Hi, you reverted my edits to Al Jazeera, but I only moved some information from the introduction to the controversies section. I also added some positive information to the introduction, but you reverted that as well. The Al Jazeera introduction is written to attack the news channel, but all news websites have controversies, which can be discussed in the controversies section, just like in other articles.
Gsgdd ( talk) 08:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
§ | Hi |
Thanks - Suggest you enter these ammendments as I am not great with the modern tech. Kind regards, Huiarau Huiarau ( talk) 20:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC) |
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
Hello, Hemiauchenia. 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)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Hemiauchenia. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 11:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on Chimerarachne. My institution doesn't subscribe to Nature Ecology & Evolution so it was good to be able to read a knowledgeable and well written article here. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Cretamygale.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Howdy - we may be editing at cross purposes there :) The general consensus with monotypic fossil genera is not to make the article about the species, but about the genus (while presenting the type specimen of the single species, naturally). I have edited accordingly. Were you aiming for something different? Cheers -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the vague revert, but that sort of thing isn't really a good idea to publicize. Personal info and all that. Primefac ( talk) 19:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot ( talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks 😃 for helping me out here. Spirits of the Ice Forests is outdated. Most of the dinosaurs are not from Southern Australia let alone Antarctica. Australovenator is from the Winton formation so that could be a polar dinosaur. I do agree with some of your general points.
( Bubblesorg ( talk) 18:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC))Austrlian spinosauride is from northen Australia. Queensland
( Bubblesorg ( talk) 02:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)) Sorry i was referring to the wrong theropod.
Do you have any expertise in Geology. Are you a geologist yourself. Or do you just have a good grip on the field. This is because Ashorocetus and dunkleosteus 777 said you did. We need you for the geology section for South Polar Dinosaurs. It might be key for the article to hit good article entry level.
( Bubblesorg ( talk) 03:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC))OK also help, Could you just redreict this for me ( /info/en/?search=Platanistida). Thanks and that 3rd year degree sound great. Good job.
Paleontology Barnstar | ||
Dear Hemiauchenia, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Grünbach Formation. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, Anupam Talk 06:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, I noticed that you changed a few infoboxes where I had set the period to the relevant Geological period, to the relevant Stage (stratigraphy). I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Infobox_rockunit_colours. It's not a huge deal as only the infobox colour is changed. Consensus may be to change it to the stage, where we have that information, in which case the name of the parameter should probably be changed. Mikenorton ( talk) 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia want to help with the article again. -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Are you there?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dinosaur Beds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern Region ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I strongly urge you to add additional content to these articles that you are creating. They are all notable, but something more can surely be found , even in the single source you are using. At the very least, who first described it. As they areu ndoubtedly discussed in multiple texbooks of British geology, there should be references. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
happy to have you man-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of stratigraphy. Abyssal ( talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bostobe Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sands ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, together we are working hard I see. Thanks for following my steps and correcting hasty mistakes. Still a lot to add in new articles, but the maintenance of the South American, African and Oceania geologic formations is nearly completed now. Cheers, Tisquesusa ( talk) 17:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your tireless contributions to all the geologic formations and paleontology in general. Tisquesusa ( talk) 00:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC) |
Do you want to anymore?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 18:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 15:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification of the first appearance date of Trigonotarbids. However, the fact remains that 419Ma, as stated in the infobox, is Devonian, not Silurian. Plantsurfer 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Hemiauchenia. 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 Hibernian Greensands Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lias ( 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) 07:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Hemiauchenia
Thank you for creating Sebeș Formation.
User:DGG, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
This article really needs some additional references.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|DGG}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your SPI report was made manually and was missing the template that lists it on the WP:SPI page, meaning no one would have seen the report. I'd recommend using Twinkle to automatically fill out these reports, it adds all the necessary templates. Also thanks for pointing this user out to me, sometimes you know you're dealing with a sock but have no way of finding out who :) – Thjarkur (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lourinhã Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intercalation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lourinhã Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Korallenoolith Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oolitic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese paddlefish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tail fin ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panther Mountain Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panther Mountain ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to
Jordan Peterson, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with
Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the
reversion of clear-cut
vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.
Doug Weller
talk 10:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Hemiauchenia,
Thank you for creating Perichelydia.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Ideally we want one more reference for this article to help meet verifiability requirements ( WP:V). Nice start on this stub though! Great images.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 21:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Musk deer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lufeng ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the heads up here [3]. Little annoys me more than rudeness to our editors. I must learn to stay cool in my dotage. Best wishes Graham Beards ( talk) 10:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Look, it seems my "by the rules" attitude may have upset you, in that you may or may not believe that you have deserve priority over newer editors simply because you're an older user. However that is not how things work, and indeed your opinion (or the opinion of anyone else) is no more valuable than someone who registered yesterday. We are all equal. This is what I believe is the root of the problem in that you haven't shown any reasonable idea of compromise or engagement on whether "China Virus" is a widely used term or not, where is your evidence? When you revealed that you believe that the name should be removed because the Chinese government disapproves of it, that was an implicit admission from you that the name is indeed used, as the Chinese government itself would have no reason to comment on something that isn't seeing wide use. Furthermore, Twitter is not representative of the general internet. For example people outside of the millennial generation are extremely unlikely to use Twitter, so that reasoning doesn't hold up. According to basic Wikipedia guidelines the term qualifies for inclusion because it is in the relevant context and has been used by multiple major reliable sources, including Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. We are not trying to deliberately include terms with stigma, it is just that think we that Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines dictate that we should not be censoring reliably-sourced information for reasons of personal editor dislike. Symphony Regalia ( talk) 20:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Um... Is there really need for aggressive scolding? I know that Symphony Regalia may be more than a little unreasonable, but calm down, please. It hurts just looking at the paragraph above. Foxtail286 ( talk) 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Please link to any kind of policy declaration that states that divergence times should be indicated in the fossil range section of taxoboxes. I'm not aware of any. Obviously, if there is one, it contradicts what is indicated as the intent for this parameter in the Template:Automatic_taxobox instructions. As one example, the tuatara article indicates a fossil range of 19–0 Ma, with no mention of any ghost lineage going back to the Mesozoic. I think you (and possibly others) are conflating two different things, and that fossil range is intended to indicate the date range of actual recovered fossils. If it wasn't, it obviously should be renamed to a term that more accurately reflects its meaning. I'd also appreciate not being falsely accused of being obstinate. WolfmanSF ( talk) 22:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Megaceroides algericus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equus ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Wiki users like Hapa9100 and Shinoshijak suggested that I remove Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag from the blond wiki page ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Blond ). Hunan201p also hasn't replied me in talk page since May the 4th after I provided evidence there's nothing wrong with the book sources about ethnic Hmong and Miao being blond. Can you give me your opinion. Queenplz ( talk) 23:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I am mighty confused, the account was not blocked when it posted this [ [4]] yet within less than 12 hours they post this [ [5]].
My issue is that when they posted the request they must have assumed they were blocked, yet had still posted (otherwise why ask if they can post because they are blocked?). This raises a number of questions. Moreover (and reviewing the block) it says "non. only, account creation blocked" yet they created an accountant at a time when they thought the block was still in place (which in fact it is). So I suppose they assumed (correctly, if only technically) they were block evading. As I said this raises some serious questions. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I've noticed that on three Lilo & Stitch-related articles, you've removed information that used WatchMojo as a source. However, you didn't provide a proper explanation as why they shouldn't be used or even linked to a discussion that outright says they cannot be used as a reliable source, only calling them "terrible" in your edit summaries, which makes it seem that your edits were solely motivated by personal opinion. As a result, I had to undo them.
I have independently found some discussions for other articles on Wikipedia ( here and here) about using WatchMojo as a source. Based on these discussions, I do agree that it should not be used for objective information about any topic, since much of their content is opinion-based (i.e. their many ranking videos) and the objective information they receive for their topics are taken from many other sources. (I did find a 2017 discussion about the company and website on WikiProject Video games where one user deemed WatchMojo as unreliable, even for opinion pieces, but that's only for the scope of that WikiProject—i.e. video game-related articles—and not for Wikipedia as a whole, and it was only discussed between two users.) However, in the three L&S articles in question, WatchMojo was only used with regards to the reception of those topics (or for specific parts of them in the case of the Lilo & Stitch: The Series crossover episodes) and how they ranked each topic in their own lists. (I did rewrite their Leroy & Stitch reception entry afterwards because, upon a personal re-read, the way it was originally written did give them too much undue weight, making it seem like they were an outright definitive opinion when it's really just based on their own ranking. I've also done the same to a lesser extent for the other two topics.) In fact, to quote a user in that one of discussions I linked:
Context matters when determining reliability ... in this case, the ref to WatchMojo is a primary source supporting the statement that WatchMojo itself gave a specific ranking to the band [Girls' Generation]. Now, that information may or may not be worth mentioning in the article ... but that is a WP:Due weight issue, not a reliability issue. Purely focusing on reliability, WatchMojo is a reliable primary source for its own internal rankings.
Still though, I will ask you why do you think WatchMojo should not be used as a reliable source for even opinion or reception-based entries? And if you want an outright consensus on them, then should we get Wikipedia to discuss whether or not they should be used as a source for anything? – WPA ( talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@ WikiPediaAid: (Continuing from the discussion on your talk page). I agree that initially my edit summaries were bad, they improved in the second half of the ~200 WM citations I removed, my apologies. Thanks for the additional context. My issue with WM and opinion is that WM uses freelancers who have no expertise in the topics they are covering, and with no evidence of fact checking or editorial oversight, their opinion holds as much WP:DUE weight as someone's self published blog post. While many other more respectable media and entertainment websites published low quality listicle articles, their writers are more like to have expertise and therefore authority on the topic. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
On 22 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Megaceroides algericus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Megaceroides algericus is one of only two deer species known to have been native to Africa, alongside the Barbary stag? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Megaceroides algericus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Megaceroides algericus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your work keeping wild horse up to date. Iamnotabunny ( talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm just curious. If the Fox news RfC were to end today, would Fox News still be labeled as a reliable source? When do you think the discussion will end? Scorpions13256 ( talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
May I kindly ask you to take a look at Talk:Mustang#Final_draft? I’m not certain I got the right sources cited to the right content, there was so much discussion and many drafts. (Seems like there were two Weinstock studies, but am now just seeing one...?) And we need consensus to unlock the article and fix the contested content. Montanabw (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey Hemiauchenia! I noticed in your comment here that you link out to Sourcewatch. Is this a generally good source for this kind of reliability question, or is it more like MBFC, where it isn't particularly 'reliable' itself, but is good for a gut check? Thanks in advance for your time. Jlevi ( talk) 00:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
64+20+32+9=125 how did you come up with 132 total?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
We were working on Irish elk at the same time. I wiped out your changes. Sorry. Usually I painstakingly merge the other editor's changes into mine, but this time it was too complicated. Since you know what you were doing, it's easier for you than for me to do your changes again. Sorry again. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 01:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donghe Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 25 July 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 Jianfengia, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. 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 only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not remove a redirect without establishing consensus. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I assume you are familiar with BRD. An editor made a bold edit, (and refused to fix after a polite request) so I reverted. The next step is to open a discussion. Please do so.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Please don't place {{ banned user}} on a user's user pages unless they have been banned by the community or arbitration committee such as you did here -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors ( User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede 66 22:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, hope its ok for me to ask you for help on RS from time to time. You have been quite helpful thus far.
