coverage.
Thanks for that TompaDompa. Fyi, I was intending to ping you, but when I went to User:TompaDompa, you appeared to have achieved an enviable degree of anonymity. I obviously should have looked a bit further. Remembering to sign here, 86.186.155.146 ( talk) 08:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Immortality in fiction you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Whiteguru --
Whiteguru (
talk)
01:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The article
Immortality in fiction you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Immortality in fiction for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Whiteguru --
Whiteguru (
talk)
01:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be on a spree of removing information from Infoboxes witn the edit summary “unsourced”. Stop it. Generally, infoboxes are not required to have citations because, like the lead, they can rely on cited material in the body of the article. Furthermore WP:V makes it clear that lack of citation in and of itself is not a reason to remove material. You have to have a reason to challenge it i.e. disbelieve the information. the reason for the disbelief should appear in the edit summary. if you don’t want to be blocked for disruptive editing I suggest you follow a different approach. DeCausa ( talk) 19:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.and
Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.and
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.Historical area and population figures are precisely the kind of material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged because ascertaining them is notoriously difficult for scholars to do (increasingly so the further back in time one goes) and the figures they arrive at are usually not uncontroversial due to the inherent uncertainty in the estimates, and furthermore because editors coming up with such figures through WP:Original research and/or claiming that sources verify those figures when in fact they do not is unfortunately not uncommon. Even if that weren't the case, I have challenged those figures by removing them. I suppose I could have been more elaborate in my edit summaries by writing something along the lines of
Removing unsourced historical area and/or population figures—a type of data that is inherently suspect due to the uncertainty of the estimates and the tendency of editors to add WP:Original research—per WP:CHALLENGE. Do not restore without citing a WP:Reliable source that explicitly WP:Verifies the figures., but I figured that people would recognize that by removing unsourced material while noting in the edit summary that the material was unsourced I was indeed challenging the verifiability of the material in question. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.directly contradicts your assertion that
WP:CHALLENGE isn’t a licence to remove material only because it lacks a citation.And clearly, I'm a lot more skeptical about these figures in general than you are; "it's plausible" or "seems about right" simply isn't good enough for me, because experience has taught me that a lot of these figures that "seem about right" to a lot of people are actually way off when compared to what WP:Reliable sources say. What's more, I don't expect that all these figures were added by editors who found them in reliable sources they failed to cite, I expect that these figures are the products of WP:Original research—which is itself a reason to remove the content because original research is not allowed.My general view on this is summarized fairly well by Wikipedia's WP:Editing policy:
Unsourced content may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content—Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia depends on the content in articles being verifiable and reliable.TompaDompa ( talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
When you are removing information from state templates as you did at South Kasai, please do not remove the entire parameter; it makes it harder to back and fill in the information. - Indy beetle ( talk) 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
On 10 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Immortality in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the concept of immortality has been featured in fiction since fiction's oldest known work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Immortality in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Immortality in fiction), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.
— Maile ( talk) 00:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Your close at NSPORT: Tennis: remove Fed Cup and Davis Cup from criteria does not seem to be sound and I believe you should reexamine your closure. We had 8 folks for an 6 against changes.... that's not consensus be any stretch to change long-standing consensus. And it was looking like "narrowing" was starting to gain traction. Please re-open or close with no consensus to change. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 07:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
If a criteria does not reliably indicate that a person has almost certainly received significant writing about their lives in reliable sources (beyond trivial mentions) then it isn't serving as a proper criteria for an SNG.This formed the main argument for removal; Fram likewise remarked that
it looks as if for many players, having played in these cups doesn't really guarantee sufficient coverage at allin their opening argument, RandomCanadian said
The SNG is not adequate, since it does not adequately act as a reliable indicator of meeting GNG (that is the only and single purpose of an SNG - it's not an alternative to GNG)., and Tvx1 made the somewhat more specific argument that
players meeting the GNG will already meet one of the other criteria and those who don't meet any of the other but just this one do not meet GNG.Considering that WP:NSPORT does indeed say
The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline., I determined that argument to hold a lot of weight. I consequently expected the editors who favoured keeping the status quo to rebut that argument. The only real attempt at doing so came from Iffy, who said
The players who play in the Davis/Fed cup are usually the best in the country and receive significant local coverage, to the point that even the top players from countries that don't play in the Davis/Fed cup meet GNG (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Adegoke). The small number of possible exceptions found so far don't justify gutting or removing the SNG.and
the very top tennis players from most countries usually do meet GNG, and the simplest way to identify those top players is to check whether they've played in the Davis cup or the Fed cup, which is the whole point of having these SNGs in the first place.I found that to be a comparatively weak counterargument, relying fairly heavily on generalizations and qualifiers ("most", "usually").