I see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#HuffPost_contributors. Would this article be considered "contributor" or "staff" or maybe something else? I'm asking cause its used in WP:BLP. VR talk 16:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Vice regent: It's the opinion of well known intellectual Sam Harris, I think it's fine to use as long as it is WP:INTEXT attributed to Harris. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
CHECK THIS OUT! I wonder if the synonymy of Caiman venezuelensis is 100% sure? they also got Balanerodus as a nomen dubium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Congrats on nominating for deletion the longest running hoax on Wikipedia! Amazing that nobody else managed to get it deleted. Thank you for actually CSDing it! MrAureliusR Talk! 00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC) |
Hello, this is the account that you claimed has multiple sock accounts. I have nothing to do with the other accounts that reposted my edit. The reason they did this is probably because I think it is clear that this edit improves the Wikipedia page President of Azerbaijan by adding reliable neutral information. I think that the IP adress 109.93.13.102 is edit warring since they reverted the edits that other users published and when reposted, they removed it again. I hope by reading this you have understood I have nothing to do with the other accounts. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor331 ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia it might be that they are sock accounts of another account, but as I said before I have nothing to do with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor331 ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC) @ The Editor331: There's currently an open sockpuppet investigation, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor331 If you aren't the sockmaster the CheckUser will exhonerate you. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, this litoptern you get for the continuing improvement of and attention for the fossiliferous formations of this world! Have a great weekend, Tisquesusa ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey I have a question about WP:RS again. I was reading WP:USESPS and noticed that "government publications" are considered "self-published" Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Identifying_self-published_sources. Yet Pew Research Center is considered reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Many government agencies in north america publish high quality reports like StatCan. Both Pew and StatCan have their own internal editorial review that check for accuracy, and both collect their own raw data and have internal experts analyze and interpret it. So why is StatCan SPS but PEW is not? VR talk 19:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok.
but only for a camelid connoisseur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1421:5D40:5173:B714:5D3B:C321 ( talk) 04:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Edit was an unintentional rollback in Windows. Thanks for correcting. SamHolt6 ( talk) 00:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grès à Voltzia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dolomite.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't see this at all, what a strange conclusion to make... Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 19:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Re:
My comments made towards you about the spelling of The Grayzone were, in retrospect...
I have no idea what it was about: I do not know either of yous (found it by chance), but bows to you for having written it.
Kudos! Zezen ( talk) 19:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tanyderidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:
Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric talk 00:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Look dude, I can't stress how embarrassed I am for you when I see you post. I'll tell you straight just once, so you can be a full and equal participant, if you want to be. Sometimes people want to be caught. It's all about the circumstances in which they are caught. Wikipedia routinely invading the privacy of people with real sounding names, simply because they post about the Daily Mail, regardless of topic, regardless of location, that's a bad thing for Wikipedia. I know it, the people CheckUsering me know it. It's big boy stuff. You can do what you want, but have a look around first. Get to know the field. Do the people who get sucked further and further into the sock hunter / sekrit keeper role, and further and further away from the content writing, do they look happy? Do they sound happy? Are they having fun? Is it a hobby still? If the name Jytdog doesn't mean much to you, look him up. I don't know why you edit Wikipedia, you might genuinely be one of those people who thinks it's an encyclopedia, and are doing what you do out of simple innocent enthusiasm. Don't let me shatter the illusion for you. Get into my business for long enough however, you will soon get to learn things about Wikipedia you probably never ever wanted to know. It can be quite cruel, opening people's eyes. I've seem them change. You're only three years in, which is no time at all. Keep your innocence for as long as you can, and allow yourself the most peaceful way to leave Wikipedia, by just getting bored. Because if you're honest with yourself, you're already nearing that point. Watching out for me, with your big boy's mallet in your sweaty palm all ready to go, that's getting to be more fun than writing about boring old paleontology, am I right? Choose life. Barry The Bat, But Not BatMan ( talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Note: User is a sock of Brian K Horton ( talk · contribs), almost certainly the same user as JackTheJiller/Crow's Nest on offwiki forums and also possibly the same as the long blocked MickMacNee. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Robin Was The Real Hero: Crow, My first edit on Wikipedia was in March 2013 as an IP user diff (the IP is dynamic, and is now no where near where my address at the time was, it is obvious I am a UK based user like you from other edits I've made anyway). Your age estimation is somewhat off. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "And you're not some kind of child genius, that much is painfully obvious." You say that "Is this hostile?" but that sentence makes you sound like you're trying to call me stupid, and it's difficult to charitably interpret it otherwise. If your referring to my spelling errors, I've been having long-term neurological issues that substantially predate me creating this account that cause them, and I apologise for the resultant lack of tidiness.
Nobody on Wikipedia is a genius, me included. We are here to write a general purpose encyclopedia, not to write novel research. What I meant by "free reign" and "nobody intereferes with my edits" is that unlike Israel-Palestine etc. where your edit is likely to get reverted, I can get on with writing what is reflected in papers. One of the things that is nice about writing on obscure topics is that you know that if you don't write it nobody else will. It's also rewarding to see the consequences of my editing reaching the wider internet, it's hard to imagine this reddit post existing unless I created the Megaceroides algericus article.
I wonder what your take on the Wired piece Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet. You've spent much of your time for at the last few years complaining about Wikipedia on various forums. Let me ask you this, you tell me to "choose life" yet you fail to make this choice for yourself, why? Why devote your time to something you know you cannot fix and that your efforts to do so are futile? I recognise that Wikipedia as a website is deeply flawed, Its incredibly small, white, 90% male insular community is totally unrepresentative of its readers, (and so are the even smaller criticism forums) but nothing that you are doing is going to help the deep issues that Wikipedia has, I'm not sure anyone can. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just a note on your creation of
Template:Taxonomy/Erdtmanithecales. There are two distinct classification hierarchies for the parent spermatophytes/Spermatophyta. Setting |parent=Spermatophyta
produces a hierarchy in which "Plantae" doesn't appear (see
Template:Taxonomy/Spermatophyta). Setting |parent=Spermatophytes/Plantae
produces a hierarchy in which it does. The latter is preferred by
WP:PLANTS, and seems to me more appropriate for an article whose opening sentence is "
Erdtmanithecales is an extinct order of gymnosperm plants". However, if you don't agree, feel free to set the parent back to "Spermatophyta".
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karabastau Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
It has been done... all phanerozoic periods use the phanerozoic template now. Benniboi01 ( talk) 04:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amphibian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anura.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dream (YouTuber) 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/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination) 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. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed at WP:RSN that you were concerned with the amount of articles that had citations to Jihad Watch. I was also concerned. I've taken the liberty of removing or replacing every citation that wasn't used for pure aboutself reasons: [7]. Please let me know if I missed something. Happy editing!-- Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk) 23:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Swag Lord was supposed to be observing an interaction ban with me, which they've broken several times. Their comment at the RfC was a violation which I understand is why they struck it, but apparently they decided their next step is to play games and be petty about it, fully aware I was being patient and allowing time for the RfC to finish after being attacked for even starting it.
I'm hanging my hat up for a while. There's no point trying only to be attacked, harassed, hounded, and then find myself put into "no option is the right option" situations every time I try to do anything at all. IHateAccounts ( talk) 03:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Dream icon.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{ Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 17:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pachycormiformes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pachycormus.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey,
I'm trying to determine whether Majid Rafizadeh, whose website calls him a " world renowned political scientist", is a reliable source. He seems to have ties to the Saudi government and his list of publications seem to consist only of op-eds, things published by Saudi agencies, and..."Harvard pub". This is an example of such a "Harvard pub" published article.
Would Harvard pub be considered an independent publisher? Would it be regarded as peer-reviewed? Thanks in advance and sorry for the bother. VR talk 19:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Vicennalia | |
Thanks for all your work for the encyclopaedia; it's twenty years old today! GPinkerton ( talk) 19:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich ( talk) 02:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
-- RexxS ( talk) 16:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you still making progress on Irish elk? There hasn't been significant activity on it since our edits way back last summer. I'm just wondering if that's still your goal? User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 22:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing that you said that ""indigenous people" (a term rarely used outside a western settler colonialism context)", I have to correct you, "indigenous peoples" might not be a term found in da-to-day life but it is the legal term in international law and significantly fought for by indigenous peoples, because it legitimizes rights beyond mere minority rights, because they are recognized as peoples, which is significant particularly for international law. And it is not North America centric, at most Americas centric. Nsae Comp ( talk) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the other day on FTN links to RationalWiki, I can't say that I've looked closely if it applied, but just wanted to make sure that you knew about the WP:OUTING policy. I think you're doing good work and this is taken very seriously on WP (productive editors have been banned over it, some may also have been lured and took the bait). There's this paradox where we're often obliged to keep what we know (even if hypocritically, unfortunately, it's like AGF with obvious socks). — Paleo Neonate – 06:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
If individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums.When you say
productive editors have been banned over itI guess you are referring to Jytdog? As you are no doubt well aware, Jytdog had an extensive history of blocks for posting idenifying personal information, such as emails and linkedin profiles, and the final straw was when he rang a person based on off wiki research, which is way over the line, and not something I intend to do. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 09:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lab_leak_COVID_conspiracy_theory,_again regarding unjustified and false accusations. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. Billybostickson ( talk) 00:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, you're an experienced editor. There has been a lot of heat at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and I have a feeling your edits might – slightly – have fueled the fire. Without technically banning you, may I kindly request that you avoid editing that page for now? The discussion will be evaluated by an administrator (or multiple administrators) experienced with closing deletion discussions, and further comments are relatively redundant as you have clearly made your point. Thank you very much in advance; feel free to simply remove this message to acknowledge receipt. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 00:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Even if the connection between a Wikipedia editor's account and their account on another website is clear (e.g. same username on both platforms), connecting them to that account (assuming they have not made the connection themselves) is still a violation of WP:OUTING. Please do not do that again. If you need to bring in off-wiki evidence of any sort, send it to ArbCom. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your good work at Whitney Wolfe Herd! Marquardtika ( talk) 03:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Hemiauchenia, can you please take a look at Bilorv's recent edits to The First TV? It feels to me like a backdoor attempt to ignore the consensus that we established and turn the article into an attack page, but I hesitate to confront the situation directly due to my COI - maybe you could assess it from a neutral vantage point. Thank you! D00dadays ( talk) 13:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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 " /info/en/?search=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) 17:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Requests for oversight should be done by email, see WP:OVERSIGHT. Posting it on wiki only compounds the problem. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 23:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Hemiauchenia, I'm so so sorry for mistakenly indeffing you. I must've clicked on the user I reverted to, rather than the user I reverted, by mistake. That was completely my fault. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
bruh dream us born on august 12,1999 and u keep changing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBM Red ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Proficiently understands the usage of reliable sources at Talk:Dream (YouTuber) and defends Dream (YouTuber) from unsourced claims. As one of the creators of the article, I bestow this barnstar upon you. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC) |
Hi there! I noticed you had a bit of trouble using {{ Requested move}}. Please substitute the template and include your reason, for example as below:
{{subst:requested move|Lineage B.1.1.7|It's clear that the term "Variant of Concern 202012/01" has fallen out of use and that "B.1.1.7" and related terms are now the common name for the lineage used by most sources, including the British Government [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nervtag-paper-on-covid-19-variant-of-concern-b117] [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nervtag-update-note-on-b117-severity-11-february-2021], as such I propose a move to a "B.1.1.7" related name.~~~~}}
I'm no expert by any means, but I hope this helps! ArcMachaon ( talk) 00:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
{{subst:requested move|
{{requested move/dated|
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Feynstein ( talk) 18:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi again, I think it would be better if you could answer in
WP:ANI directly instead of leaving comments in summaries trying to defend yourself by insinuating I think there's a conspiracy behind this involving you. "People are misrepresenting my comment as if this is some kind of conspiracy, when it is just my opinion. As such, I have struck the comment in order to avoid the cause of more problems.
".
[10] For your information though there can be a generally concerted effort without the need for it to be a conspiracy. People with the same mindset usually tend to stick together. The difference with your comment is just that you made it explicit. And you said "as usual on Wikipedia"... As if it's ok to stonewall people into getting topic banned. Or if it was a thing you were into. I mean... In how many ways can someone misrepresent a clear statement like that? Anyway please come to ANI to explain yourself so we can get to the bottom of this, thanks!
Feynstein (
talk) 00:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey there, just making sure you saw this. Some of my pings haven't been going through lately for whatever reason, so you may not have seen my message. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 20:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, thank you for your response on the discussion page. As mentioned, I'm reading up on criticisms of the theory, from both proponents of the plume theory and more impartial observers. I will add the criticisms section, along with making the other proposed revisions, in the next few weeks. The current page was just a starting point, my intention being to produce a page that is informative, well-supported by relevant literature, impartial, and critical. I realise that, as it stands, it falls short of at least some of these aims. Thank you for allowing me the time to make the necessary improvements. All the best, SphericalSong ( talk) 15:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Anarchyte ( talk • work) 17:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit (blether) 15:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
you reverted my dream edit but dream said his name is clay on purpose /info/en/?search=Talk:Dream_(YouTuber)#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_17_March_2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgegod245 ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
See [11]. You may also be interested in the related discussion here [12]. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:52, 23 March 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.
No, I can't fix your edit conflicts. I've already spent ages fixing my own, so why do you expect me to fix yours too? Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the material was there before. It was removed. I restored it and sourced it better. And discussed.(BRD) The other editor removed it a second time. The concerns have been addressed and are under discussion. Your reprimand acts like there are reversions for no reason. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
You reverted an edit I made on TCM. The intro is an important part that sums up the entire article. TCM like Yoga, is an alternative therapy with many different practices. Some of it are Herbal drinks and tonics and others are exercises like Tai Chi.
I have issue with the current article intro as it fixates on an opinion piece who have provided Zero evidence that disciplines like ginger, Tai Chi, etc are useless and to be avoided. Are there evidence to imply that people should avoid Tai Chi and drinking ginseng. I don't believe there's any harm in doing so and instead the few studies have shown benefits.
The intro should be mindful that we currently don't know everything about the human body. Sometimes a natural herb that was later discovered to have benefits for the human mind can take decades for scientific research to understand..and even then it's more a lack of research rather than evidence that keeps us from knowing whether it works or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-Hydroxytryptophan
As long as there's a lack of research to confirm that Tai Chi, ginseng, etc are completely harmful or useless. I think it is harmful and downright closeminded to allow such a prematurely and unfounded solid conclusion of such a vast discipline, to be the top intro. Casualfoodie ( talk) 09:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
For example - Note the last edit that I did on this article, was undone. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&oldid=1018200943 One guy first claimed it wasn't backed by solid sources. Then deleted it. He was wrong so I put it back in. Then another falsely claimed it was a commercial endorsement despite it's actually not. It's from an impartial government institution that after a review of the evidence, recommended acupuncture for managing chronic pain. They are not commercial but working for the public interest only to help sufferers reduce their pain so it's not a commercial endorsement but major historical and relevant facts. I will address that issue later but I don't feel this article has editors that are willing to be impartial but seem overly vested to delete any info that even remotely supports acupuncture like the edit I just mentioned.. Even if I add in that scientists successfully treat inflammation in mice recently ( which is true) , I am certain that adding such ture and well backed info, will get a lot of opposition and fighting before it finally gets added in. And I don't have time for that.
In regards to your comment. It's not up to us or the overly vested skeptics to conclude whether or not exercise or spices are good for us. It's still up to the scientists (who actually done research on the matter) first. And from what I read from research on acupuncture, scientists have made it clear that they are only just starting to understand the effects of acupuncture and newer systematic reviews are different from the older ones in that they conclude that evidence shows it's more than a placebo effect. Yet the current plus-related acupuncture wiki article page is heavily outdated. It only still shallowly shows the systematic reviews from more than decades ago as if that's the final study. It doesn't even mention the newer updated systematic reviews in equal detail that had concluded that evidence shows acupuncture as more than a placebo effect and its findings. https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20180521acupuncture.html I do plan to at least update and address the article properly and add in the newer systematic reviews but I am still just a volunteer and I have my own professional life to take care of. So you can still reply to me here and I will address it in a few months time. Casualfoodie ( talk) 07:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry to bother you out of the blue but, looking at
this, I just wanted to politely nudge you that it's conSensus
rather than conCensus
– that is, it's more to do with consent
than census
, very tempting though the latter is. Gah – I know it's a PITA when some unknown irritant shows up on your Talk page weebling on about spellings, but I just hoped it might save pain in the future! Cheers
DBaK (
talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to give some justification on my revert. BLPSPS does say to avoid self-published sources, however, it does have an exception for sources published my the subject of the article: unless written or published by the subject of the article.
Thanks! If you don't object, I think I'll partially re-add some of the references.
EpicPupper (
talk) 16:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@ EpicPupper: I object. We do not need to include every minor controversy covered by muckrakers like Dextero in BLP articles, per WP:NOTNEWS. The controversy had no lasting significance. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I’m interested to know how an experienced Wikipedia editor might determine that ‘Sapiens, f***ing really?’ is an appropriate response to a novice editing a line in good faith? Would be glad to hear back on why you’re disparaging of ‘Sapiens’; and/or why the line I added isn’t more appropriate? Hope your health is continuing to improve. regards, Andrew @ajjmcd
I do not have a relationship to Alan J Cooper. I am a scientist and I found his article on the Laschamps Geomagnetic excursion. I was interested in doing further research on Dr Cooper and his work and I found that his Wiki page had no mention of this new work. I went to add this information as I feel it is important that his wiki page includes this new work. However I also checked the history of the page before making my edit and read through the previous edits and your immediate removal of said edits. I read the edit that Andersjames0921 made and chose to put back the section about the research into Laschamps Geomagnetic excursion as it was well written. While I was revising the edits I noticed the changes about his situation with the University of Adelaide. I read the two articles linked on the page and the edit Andersjames0921 made and I feel the edit Andersjames0921 made describes the situation in more detail and is a more balanced perspective.
I am curious as to why you are removing edits about published science labelling them as potential conflicts of interest, immediately after they are published. -- Ledgereyrar ( talk) 02:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
What is your connection to Dr Alan J Cooper? You seem to have some sort of connection, your reasons for undoing my edits seem to be based on emotional reasons, using words such as 'puffery', 'terrible' and 'crap prose'. Similarly your username is a fossil, so it appears you work in a similar field.
I hadn't been aware of WP:FORBESCON. So here's one of those all-too-rare "thanks for reverting me" messages. I appreciate your diligence! Generalrelative ( talk) 19:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marl Slate Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dolomite.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
-- Hipal ( talk) 02:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
You've taken a sourced/fact-based edit, and deleted in favour of one that is rife with opinion. For example, the edit that you added calls a physicians claims "erroneous." This is pure opinion, and whose?
On 11 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Love Has Won, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in April 2021, the body of the founder of the new religious movement Love Has Won was found mummified and wrapped in Christmas lights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Love Has Won. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Love Has Won), 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) 00:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 10,617.5 views (884.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2021 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Hemiauchenia, upon attempting to add the word 'book' in brackets, (e.g., [[ ]]) no external link suffices from my end. Can you take a swift look at the article page and provide feedback on this inconvenience. /info/en/?search=Draft:Love_In,_Love_Out:_A_Compassionate_Approach_To_Parenting_Your_Anxious_Child
Thanks.
Multi7001 ( talk) 05:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Multi7001: I have no idea. The best place to ask is the Wikipedia:Teahouse. I hope they can be of assistance. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
"I would like to see discussion on the talkpage about whether this content is due for inclusion out of principle".
This isn't a valid reason to revert an edit, especially not given when I checked the talk page, there is no discussion on my edit on the article nor my talkpage, suggest you identify what part of the edit you have an issue with and why, post on the article talk page and also post on MY talkpage, rather than revert the whole edit for some undisclosed principle. Wikipedia works on the principle WP:ROWN.
Aeonx ( talk) 13:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia, if you assessed my edit was WP:UNDUE why have you not made any such comment to that affect on the article talk page or in your revert of my edit? Perhaps you can explain on the talk page why? If not I will add discussion to the article talk page later today. Aeonx ( talk) 04:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The newest Israeli PM penned this editorial in the New York Times where he praises himself (like politicians frequently do) and this is used in Naftali Bennett. WP:ABOUTSELF says we can't used self-published sources if they are "unduly self-serving". But is this a self-published source? Given that NYT often publishes editorials from those they disagree with I doubt they edited Bennett's piece before publishing it. Or should we assume that everything NYT publishes, including editorials are always vetted for accuracy? VR talk 18:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, just writing to let you know that you can find your cladogram at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Cladogram requests#Caprinae phylogeny in case you forgot. Sorry if you have seen it already :) Draco phyllum 07:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm travelling with horrible laptop & didn't even see, much less edit this page. No idea what happened. Johnbod ( talk) 19:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Compsemys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basal.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi I am curious as the edits you did on the Pleurodira and Chelidae. You have replaced ICZN nomenclature with PhyloCode. No living taxa of turtles use PhyloCode there official list of species as followed by CoL and Reptile Database, and Wikispecies is the IUCN Checklist of the Turtles of the World. This is also the nomenclature that is recommended to be used here. Names with Pan-... are actually nomenclaturally unavailable as they fail to conform to the rules of the ICZN which is adhered to by Chelonian Researchers. Turtles are Order Testudines, Sub-order Pleurodira for side necks and then it goes to families, you can put the Podocnemids and Pelomedusids into Pelomedusoides if you wish. This arrangement you have done does not follow the currently accepted taxonomy for these taxa. I know Walter Joyce and his recent paper, but it is not followed by Chelonologists. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I reverted your change here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bret_Weinstein&curid=57169820&diff=1032022661&oldid=1032017279
The reason I felt this revert was necessary is this article is undergoing an NPOV noticeboard here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bret_Weinstein_NPOV_breach_in_lead_paragraph_footer.
And a VICE reliable source noticeboard here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vice_on_Bret_Weinstein
I think it is premature to include more edits, especially given the recent protected editing and ongoing discussions both in the above noticeboards and the talk page itself. I encourage you to participate.
Thank you and happy 4th FrederickZoltair ( talk) 03:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Hemiauchenia,
I mentioned that Dream was criticised by some for not donating enough to the Trevor Project, since that stream was the only one he did for the entire month of June. Could I still mention it?
-GBAlph4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBAlph4 ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, so what would be the Wikipedia equivalent of talking to your manager? I would like to dispute your unilateral closing of an open discussion, which has yet to arrive at any conclusions. Twice already. In the last one, which you may have missed, my point of view received a voice of support. Does that count for nothing? Dylath Leen ( talk) 19:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Dylath Leen ( talk) 09:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am NOT "involved in a significant controversy or dispute with Grabowski", neither "on- or off-wiki", nor am I "an avowed rival of that" person. Likewise there is no "legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes" I'm involved in with him.
The fact that HE chose to apparently mention my editor account in a absurd op-ed which HE chose to write does not create BLPCOI. I've been mentioned by Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and several other outlets but obviously I'm not about to stop editing those articles. This is not what BLPCOI implies. Volunteer Marek 18:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find words for this situation. Suppose there is a WP:DISPUTE where users disagree on whether historical event X happened. We have 3 kinds of reliable sources:
If, for example, X is the Holocaust we have plenty of sources of type A. We also have many sources of type C (which document Holocaust denial), but very few of type B (because not many scholars, if any at all, actually deny the Holocaust). Thus we say Holocaust is a fact, it is not "disputed", and we must use wiki voice for it.
So how do you explain a situation where someone "rebuts" sources of type A with sources of type C to argue event X is "disputed"? What policy or guideline covers this? Do I say "voice matters"? Do I say "a viewpoint's WP:WEIGHT isn't just judged by a source that covers it but the voice used by that source"? Is this something that is not covered appropriately by our policies? Thanks! VR talk 20:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, You have deleted many weeks of work when you deleted parts of the article "Martinus Thomsen". You can´t just delete 38.165 bytes without conferring with anyone and without the consensus of administrators. Please don´t do that again. The article is well balanced. See for example the section "spiritual science". I just report what Martinus teaches, just like the article "Martin Luther" just reports what Luther teaches. It´s not my personal opinion. If you talk about violating NPOV, I suggest you rather look at the article "Christianity and Theosophy". That article is unbalanced.
You say "unsourced". What do you mean? There are many references. Alexandramander ( talk) 20:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Due to your previous contributions to
Wellheim Formation, I'd like to ask you for your input on its talk page.