players meeting the GNG will already meet one of the other criteria(and Joseph2302 made basically the same point:
Most notable tennis players will satisfy one of the other criteria anyway.). This is not an argument for removal in itself, but it does weaken arguments for keeping "to be on the safe side" (such as
There may be a few that shouldn't be notable, but that doesn't mean mean with throw out the baby with the bathwater.). The second half—
those who don't meet any of the other but just this one do not meet GNG—is both an argument for removal and something that weakens arguments for keeping "to be on the safe side", but it seems like Iffy disputes this part of the argument (even if the part about not meeting any other criteria was not explicitly specified, it seems likely enough that that's what they meant that I can't say that it's undisputed).
Now International players in any sport playing official matches are notable.), which is not a counterargument against the main argument for removal at all.The possibility of restricting the criteria for presuming notability to some specified subset of those who have played in these cups was raised (specifically, the suggestion was to restrict it to those who have played in the main tournament), but this was not sufficiently discussed for consensus to emerge either for or against it. It does however seem likely that consensus would emerge one way or the other if this were to be discussed separately, rather than as a part of this discussion.The discussion was opened on 31 August. The consensus was correctly interpreted and implemented by RandomCanadian on 6 October, when there had been no new comments since 23 September. That was entirely proper even though they were involved in the discussion; the discussion had come to a natural conclusion and the consensus was clear. That was however quickly reverted, a WP:Closure request was posted, and a notice was added to WT:TENNIS. Then, three new editors including you joined the discussion within a few hours of each other. None of these editors addressed the core argument made in favour of removal—not predicting meeting WP:GNG strongly enough—and their contributions consequently did not materially affect the consensus.I really have no personal opinion on this particular WP:SNG, but the WP:CONSENSUS based on the strength of the arguments was clear. If you think wider community input is necessary, I have no opinion on that either. But I also don't think that is an issue with how or when the discussion was closed. When I closed the discussion, no new editors had joined the discussion in roughly three and a half days (and the last ones who joined did so very shortly after the notice was posted to WT:TENNIS) and there had been no new comments at all for over 60 hours. I saw no reason to expect any significant influx of additional editors or arguments.I'll crosspost a slightly edited version of this to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Tennis: remove Fed Cup and Davis Cup from criteria?, and I think that any further discussion should happen there rather than here. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm seeing myself getting pinged a bit here. My advice here for
TompaDompa is to be more detailed when writing the initial closing summary. The brief summary of Consensus is that having played in these cups does not predict meeting
WP:GNG strongly enough to justify presuming notability based solely thereon
isn't enough except in
extremely clear cases. In general, it's a good idea to list out the main arguments given for and against particular proposals, at minimum, when they're relatively contested. Something I learned when making
non-admin closes early on was that non-admin closes get an extra amount of scrutiny compared to admins (for better or for worse). It's often better to just lay out the reasoning up front so that these sorts of reactions to short closing summaries don't take up lots of time on a talk page. In a more altruistic sense, it helps to be transparent so that others can understand your reasoning and apply it in similar contexts going forward. That being said, if
Fyunck(click) would like to open up a
challenge to the close on
WP:AN, the editor would be free to do so if they believe that the closure is not a reasonable summation of the discussion. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
00:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Please check: [25]. -- Znuddel ( talk) 02:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa thats fine. It just seemed to me at the time that like the other noun based wars (Poverty, Cancer, Drugs etc.) it was really ill defined but I'll concede it's probably what it's most known as by now. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you redirect many Embassy of India articles. Was there any discussion related to massive move? I did not find any talk page discussions or notes other than copy-paste summary for all articles. There was referenced information on all pages. Can you please elaborate reasoning behind it? India-xyz country bilateral page could have been a better choice if redirect was needed? AbhiSuryawanshi ( talk) 15:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.I don't know if the sources exist to expand the embassy articles into full-length articles, but considering the state the articles were in when I came across them, it seemed better to redirect them, at least for now. All that said, my edits were bold and can be reverted by anyone who disagrees with them. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The colon/asterisk sequencing that existed before you changed it in this edit was totally compliant (it's the usage with the third green check). -- JBL ( talk) 21:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)