I made a
proposal for a sub-section that cleary states that certain claims by the producer (and other sources repeating them, while referring to that company) do not represent the view of mainstream geological research.
I feel that this is an important point for the article that will likely get challenged by the producing company in the future. So why not get consensus for such a clear statement now? --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk) 16:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. E.yorke0 ( talk) 20:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I have no affiliation with the Physicians for Patient Protection. I am a medical physician (thus familiar with news in medicine), and recently read an unrelated newsletter regarding vandalism of the page on Wikipedia. My intention was to clean up vandalism in medical articles, which I usually do anonymously but happened to be logged into my Chess account (EntmootOpening) at the time from WikiBooks. Thank you for your shared concern in ensuring pages are neutral.
EntmootOpening ( talk) 21:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me about the COI. I've opened a sock investigation into Science, Diamond and Bonafide. If you could add any further evidence or comments on the discussion then please do so and take a look: [13] Thanks. Inexpiable ( talk) 19:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Why were the changes deleted? what is the problem? I returned the data and added references, as suggested to me after the first deletion of my change. АРК9367 ( talk) 22:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry for that. My bad. Thanks АРК9367 ( talk)
MikeGHaitian Hi Hemiauchenia,
I got a notification from you about edit war in regard to a conversation with SunDawn. I am trying to underdand what I did wrong to prevent being an issue. From my point of you, the issue is that SunDawn keep deleting updates that I made to an article on President Jovenel Moise adding some facts on the basis that I did not provide proper reference. I managed to figure out how to provide proper reference and notified SunDawn so it doesn't get deleted. Please see the communication below to let me know what the issue is. In the process, I kindly pointed out a factually incorrect information on the article instead as to where president Moise died instead of just deleting SunDawn's work. I thought that was more polite. Please help us resolve any issues in the interest of freedom of speech for all Americans.
Hi Sundown, on the changes I made to the Jovenel Moise article. I added some links to help you with sources, and thanks for pointing that out as it lands more credibility to what I was saying for a person who don't follow Haitian news as closely as I do. So you know I am Haitian and follow Haitian politics closely, like everyday. I know about everything I wrote in that article, and they are facts. Please feel free to reach back out if you have questions instead of just deleting what I wrote. Thanks,
Hello MikeGHaitian (talk · contribs)! Hopefully you have a nice day! I reverted your edits here [1] because your edit did not cite any sources, per WP:CITE. If you have references for the material, please add it to the article, otherwise it can't be accepted. Happy editing! SunDawntalk 09:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Hello, I added the links to the sources in parentheses. That's a way to reference the work. Hello MikeGHaitian that is not how referencing works. Please read about WP:CITE to see how to reference properly. Furthermore, most of your edits are just news pieces, and per WP:NOTNEWS most of the materials added can't be placed into the articles. So, you can't add every single infrastructure development on the country on the article page, though I would argue that major developments can be added. Finally, YouTube is not a reliable source per WP:RS so you can't reference to YouTube links.SunDawntalk 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Hi Sundawn I figured out how to properly add the references and it should be good to go now. By the way President Moise's home where he was assassinated is not located in Petion-ville. It is located in Pelerin 5.
I rolled your change back because I think it's incorrect to associate this subject with telecommunications. It's not a telecommunication device - it's just a scam. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Think you haven't noticed, Hemiauchenia, but Level 5 Animals has been filled by myself and Larrayal to 2,400/2,400 [14] [15], and your recent 3 additions has pushed that to 2,403/2,400. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Please avoid edit-wars! You have repeatedly removed scientifically substantiated discoveries without consensus with other editors. You accept fanciful speculations about Atlantis and aliens, but not scientific facts about geopolymer-concrete and historic records? Please restore: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pumapunku&diff=1043779923&oldid=1043778900 -- 79.7.112.133 ( talk) 15:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Hemiauchenia:
Hello,
I partially reverted your changes in the introduction of
this article.
The reason I felt this revert was necessary is this article is undergoing an
NPOV noticeboard here.
(which I just noticed you introduced yourself on October 5)
And
in the talk page here.
I think it is premature to include more edits on this subject, especially given the recent protected editing and ongoing discussions both in the above noticeboard and the talk page itself.
I encourage you to participate.
PS : However, I have reintroduced the list of English speaking sources you rightly added, to add up to others already presented in the article on this subject, and all the more because they also quote Zemmour other than "far right" for some of them.
cheers, --
Emigré55 (
talk) 05:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Can you please clarify that your comment here refers to a hatnote TO THE BAND? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
"undid revision 1051389870 by JJK2000 (talk) See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Sportskeeda_generally_unreliable?, there is consensus that SportsKeeda is unreliable for BLPS"
Well maybe you should have lead off with that. Kind regards, JJK2000 ( talk) 06:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@
Hemiauchenia: regarding your edit
here:
As stated by
WP:NPA
here: « It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. »
Hence, I kindly ask you to remove your edit. Thank you in advance.
Also,
WP:AVOIDYOU: « As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people ».
This is neither about me, nor about my opinion. This is about the article and its content.
WP:NPA: « Personal attacks are disruptive. On article talk pages they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together.»
Thank you, --
Emigré55 (
talk) 09:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Hemiauchenia, the reason why i changed Mr. McDermott's korean name from Kim Chong-Nam to Kim Chong-nam is because of todays romanizations of korean names. The linked article (Source Nr. 3 on his page Disappearance of Patrick McDermott) is from the year 2000:
Back in the day Wikipedia etc. didnt exist. And the author of this article used a romanization which is outdated since many years. Not just Wikipedia, but also the United Nations and the International Organization for Standardization writes korean names either with lowercase after the hyphen, or in some other romanizations as one name together. It's Ban Ki-moon, not Ban Ki-Moon, or Kim Jong-un and not Kim Jong-Un. It's up to you, but dont you think it would be ok to change Kim Chong-Nam to Kim Chong-nam? Best regards. -- Alleingänger ( talk) 12:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Really? WTH? It's spring time (at least in the southern hemisphere). WP:Civil. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big John (dinosaur). 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. Two can send condescending, patronising edit warring notices Indeed, your edit summary was the well spring. Figure it out. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
We've all been here long enough to realise disagreements happen, and sometimes we lose our temper a bit (I know I do!). Take a step back and grab a cup of tea or something, please. I've left the same message to them as well ~ TheresNoTime ( to explain!) 16:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you are not directly involved but perhaps you wanted to be aware of the existence of this ANI discussion: [16]. JBchrch talk 16:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! Not sure if I replied adequately or represented the various positions and concerns I have on the article, but hit me up if you need more information before making your edits, I've actually been studying this question for quite awhile academically and also have lived in several of the most affected areas / am an indigenous & "indigenously-interested" person, so there's plenty more that could be said for sure and you seem like the type of person who is genuinely interested in digging deeper, so just let me know. I don't mind one-on-ones with you or other serious editors to figure out the best solutions, I'm just not sure how much detail is expected by people commenting on the Talk page right now: from what I can see, the answer is "not very much", and I've already possibly overcommunicated for that forum. Fatbatsat ( talk) 06:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi. By changing the rank on this template you're creating incosistencies that show up here. Also your changes are unreferenced. Can you explain what you're trying to achieve? YorkshireExpat ( talk) 20:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Hemiauchenia, I noticed that after the new redirect was made after the Kate Miller article was deleted, it had an effect on the now closed AfD [17] - If you click on the Kate Miller name in the old AfD, that now directs to the notable Kate Miller-Heidke, which may be confusing if anyone needs to look at the AfD. Do you think there really needs to be a Kate Miller redirect page? Netherzone ( talk) 00:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
And the Deletion Log now points to the wrong Kate Miller. [18] Netherzone ( talk) 00:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kate Miller. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 4#Kate Miller until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Netherzone ( talk) 01:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it felt to me like we were all very close to mild improvement on the Eskimo page. Now I don't know where we are. There seemed to be almost unanimous agreement to move the page closer to being about the term, if not the whole way. I assume the A B lead discussion requires an uninvolved administrator. Then we could have a formal discussion about either page name or page intent. How do you see us moving forward? Dushan Jugum ( talk) 20:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Dushan Jugum: I think a request should be made at WP:RFCLOSE for someone uninvolved to close the RfC, given the lack of new comments. I have no investment in the etymology dispute, and probably won't comment further on that. I am thinking of also opening a second RfC on scope, which I think will be the best way forward. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Obivously, this [19] was the best temporary remedy. But a pity for the Reich paper. I'll think of a short and handy way to reintroduce the gist of the paper (as far it concerns the circumpolar peoples) in a more sensible way. – Austronesier ( talk) 19:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roproniidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello
I tried to ping you about a new proposal
here, if you wish to comment. Regards,
Moonraker12 (
talk) 03:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Your previous comments on Forbes as a reliable source for Wikipedia. The current distinction of Forbes print copy being reliable and Forbes.com being unreliable does not appear to be a useful guideline for most Wikipedia editors. Especially since all of the articles (print copy version or dot-com version) are generally accessed through Forbes.com anyway. My own experience is that the articles are almost always reliable and match one-for-one on numbers reported with other reliable sources. This leads to editors needing to mechanically redo sources which match up one-for-one with other reliable sources and switch for no other reason than this "red light"/"green light" policy on Forbes.com being red-light and Forbes print edition being green-light. Many editors are losing much edit time apparently for no reason. If Wikipedia editors are losing their contribution time to this odd distinction of a red-light and green-light policy for Forbes, then should the distinction be re-evaluated? ErnestKrause ( talk) 17:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@ ErnestKrause: This is something you should take up with WP:RSN and not my talkpage. Forbes.com staff content is considered reliable Forbes Contributors content is not, see WP:FORBESCON Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Um, wasp = Apocrita, less ants and bees, so its parent, if it has one, is Hymenoptera. It isn't a subclade of anything, of course. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the citation to the NY Times in this edit at Eric Zemmour, regarding the announcement of his candidacy. Thanks also, for using an *English* source, instead of the French sources that others have been adding; Wikipedia prefers English sources when available, so by adding this one, you are supporting the best possible WP:Verifiability of the article. (The French sources added by others are not wrong, they are just not optimal.)
Two tips:
|lang=
or |language=
param in your citations for an English source; i.e., adding |language=en-US=
to that citation isn't needed, so you can save a few characters that way.Both of these date wordings are correct in English, but the second one is preferred by the Manual of Style's guide to date formats and does not contain the. As long as one format is used consistently throughout an article, there is some latitude of choice; usually, the first major contributor sets the tone, and others should follow. If there is no prior pattern, I would use the most international version, "30 November 2021". For more on this, see MOS:DATEFORMAT and Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines. Thanks again for your contributions to the article. Mathglot ( talk) 21:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
|language=en-US
is perfectly acceptable and possibly desirable; see my reply to Editor
Mathglot at
Wikipedia talk:Citing sources with Zotero § Use of cite param 'language' with value English. The article from The New York Times is behind a paywall so |url-access=subscription
is appropriate.The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for using your expertise to improve Amabilis uchoensis and Podocnemididae, and for your kind helpful remarks at DYK. HouseOfChange ( talk) 03:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hey Hemiauchenia,
Re: this closure - I appreciate you wanting to prevent further degradation of the discussion, but I don't think the summary properly reflects what happened there, nor am I sure that the discussion should've been closed (rather than having portions of it collapsed), since votes are still coming in. I think closure should've been done by an admin; included a summary of the consensus; and considered that PAs were heavily one-sided. What do you think? François Robere ( talk) 13:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
My apologies, I reverted your edits by mistake! I self reverted (not sure why it reverted that page I was reverting vandalism on another page!!!) Tommi1986 let's talk! 18:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, regarding your revert here, there was nothing about soap opera there. The liberal media is a big source for Wikipedia, it is biased according to respectable sources and Wikipedia itself has a liberal bias. This is a serious issue, not a drama, and your revert is just an attempt to shut down a serious conversation about the reliability of the sources - and subsequently about the neutrality of Wikipedia. It means suppressing the views that are not mainstream. The topic can be discussed and the conversation can be eventually closed. But your revert means trying to pretend that opposing views do not even exist. Please restore my edit. Thank you. -- Barecode ( talk) 09:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy regarding "Citing yourself":
Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason , but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.
The paper being cited (Ostachuk, 2019) in the "Crab" page is relevant: it has been published in the journal Evolutionary Biology, it has been cited 4 times so far, and it has been downloaded 418 times from the publisher page [24].
Hemiauchenia has been extremely violent with his/her commentaries from the beginning. He/she (who knows who he/she is?) has been trying to accuse me from unethical behavior ("Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own work"), when it is clear according to Wikipedia policy on "Citing yourself" that this not a crime or violation of the terms of use . I advice Hemiauchenia to be more respectful and polite, as I have been, and not to accuse me of false denunciations. In my edits, I have not only cited my own work but others too (5 different citations in the article "Crab"). I will not further discuss the quality of my work with an unknown person with unknown academic formation.
It seems to me that you do not want to accept Wikipedia's own policies: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP: SELFPUB, and is not excessive". It seems to me that there is not much more to add, just accept the reality of the facts and evidence. If citing yourself were a conflict of interest or a crime, you would not be allowed to cite yourself in scientific publications. If this is allowed in true academic publications, it does not make sense that it is not allowed in a general information web page, the content of which is not considered academic or scientific literature.
It is clear that all my edits are in my name, since my username is my name, so it is quite redundant to clarify that the edits were made in my name. I have nothing to hide and I registered on Wikipedia with my name. This gives transparency and clarity to the system, and automatically eliminates any type of conflict of interest (since everything is in view and registered). The use of pseudonyms only contributes to confusion, turbidity, opacity and impunity, and does not make it possible to reveal the conflicts of interest and the hidden interests that these people are defending. I don't think security has anything to do with this. This is not Wikileaks. Aostachuk
Sorry about that, misclick on a twitchy Chromebook. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I take issue with your assertion that I'm adding original research to this article. I'm not. This has been discussed exhaustively by a large number of people. The ICZN has clear rules - all I did was point out the ICZN rules that pertain to this situation and indicate their implications, which are as clear as a bell.
I'm far from the only one who realizes this.
I'm not interested in what may or may not be said on Darren Naish's blog. Blogs are not legitimate sources of information.
I stand by the text I added.
not trying to be a jerk, but I'm basing my text on my 30 years of experience as a professional systematist. I didn't do "research;" I saw immediately what the situation was and pointed it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Your assessment of the situation regarding Wellnhopterus is factually wrong. I'm sorry, but it just is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Could you provide me with a list of Wikipedia articles to which I've contributed?
You're not interested in my expertise, so I think it would be best if they were deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey, apologies for moving that redirect without a prior discussion. I just stumbled on it and saw that it redirected from "religion" to "Christian denomination" and thought that was a bit strange, so I moved it without thinking anything of it, not realizing that there would likely be templates that used the redirect. Thanks for reverting and clarifying the need for discussion. Where would I start something like that? Would it be in the talk page for the redirect itself? -- Grnrchst ( talk) 14:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hemi! I wanted to take this time to thank you for all you do at Wikipedia, and especially for your help at BLPN. It's such an important policy, and I'm glad we have you around to help. I wish you a very merry holiday season, and may the new year bring great happiness and joy. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth ( talk) 08:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand that the mammal lived long before human presence, but I included it because the section of text does not make it clear that it is referring only to recent history. I think it wouldn't hurt to include the link, since it does not disrupt the flow of the article, and the SBM article has relatively few other articles that link to it. An anonymous username, not my real name ( talk) 15:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I see you reverted my edits at Janzenella. I've fixed the taxobox for you (again). No need to thank me ;); but I left it as a {{ Automatic taxobox}} this time.
I've had a discussion about this sort of thing before. It appears there is no consensus on how to do taxoboxes when there is only one extant species, but a fossil record of others. I guess the question I would ask is, would and of the species (fossil or extant) get an article of its own, or is this unlikely; I feel the latter in the case of this wasp. Therefore, a speciesbox feels better to me, as it makes the species a topic for the article too. I'm not too precious about it though.
Being honest, there is an element of autopilot about it. Cheers. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 17:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding my use of EB: not sure what warrants its removal.
I think you may have misunderstood what [ "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica"] refers to: per EB, "The vast majority of articles attributed solely to the editors have been written, reviewed, or revised by external advisers and experts, and the lack of formal acknowledgment of their contributions was an editorial policy dating to the 1970s." Not a crowdsourced entry.
The piece of information I referenced is just being used to support the categorization of the Afar language as part of the Saho-Afar language group. KaerbaqianRen 💬 23:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The cycle is BRD. Not BRR so you get your preferred version, D. Take it to the talk page. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: WP:AN3 is that way. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
you can I would like a refund please I need your help with this matter as soon as possible I will be there at the same time I don't have a pictured in the hospital with my mom in the hospital with 105.112.217.105 ( talk) 11:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Re: Undid revision 1066560509 by SVTCobra (talk} It's not outing in this case, as the editor themselves was linking to the material in their edits
Sorry, but it had every appearance of being exactly that. There was no mention of it in the COIN post. I don't think anyone should be required to search all edits by users before reporting outing. But if you are right, you are right. -- SVT Cobra 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Just an update for you: I have been familiar for quite some time with the socks of WCF editing from an Austrian IP range. For some strange and silly reason, the disruptive editor DerekHistorian was confirmed as a sock of WCF, even though he actually geolocates to the UK (as can be seen from numerous Google books bare URLs) and must be a different person also based on editing behavior that's different from the Austrian IP edits. Vamlos exactly fits within the behavioral profile of @DerekHistorian, and I have been looking for sexy diffs to prove it. Even though the problem editor is blocked now, I think @valereee has dug up a diff that might be useful to disentangle the WCF SPI mess. – Austronesier ( talk) 13:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
So adding a comment from the academia is accepted as self promotion but a random guy can decide wheter it is a promotion or not. I strongly find your actions on the revisions offensive as I believe that even the knowledge that you have is not only exist but also does not exist. ForTheScience ( talk) 19:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-"American Society of Mammalogists including bison species within Bos". The fact that a certain group of people place Bisons within Bos does not make it valid. Bisons as a whole are still placed in their own genus by the vast majority of scientists and biologists. Not to mention that during an edit war all participants in the conflict must be called out. Yet apparently i am the only one, which proves the bias of Hemiauchenia. It takes multiple studies to confirm the classification of organisms. And genetic analysis already found genetic similarities between American and European Bisons. Not to mention the morphological and genetic differences between Bos and Bison species (extant and extinct). So my edits are justified. The bias of Wikipedia users is the reason why so many information in articles is incorrect.
"If the American Society of Mammalologists includes Bison within Bos, then we should too" That has to be one of the worst biases I've ever seen. Just because one study says so doe snot mean every other study will agree. And am sure your only saying we should believe it because it has the word "American" on it. Look, i have nothing against nationalism but for god sakes, when it comes to scientific research one must be biased to multiple articles that have the most logical explanation. One article who study did not took in consideration the incomplete lineage shortage amongst Bovini is not very trustworthy. /info/en/?search=User_talk:56FireLeafs
If its true that Bisons are within Bos, then i need you to explain me the relationships between modern Bison species and extinct ones (its worth noting that a study pointed out that the Wisent is possibly the descendand of the Pleistocene Woodland Bison, who in turn looks very similar to the Wisent). And i also want you to show me to morphological similarities between the genus Bison and Bos. If both are concluded to be morphogically and genetically similar enough i suppose we could reclassify them as part of Bos. But we should probably talk about this with more scientists. /info/en/?search=User_talk:56FireLeafs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Please explain your analysis of the reliable sources regarding bison at the article talk page. That strengthens your argument enormously. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
BuySomeApples ( talk) 07:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Hi! I was wondering, would you be able to provide your perspective regarding my move proposal on the talk page of Short-faced bear? Although I proposed it a while ago, none of the page watchers have replied. I would appreciate your honest feedback. Thanks. SuperTah ( talk) 14:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I've checked the evidence you and other users showed me and now that i think about it it makes sense that Bisons are placed within Bos. The fact that Yaks have shaggy fur like Bisons confirms they speciated from yaks. Multiple species of Bos like Gaurs, Zebus and Aurochs have spines similar to those of Bisons. They fact that they can safeley breed with cattle proves their effectively part of the Bos genus. Not to mention many people question if Bisons breeding with cows was even a problem. Ive checked the skeletons and morphology of both extinct and extant Bison species and all of them are very similar to Bos species. So yes i can now udnerstand they are part of Bos. I am so sorry for the trouble i caused last time, now i want to be part of your project to understand the placement of Bisons within the Bos genus. 56FireLeafs ( Use talk:56FireLEafs)
Considering you PROD'd this article and the PROD was contested, the next step if you wanted to pursue deletion must have been AfD. Draftification should never be used as a backdoor for deletion, and articles over 90 days old should not be draftified. Curbon7 ( talk) 06:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:Russian_cruiser_Moskva#She_or_it? General Vicinity ( talk) 03:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Your edit-warrior friend (it seems he's my problem now) has neglected to notify you that he has begun a discussion at WP:DRN#Peet's Coffee. Avilich ( talk) 02:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
You are asserting something as a fact for which there is no consensus. I have not asserted an alternative, just removed the suggestion that no alternatives are in play, which there clearly are, including among experts. StN ( talk) 02:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your input - I am aware and looked at User talk:Akram GameYT#Cr1TiKaL, but I wanted Akram GameYT to acknowledge there was no supporting edit summary for the deletion. There has been a rash of new users wanting to weigh-in on bios of gamers, etc., including uploading copyvio images. I don't agree that British public records are violations of privacy, they know when registering that details are available to all. I was mouthed-at by an admin many years ago, but that was equally WP:SYNTHESIS . rgds,-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 01:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Fasscass. I noticed that you made a comment on the page The Grayzone that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at The Grayzone. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasscass ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on The Grayzone. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasscass ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Evolutionary anachronism is important and my reference is not vague.The wood-pasture hypothesis is important for rewilding. Wrglahl LCD söz ( talk) 12:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
There are days I wonder why I try doing things by the book. It just gives others an opening to be anal-retentive. I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about. Kent G. Budge ( talk) 13:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
No circular crater remains at Yarrabubba; however, the structure has an elliptical aeromagnetic anomaly consisting of an even, low total magnetic intensity domain, measuring approximately 20 km N–S by 11 km E–W (Fig. 1)18. The present day exposure represents a deep erosional level, as neither impact breccias nor topographic expressions of the over-turned rim or central uplift are preserved. Therefore, the ~20 km diameter magnetic anomaly has been interpreted to represent the remnant of the deeply buried central uplift of the structure, which is consistent with an original crater diameter of 70 km. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia: If recent studies use the morphological dataset to recover the Antillean sloths within Megalonychidae, then should the genera in the Megalocnidae article be covered in the Megalonychidae article? Patachonica ( talk) 18:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Megalonychid Sloths from the Early Late Hemphillian (Late Miocene), Curré Formation, San Gerardo de Limoncito, Costa Ricapublished in 2021, over a year after the molecular results came out, don't even mention either of the two molecular papers. So it's not clear whether the authors of the papers even dispute the new molecular phylogeny at all. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, I was just attempting to address specific issues raised by SandyGeorgia, but I've no problem if you want to rewrite the whole section, it could probably do with it. Mikenorton ( talk) 19:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia: Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit on the Valgipes page because the image is from a paper that is for non-commercial uses, which sadly cannot be used on Wikipedia. But the problem is, this version links to the same paper (which is NC) while the one I linked is CC BY 4.0. Patachonica ( talk) 03:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chinese paddlefish paddle closeup.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I tried to refactor the RFC to address the concern instead of closing it. I see that you've closed it but I did move my comment into the survey. Would you consider reverting the close and instead addressing the concerns? Andrevan @ 15:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I started a thread at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Andrevan @ 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Huh? Why are you posting a link from the noticeboard to its talk page? Do you have a specific objection to the version I added or are you just trying to prevent such RFC from being posted at all? Andrevan @ 18:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you closed my
WP:RSNB RFCs because it did not meet the requirement for a "brief and neutral statement"
. I am trying to figure out what is not neutral about this because the statement that is copied by Legobot is brief and is neutral (formatted as "Should we do X?"). If there are ways to improve it please let me know.
Aasim -
Herrscher of Wikis 23:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia. I see you are concerned about the state of some "Evolution of" pages, including Evolution of fish which I wrote a decade ago. I have no particular background in fish evolution. I wrote the article only because no one else seemed willing to write it. No one has advanced or corrected the article much since it was written, so it would be excellent if you have a background that allows you to do that.
Over the last three years there has been a tidal change in the availability of CC-BY papers in many science research areas, such as marine life and microbiology. There are excellent CC-BY papers, including reviews, some with superb illustrations. If these papers are leveraged appropriately, Wikipedia can make huge gains in its ability to document these science areas. When I noticed that, I made efforts to use the CC-BY articles to expand articles or start new articles that ideally would have been written years ago. However, you say using substantial passages from CC-BY papers in articles without paraphrasing them is "intellectually and morally murky at best". Can you explain your grounds for thinking that?
I agree some more recent use I made of CC-BY papers needs trimming and grooming. I was feeling the priority was first to get the relevant material into an article. Then I, or some other editor, could later better integrate it. I am old now, constrained by terminal health issues, with neither the energy nor the concentration to do a lot that is useful. But I hope to spend some remaining time better integrating some of these more recent articles. Regards. — Epipelagic ( talk) 00:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Hemiauchenia! Your work on Chicxulub crater has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Chicxulub crater (estimated annual readership: 1,276,899) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
An IP address (who I believe is our good old friend Lapitavenator) went ahead and created the page. It's mostly duplicated from the Kronosaurus article, so do you think it should be redirected again? 2001:4453:5F7:6400:5802:EED6:7415:A623 ( talk) 12:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey Hemiauchenia,
I don't want to start revert wars and basically I'm not an expert in writing Wikipedia content so probably can learn something. Just curious, why did you do this revert? "No evidence of significance" is like the most subjective explanation ever :) I believe the cult's mention in a song by a rather popular band is no more or no less "significant" than its mention in some random series. Basically this bears a thought that the subject was referenced in both movies and music. Psfinaki ( talk) 12:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Chicxulub crater to be today's featured article for an unspecified date. As an editor who has worked substantially on this article, you are invited to comment on its suitability as a TFA on the nomination page. Thanks, and happy editing. Z1720 ( talk) 19:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I have been working on Trans-Himalayan themes for the past year, and during that time, I noticed that Tsergo Ri's page was missing. As a result, I reconstructed this page. While carrying out the execution, I discovered your redirection and made the appropriate adjustments. I hope that you will well receive my contribution. If you believe the page still does not have sufficient trustworthy elements, you are welcome to change it back to a redirect at any time. RPSkokie ( talk) 13:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I quoted you here and wanted to let you know as a courtesy. CT55555 ( talk) 13:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Kiwi Farms 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. 0x Deadbeef 12:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Can I readd the paragraph on the CPBE in a sub-subheading under the subheading dealing with Marine Invertebrates on the Permian article? I think that would be most appropriate given the CPBE only extends to the Permian's earliest part and is really relevant only to marine invertebrates. Anteosaurus magnificus ( talk) 16:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what happened, but it was not intended! Sorry Firefangledfeathers! Dumuzid ( talk) 22:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough on the "s. I wondered how you felt about sensu lato. I can't work out how/if auto taxoboxes do that. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 19:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The "Families" section in the text of this article now conflicts with the infobox. I'm not sure of the best way to resolve this, so I'll leave it. Bob Webster ( talk) 17:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I have undone your undo as Marinus rens van der Sluijs is a credible historical linguist and comparative mythologist, who has a page awaiting moderation. His articles were critical of Velikovsky, not supportive of him. I guess you may have misunderstood this? A more reasoned explanation might have been sensible. Rens points out that others have forwarded ideas similar to Velikovsky before him, and that Velikovsky failed to credit them. This is pertinent, and rarely if ever mentioned in other criticisms of Velikovsky.-- David Highfield ( talk) 09:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Skyerise ( talk) 17:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You are being contacted because you participated in this NPOV noticeboard discussion. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the Male expendability talk page. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 17:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays | ||
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton ( talk) 01:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC) |
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 13:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
See here. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The revisions you've made re the classification of Chimerarachnida, Araneida, etc. don't make sense. For example, the taxobox at Tetrapulmonata has Araneida as a suborder but it includes the order Araneae. The overwhelming majority of sources treat Araneae as an order, so this is fixed. The only way to make sense of the ranks is to treat the higher ones as clades, at least in the taxonomy templates and the taxoboxes. Obviously all alternatives should be mentioned in the text. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello Hemiauchenia, in the image under subhead 'Morphology', the last line of the description states, "Black bars for B,C,E = 1mm D = 0.6 mm" to denote scale. However, there are no letters (B thru E) within the image. Please clarify. Thanks. Woodlot ( talk) 20:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).
Please remember that as the person attempting to make a change to the article, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify the change, and to get a consensus if it is disputed; and again, please do not edit war. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like best practice. For the record, I am taking it that the answer to my last question is no. No worries, that was all I needed to know. And thanks for the discussion, however dysfunctional. Elinruby ( talk) 00:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi good day, I saw you removed an edit I made (adding "Template: Acrogymnospermae classification" ) on the Gymnosperm page. You made mention the taxonomy is "abysmally bad regarding fossil taxa". I know it is hence I created one, because:
1. No where else on wikipedia is there a consensus classification of fossil gymnosperms. 2. Can you point me to what you would deem a satisfactory classification. 3. The intent was to bring gymnosperm pages up to standard as in Bryophytes, Ferns and Angiosperms all have a Template classification. So rather than just wholesale removing badly created content, you can help improve it by either fixing errors/adding content or suggesting how someone could improve it.
Warmest regards, Videsh Ramsahai ( talk) 14:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia. You recently reverted my edit on this page, in which I removed dates next to taxon authorities within the taxobox, in line with accepted customs of botanic taxonomy. Your edit summary was Do they really hurt, though?, and my answer is - its not just about customs of boranic taxonomy, but also uniformity of the presentation of articles across the entire Wikipedia site. I don't recall seeing any other botanic taxon page that includes dates in the taxobox/speciesbox − this page as it is now appears like a leper in the markets. Please revert your reversion. Junglenut | Talk 12:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Chimerarachne.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Can you review the most recent edits on this please? Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
You mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Numbeo&action=history "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion " There is nothing stopping the article being taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to gain a broader consensus on the matter. But my knowledge of Wikipedia was not good enough to bring it there. Is there something you could assist? Mladen.adamovic ( talk) 09:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dronebogus ( talk) 17:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you extensively edited Zygadenia after Kirejtshuk (2020) a few years ago, so I wondered if you might be able to help me figure out if a separate article should be made for Notocupes or not. Kirejtshuk (2020) treats Notocupes as a synonym of Zygadenia, but in a number of other articles both before and after they are treated as separate genera. In particular I'm thinking of articles such as Ponomarenko & Ren (2010), Strelnikova & Yan (2021), Lee et al. (2022) and Strelnikova & Yan (2023). Some of these suggest that Zygadenia should include only the isolated elytra fossils (there are currently 11 species for these), and Notocupes is therefore implied to be only for complete body fossils (the other >60 species). Does this seem consensus enough to split Notocupes from Zygadenia on Wikipedia too? Monster Iestyn ( talk) 20:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I think you should expand and get into more detail on the evolution in that article and frame it some it is less centric on the modern species. LittleJerry ( talk) 10:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, if possible please keep an eye on the Klete Keller lead, a vandal is trying to revert it again. It has been proven multiple times "convicted felon" is a contentious label and not appropriate for a lead sentence. Thank You. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive349#Klete_Keller 172.56.160.252 ( talk) 04:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I tried to reverse the redirect on this article using "Db-move", and you suggested that it go through a proper move request. Do you know what template I should use for that? Thanks in advance for your help. Bob Webster ( talk) 02:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey there. It's been a while, good to see you.
Anyway, I wanted to ask what the criteria is for categorizing modern politicians as fascists. I've seen some classified as fascists, like Bjorn Hocke. Firekong1 ( talk) 16:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
What is the criteria for adding common names for animals? Does it require a source? An example is when I add the name “European marten” to the page of pine marten, but it’s always removed by the user bhagyamani. I would like to know if we require sources for something like this. Firekong1 ( talk) 21:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Hemiauchenia,
I wanted to let you know that I just closed this discussion that you started. Also, on my own as an editor, I created a redirect from this page to Second American Revolution because they seem to be related concepts. This was not part of the AFD closure and if you disagree, you can nominate it at WP:RFD. Again, this was my own decision as an editor, not a consensus decision.
If you see this redirect turned into another version of this article, please let me know or tag it for speedy deletion, CSD G4. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hartebeests are now two separate species: the Northern Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus) with six recognized subspecies: the Jackson's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus jacksoni), the Lelwel Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus lelwel), the Senegal Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus major), the Swayne's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus swaynei), the Tora Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus tora), and the †Bubal Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus buselaphus) and the Southern Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama) with three recognized subspecies: the Coke's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama cokii), the Lichtenstein's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama lichtensteinii), and the Red Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama caama). 172.243.156.245 ( talk) 17:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
to get between someone and being shit all over at the drama boards, but yes, I do think it needs to be said. That account is obviously sus, and I think the only real objection anybody has is that it's rude to say it out loud. Perhaps it is impolitic for you to have said it, since that person is in the thread as well, but you are right. I highly doubt anyone would be surprised if it turned out a nefarious character was back for some lulz. jp× g 09:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
If MS paint is NOT allowed, then no paint images should ever be allowed, not even high quality ones. Kilimangoro ( talk) 20:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dream icon.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jonteemil ( talk) 22:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
You might already be aware, but they've also edited Nothofagus moorei. I saw your ANI report a while back and I've watchlisted the articles of every genus and species in the clades Araucariaceae, Podocarpaceae, and Nothofagus. Any other IP ranges or editing interests that I should be aware of? — SamX [ talk · contribs 04:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
There's a play about him opening in Manchester soon. I'm wondering if this is some viral campaign?
UK press is pretty weak over weekends, so we might not see anything until Monday. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not related to 73.115.150.4 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). We're located on completely different continents. The other IP has only edited one page while I've been editing Wikipedia for months now. And I'm not sure why providing two concrete examples of MR republishing blatantly WP:FRINGE and false articles is "not helpful". (As a funny sidenote, half a month ago I was accused of being WP:BKFIP's sock.) 93.72.49.123 ( talk) 06:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on Asoriculus. I didn't mind being reverted on the Balearic shrew merge as you followed up with a much better job. Klbrain ( talk) 10:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! What on earth is taking so long here? Best wishes, -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your tone at all. You already broke WP:NICE by using profanity against me, then you WP:EDITWAR on the article that I'm simply trying to fix an image of. What is your problem? I don't know what it is, but don't take it out on me. I was never mean to you, I don't know why you're being like that. Chumzwumz68 ( talk) 22:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I made unnecessary moves, however, I have been reverting Chumzwumz68's edits that have to do with Bison species. You're right that most bison species are in the genus Bison not Bos and that is why I am in the process of reverting of his or her edits, who thinks that all bison species are now in the genus Bos when they are still in their own respective genus Bison. Aceater ( talk) 13:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I consider the issue as settled, but what I was alluring to in the Stephanorhinus-article as evidence for human-induced extinction are recent global analyses. Most recently Lemoine et al. (2023), who find strong statistical support for human range expansion as the driving factor for late-Quaternary global megafauna extinctions. - AndersenAnders ( talk) 20:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that you deleted everything on the Indian Ichthyosaur page. I wish to ask, how do I get it back.
Have a nice day,
अथर्व कॉल ( talk) 22:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not at all familiar with this source, but if it is as poor as you suggest in your comparison to infowars, might it be worth taking it to RSN? Though, in this instance, it is correct that Wikipedia erred. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed in the deletion discussion for David Gokhshtein (in which we both voted Delete) you highlighted some suspicious accounts participating in the AfD. I found it very suspicious, too. I did a little digging today (out of boredom), and found a post by the "Director of Ops at Gokhshtein Media" (I won't name her, but you can find this in Google) on LinkedIn asking for 'Wikipedia experts' to get in touch with her. She posted this two weeks ago, right around the time of the AfD, and David Gokhshtein himself reposted it. The top reply to the post is by a Nigerian whose profile describes him as a prolific Wikipedian. So, it's safe to say her post is what led to the ...unusual... activity.
Just thought you might like to know your suspicion was justified! :) GhostOfNoMeme ( talk) 07:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
See this diff, please. Thanks. 50.75.202.186 ( talk) 21:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, I was under the impression that a closure which ended 'no consensus' could be continued if new info came up without having to take it to the admin noticeboard. I fully expect you know better, but would you mind pointing me to the relevant policy? I don't actually have an issue with how the close was handled. Riposte97 ( talk) 04:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
A California IP has been editing articles on taxa in the subfamily Machairodontinae to call them "tigers". I've watchlisted several of those articles, and I figured I should let you know if you weren't already aware. — SamX [ talk · contribs 07:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Do any of the cited sources include Palaeoloxodon in their trees? LittleJerry ( talk) 22:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
FYI, F.M. Claudin and K. Ernstson fight against Wikipedia. [33] Perchtinger ( talk) 13:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the recent rewrite of this page. It involves claims that bird mites can carry Lyme Disease, among other things, and I'm suspicious that the sources being used are not WP:MEDRS compliant. A few more eyes on the article seem warranted, given that it has strayed into very definitively medical territory. Thanks. Dyanega ( talk) 17:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for catching -- meant to put in on the Re'im page. Perils of having open too many tabs. Longhornsg ( talk) 21:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia,
In a prior discussion of Ad Fontes Media you indicated that it was a "self-published sources with no editorial oversight". Hence it was not RS. I just added the following updated description of their methodology to their Wikipedia article:
As of 2021:
The Ad Fontes methodology consists of multi-analyst ratings of news sources along seven categories of bias and eight of reliability. Each source is rated by an equal number of politically left-leaning, politically right-leaning, and politically centrist analysts, whose scores along each dimension are averaged (after any notable score discrepancies are discussed and scores adjusted if the outlier is convinced) (Otero, 2021).
Each analyst completes a political identity assessment; all analysts hold at least a bachelor’s degree—and most hold a graduate degree—with one-third holding or in the process of obtaining a doctoral degree (Otero, 2021).
Analysts are selected by a panel of application reviewers consulting a rubric of candidate qualifications—including education, political/civic engagement, familiarity with news sources and United States government systems, reading comprehension and analytical skills, among others (Otero, 2021).
Once hired, analysts complete a minimum of 20 training hours to learn the content analysis procedure before contributing ratings to the data set (Otero, 2021). [1]
According to Natasha Strydhorst of the College of Media & Communication, Texas Tech University, the ratings system provides "a viable operationalization of audiences' media selections". However, "It does not (and cannot) measure objective media bias and reliability, but it also shares this limitation with other available measures of the phenomena." [1]
Based on this methodology, would you still consider Ad Fontes to be a self-published source with no editorial oversight?
Nowa ( talk) 18:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a great example of the usual end-of-semester rush to add stuff however in order to get their grade. It reads like a high school term paper (and not a particularly good one either..) Ealdgyth ( talk) 23:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Let me teach you something. Let's say you have a strict budget and cannot pay all the subscription fees on all of the news sites you may need to access from time to time.
Take for example this interesting editorial from Haaretz, protected by a pay-wall: Israeli Jails Must Not Become Execution Facilities for Palestinians https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/2023-12-08/ty-article-opinion/israeli-jails-must-not-become-execution-facilities-for-palestinians/0000018c-45ed-db23-ad9f-6dfd35930000
No subscription?
Go to https://archive.ph/ 1) Paste the link in the lower black box
2) If this doesn't work, click on the upper red box.
This works most of the time, for most western news sites, like NYT, Wapo, London Times, Telegraph, Economist, etc. But not always... Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
And I never discuss block length in front of the blocked. When you become an admin, you can do things your way. BusterD ( talk) 15:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
okay, remove the name Armenian mammoth from synonyms, but let’s remove the skeleton??? Is he bothering you with something? Or are you confused by the fact that he is in Armenia????? You are ALL trying to remove him. Armen888 ( talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I am confused as to why you believe that extinct animals (like Camelops) do not have common names. Many do (" woolly mammoth," " American mastodon,"" woolly rhino," " dire wolf," " giant ground sloth," and so forth). It turns out that Camelops does, too, which you can look up yourself; see, for example, its entry at The San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance Library, and you will see other museum, library, and scientific sites list and explain the popular names as well. Since it is factually correct that the animal has popular names, how is it advantageous to Wikipedia users to prevent them from knowing these names? Is there a constructive purpose to making Wikipedia users find out about the popular names only by looking the names up outside of Wikipedia? Mdnavman ( talk) 01:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)mdnavman
Hike395 is wishing you
Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user
Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— hike395 ( talk) 20:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
...I'll remind you that the personalized rhetoric at BLPN is only going to hurt you. I get your frustration, but it's probably best to be the bigger person and strike that "low quality editor" comment yourself. If it were me getting heated in this way I'd want you to remind me too. Best wishes, Generalrelative ( talk) 05:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Lungfish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ceratodus.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I've started a thread at WP:ANI on Johncdraper's behaviour regarding this topic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, 'Unjustified reversal of the description of S. emiratus'. the species is called in its complete form: Stegotetrabelodon syrticus emiratus Khalaf because it was Norman Ali Bassam Khalaf-Prinz Sakerfalke von Jaff who described it in 2010 in the article, available online according to the reference I have indicated, and not Sanders in 2020. As for the reference to Futura in French for the footprints, it only repeats, in French, what the article by Norman Ali Bassam Khalaf-Prinz Sakerfalke von Jaffa says in English (and so many others after him just as available in English), specifying moreover, these fingerprints have been known since 2001. It is fundamental in science to respect the true authors of research work and not their commentators. Sorry for the form, I am not English-speaking but French-speaking. Obviously Petrochii, who was the first to define the genre, and Mackaye deserve to be cited. Sincerely 2A01:CB1D:3CF:CA00:C55F:BEE0:9538:A67F ( talk) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Advice you to keep Wikipedia a source of neutral perspectives. Present facts of both sides. Your recent deletions on Supreme Court judgment which is a fact makes the article would be wrong since it missed key point for the context in the page Wikidrifterr ( talk) 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Literally, every edit in the article was sourced from supreme court order and from reliable sources.
Shouldn't the court order be relied to know what court says than other random articles from left wing propoganda?
Factpineapple (
talk) 14:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
left wing propoganda [sic]seems hyperbolic. The recent RSN discussion about the Supreme Court ruling (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Indian_Supreme_court_rulings_for_archaeological_claims_regarding_Babri_Masjid) suggests that it's not usable for anything other than its own judgement. Newspaper are the lowest form of reliable source, and we should be relying on scholarly sources for a dispute as contentious as this. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi sir/madam,
you reverted my edit in Sean Kirkpatrick page because you siad:
1. Debrief is unreliable. could you please provide any evidence for this?
2. Sean Kirkpatrick is somehow a fringe topic! how it a person fringe? Samir-Tabarrok ( talk) 22:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
for starting the RfC at Ram Mandir! Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I found that you added an authority for the name "Amphioxiformes" in this edit. However, I cannot find any mention of lancelets in the journal volume you linked (searched for terms like "Leptocardii", "Branchiostoma", "Amphioxus", "Cephalochordata", found nothing). You also linked to a ZooBank page, but it merely lists the name with no authority.
As far as I have been able to find, the name "Amphioxiformes" was first used by Berg in 1937. Do you remember any details about this 1886 citation? Ucucha ( talk) 15:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about your way of proceeding. I think it's going to be confusing if you keep changing the proposal in light of the discussion. Wouldn't it be easier just to discuss your proposal for a while and then post a new proposal? Thomas B ( talk) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Can't you just hold off on changing your proposal until we've talked about it for a couple of days? Just self-revert back to version with my comment and wait for others to weigh in. Then decide what you think would be a good version. (Btw, it was not Hunt, but Hunt's wife, that got the job in Japan.) Thomas B ( talk) 21:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I will be participating in your proposal if you keep changing it in real time. Sorry. You can still just revert back to this version [34] Thomas B ( talk) 21:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
See IRMNG and but is not corrected inside the 2nd source on the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Go back and read the edit notes. The only 'edit warring' was from your side, claiming there was a 'consensus' and then just reverting instead of pointing out where that consensus was in your notes, on the talk page, or on my talk page.
I mean, yeah, blanking generally is a Bad Thing and you feel strongly about that particular page. I'll waste my time some day going through formal merge procedures... but you could (a) point out where that consensus was—it's not on either page's talk or linked from either one—or (b) just look at the content. I wanted the Jazeera in Algeria which is at the other list of the exact same words by a slightly different English translit. There's no daylight at all between the two pages and the laundry list of automated search tools dumped at the bottom doesn't really justify the needless and very unhelpful fork. — LlywelynII 23:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I added text that is more or less directly from the American Politics Research source. This is the part of that source I'm drawing that from: "Richard Spencer, who popularized the term alt-right and was identified as one of the movement’s leaders, disavowed his white supremacist beliefs in a text exchange with a journalist (Bassett, 2022) nearly five years after the Unite the Right rally. This is only the most recent example of Spencer’s fluid policy positions. He has repeatedly countered his own previous statements about what he believes and how he identifies himself ideologically." Fred Zepelin ( talk) 01:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that your edit here left a dangling sentence that reads:
"Other authors have used Sauropsida to include"
and then there's no full stop or object in the sentence. GliderMaven ( talk) 18:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Listen, I don't know what I did to earn your ire. I understand that fossil fish taxonomy is a tricky subject and perhaps some of my contributions may not be to your liking and you see fit to correct them, and that's all well and good. I'm perfectly fine with all that; I promise that I'm one to generally defer to the expertise of others and don't start edit wars. But with the hours I spend searching online for sources (e.g. to back up the stub pages I'm improving at the moment), I'm at my wit's end with you constantly being WP:UNCIVIL towards me and implying that I'm too dumb to do research in your responses to my edits. Here are some of your comments towards me from the past few months:
"Please actually do some research before blindly following a book." (the book I "blindly" followed in question is the taxonomy system that the whole site follows, and I was doing what I assumed would be proper)
"No. Please expand (other page) if you want to do something useful." (Implication that I'm wasting my time with the edits I choose to make. I initially had a good faith reading of this but now I'm not so sure.)
"Your slapdash editng is really starting to get on my nerves. It's obvious that you do not conduct proper literature reviews when you make taxonomic changes." (unnecessarily hostile and threatening first sentence, and see my comment about looking for sources for hours. What decides what is a proper taxonomic resource? If we are talking about a stem-group lineage here, one could either consider it a separate sister lineage or a basal member of the crown group. If you disagree, simply revert the change with your reasoning instead of accusing me of misconduct.)
I contribute to zoology/paleontology Wikipedia because it serves as a rare bit of solace for me in hard times and I can contribute to public communication of a subject I love and hope to pursue, and the stakes are low enough that even if someone disagreed, I assumed they wouldn't be hostile about it, but it seems I was wrong. I appreciate all your work, I really do. But please disagree with my edits nicely. I don't know why you're treating paleoichthyology like politics. I'm just trying to do my best. Geekgecko ( talk) 04:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
retainment of the old classificationin recent papers, then you should follow it while noting alternative schemes. Also, Lance Grande, one of the authors of FOTW 2016 and an expert on Acipenseriformes who probably wrote the Acipenseriformes part of the classification section in FOTW 2016, co-authored a recent paper (2023) saying that Chondrosteidae were in the Acipenseriformes. [42]. PaleoBioDB is a terrible resource for taxonomy because it is completely unable to handle multiple contradictory classification schemes so often the taxonomy collapses into a complete mess. The best way to learn about the classification of any specific organism is to read a selection of recent research papers and see where the consensus lies. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
want[ing] to spend too long on a single taxonis not a good enough excuse. What's the point of making rapid edits to hundreds of pages if a good portion of them are going to be problematic? Nobody is setting the timeframe for your edits other than yourself, so you have no need to hurry. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I notice that you have uploaded two paintings from "Substantial light woodland and open vegetation characterized the temperate forest biome before Homo sapiens". Firstly, I would like to thank you for this, and I would like to ask how you did this. I wrote to Science Advances asking for permission to use these images, but received no reply (presumably because you were quicker to ask?). Also, could you upload the other two images (fallow deer and aurochs) to use in e.g. the relevant articles? AndersenAnders ( talk) 10:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding another editor's repeated restoration of contentious material without discussion. The thread is /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nomoskedasticity_and_Douglas_Murray. Thank you. FirstPrimeOfApophis ( talk) 19:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
[44] Doug Weller talk 20:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I saw it was redirected from my watchlist -- looking at the previous revision, I can kind of understand why. It's a big fat nothing! It is hard to imagine how much rancor there was over this little article back in the day, when all it ever amounted to was that. Oh well! C'est la vie. jp× g 🗯️ 07:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit to Paleollanosaurus! Good job! —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ Hemiauchenia
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna ( talk) 18:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
i noticed that you reverted my edits on the Late Pleistocene. You said that it was incoherently written could you expand more on this. what can i do to make it more encyclopedic? I would like to understand this more because my edits is used for a class. Frances Mamman ( talk) 23:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
This period is also important in the study of human origins because this was when the human ancestry began to evolve shown in genetic and fossil evidence from Africa dated back to 300Ka. There is also a significant amount of evidence showing the evolution of a Eurasian species called the Neanderthal
I don't think all of your additions to the article are bad, but to be honest the article was not in a good state to begin with, and on the balance your additions would need to be fundamentally and deeply reworked to be acceptable. Can you not just show your instructor your sandbox? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palaeoloxodon cypriotes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molar.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edits to Al Jazeera, but I only moved some information from the introduction to the controversies section. I also added some positive information to the introduction, but you reverted that as well. The Al Jazeera introduction is written to attack the news channel, but all news websites have controversies, which can be discussed in the controversies section, just like in other articles.
Gsgdd ( talk) 08:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
§ | Hi |
Thanks - Suggest you enter these ammendments as I am not great with the modern tech. Kind regards, Huiarau Huiarau ( talk) 20:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC) |
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
Hello, Hemiauchenia. 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)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Hemiauchenia. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 11:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on Chimerarachne. My institution doesn't subscribe to Nature Ecology & Evolution so it was good to be able to read a knowledgeable and well written article here. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Cretamygale.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Howdy - we may be editing at cross purposes there :) The general consensus with monotypic fossil genera is not to make the article about the species, but about the genus (while presenting the type specimen of the single species, naturally). I have edited accordingly. Were you aiming for something different? Cheers -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the vague revert, but that sort of thing isn't really a good idea to publicize. Personal info and all that. Primefac ( talk) 19:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot ( talk) 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot ( talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks 😃 for helping me out here. Spirits of the Ice Forests is outdated. Most of the dinosaurs are not from Southern Australia let alone Antarctica. Australovenator is from the Winton formation so that could be a polar dinosaur. I do agree with some of your general points.
( Bubblesorg ( talk) 18:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC))Austrlian spinosauride is from northen Australia. Queensland
( Bubblesorg ( talk) 02:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)) Sorry i was referring to the wrong theropod.
Do you have any expertise in Geology. Are you a geologist yourself. Or do you just have a good grip on the field. This is because Ashorocetus and dunkleosteus 777 said you did. We need you for the geology section for South Polar Dinosaurs. It might be key for the article to hit good article entry level.
( Bubblesorg ( talk) 03:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC))OK also help, Could you just redreict this for me ( /info/en/?search=Platanistida). Thanks and that 3rd year degree sound great. Good job.
Paleontology Barnstar | ||
Dear Hemiauchenia, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Grünbach Formation. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, Anupam Talk 06:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, I noticed that you changed a few infoboxes where I had set the period to the relevant Geological period, to the relevant Stage (stratigraphy). I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Infobox_rockunit_colours. It's not a huge deal as only the infobox colour is changed. Consensus may be to change it to the stage, where we have that information, in which case the name of the parameter should probably be changed. Mikenorton ( talk) 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia want to help with the article again. -- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Are you there?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dinosaur Beds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern Region ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I strongly urge you to add additional content to these articles that you are creating. They are all notable, but something more can surely be found , even in the single source you are using. At the very least, who first described it. As they areu ndoubtedly discussed in multiple texbooks of British geology, there should be references. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
happy to have you man-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of stratigraphy. Abyssal ( talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bostobe Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sands ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, together we are working hard I see. Thanks for following my steps and correcting hasty mistakes. Still a lot to add in new articles, but the maintenance of the South American, African and Oceania geologic formations is nearly completed now. Cheers, Tisquesusa ( talk) 17:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your tireless contributions to all the geologic formations and paleontology in general. Tisquesusa ( talk) 00:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC) |
Do you want to anymore?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 18:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 15:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification of the first appearance date of Trigonotarbids. However, the fact remains that 419Ma, as stated in the infobox, is Devonian, not Silurian. Plantsurfer 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Hemiauchenia. 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 Hibernian Greensands Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lias ( 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) 07:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Hemiauchenia
Thank you for creating Sebeș Formation.
User:DGG, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
This article really needs some additional references.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|DGG}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your SPI report was made manually and was missing the template that lists it on the WP:SPI page, meaning no one would have seen the report. I'd recommend using Twinkle to automatically fill out these reports, it adds all the necessary templates. Also thanks for pointing this user out to me, sometimes you know you're dealing with a sock but have no way of finding out who :) – Thjarkur (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lourinhã Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intercalation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lourinhã Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Korallenoolith Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oolitic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese paddlefish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tail fin ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panther Mountain Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panther Mountain ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to
Jordan Peterson, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with
Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the
reversion of clear-cut
vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.
Doug Weller
talk 10:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Hemiauchenia,
Thank you for creating Perichelydia.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Ideally we want one more reference for this article to help meet verifiability requirements ( WP:V). Nice start on this stub though! Great images.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 21:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Musk deer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lufeng ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the heads up here [3]. Little annoys me more than rudeness to our editors. I must learn to stay cool in my dotage. Best wishes Graham Beards ( talk) 10:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Look, it seems my "by the rules" attitude may have upset you, in that you may or may not believe that you have deserve priority over newer editors simply because you're an older user. However that is not how things work, and indeed your opinion (or the opinion of anyone else) is no more valuable than someone who registered yesterday. We are all equal. This is what I believe is the root of the problem in that you haven't shown any reasonable idea of compromise or engagement on whether "China Virus" is a widely used term or not, where is your evidence? When you revealed that you believe that the name should be removed because the Chinese government disapproves of it, that was an implicit admission from you that the name is indeed used, as the Chinese government itself would have no reason to comment on something that isn't seeing wide use. Furthermore, Twitter is not representative of the general internet. For example people outside of the millennial generation are extremely unlikely to use Twitter, so that reasoning doesn't hold up. According to basic Wikipedia guidelines the term qualifies for inclusion because it is in the relevant context and has been used by multiple major reliable sources, including Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. We are not trying to deliberately include terms with stigma, it is just that think we that Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines dictate that we should not be censoring reliably-sourced information for reasons of personal editor dislike. Symphony Regalia ( talk) 20:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Um... Is there really need for aggressive scolding? I know that Symphony Regalia may be more than a little unreasonable, but calm down, please. It hurts just looking at the paragraph above. Foxtail286 ( talk) 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Please link to any kind of policy declaration that states that divergence times should be indicated in the fossil range section of taxoboxes. I'm not aware of any. Obviously, if there is one, it contradicts what is indicated as the intent for this parameter in the Template:Automatic_taxobox instructions. As one example, the tuatara article indicates a fossil range of 19–0 Ma, with no mention of any ghost lineage going back to the Mesozoic. I think you (and possibly others) are conflating two different things, and that fossil range is intended to indicate the date range of actual recovered fossils. If it wasn't, it obviously should be renamed to a term that more accurately reflects its meaning. I'd also appreciate not being falsely accused of being obstinate. WolfmanSF ( talk) 22:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Megaceroides algericus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equus ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Wiki users like Hapa9100 and Shinoshijak suggested that I remove Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag from the blond wiki page ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Blond ). Hunan201p also hasn't replied me in talk page since May the 4th after I provided evidence there's nothing wrong with the book sources about ethnic Hmong and Miao being blond. Can you give me your opinion. Queenplz ( talk) 23:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I am mighty confused, the account was not blocked when it posted this [ [4]] yet within less than 12 hours they post this [ [5]].
My issue is that when they posted the request they must have assumed they were blocked, yet had still posted (otherwise why ask if they can post because they are blocked?). This raises a number of questions. Moreover (and reviewing the block) it says "non. only, account creation blocked" yet they created an accountant at a time when they thought the block was still in place (which in fact it is). So I suppose they assumed (correctly, if only technically) they were block evading. As I said this raises some serious questions. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I've noticed that on three Lilo & Stitch-related articles, you've removed information that used WatchMojo as a source. However, you didn't provide a proper explanation as why they shouldn't be used or even linked to a discussion that outright says they cannot be used as a reliable source, only calling them "terrible" in your edit summaries, which makes it seem that your edits were solely motivated by personal opinion. As a result, I had to undo them.
I have independently found some discussions for other articles on Wikipedia ( here and here) about using WatchMojo as a source. Based on these discussions, I do agree that it should not be used for objective information about any topic, since much of their content is opinion-based (i.e. their many ranking videos) and the objective information they receive for their topics are taken from many other sources. (I did find a 2017 discussion about the company and website on WikiProject Video games where one user deemed WatchMojo as unreliable, even for opinion pieces, but that's only for the scope of that WikiProject—i.e. video game-related articles—and not for Wikipedia as a whole, and it was only discussed between two users.) However, in the three L&S articles in question, WatchMojo was only used with regards to the reception of those topics (or for specific parts of them in the case of the Lilo & Stitch: The Series crossover episodes) and how they ranked each topic in their own lists. (I did rewrite their Leroy & Stitch reception entry afterwards because, upon a personal re-read, the way it was originally written did give them too much undue weight, making it seem like they were an outright definitive opinion when it's really just based on their own ranking. I've also done the same to a lesser extent for the other two topics.) In fact, to quote a user in that one of discussions I linked:
Context matters when determining reliability ... in this case, the ref to WatchMojo is a primary source supporting the statement that WatchMojo itself gave a specific ranking to the band [Girls' Generation]. Now, that information may or may not be worth mentioning in the article ... but that is a WP:Due weight issue, not a reliability issue. Purely focusing on reliability, WatchMojo is a reliable primary source for its own internal rankings.
Still though, I will ask you why do you think WatchMojo should not be used as a reliable source for even opinion or reception-based entries? And if you want an outright consensus on them, then should we get Wikipedia to discuss whether or not they should be used as a source for anything? – WPA ( talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@ WikiPediaAid: (Continuing from the discussion on your talk page). I agree that initially my edit summaries were bad, they improved in the second half of the ~200 WM citations I removed, my apologies. Thanks for the additional context. My issue with WM and opinion is that WM uses freelancers who have no expertise in the topics they are covering, and with no evidence of fact checking or editorial oversight, their opinion holds as much WP:DUE weight as someone's self published blog post. While many other more respectable media and entertainment websites published low quality listicle articles, their writers are more like to have expertise and therefore authority on the topic. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
On 22 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Megaceroides algericus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Megaceroides algericus is one of only two deer species known to have been native to Africa, alongside the Barbary stag? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Megaceroides algericus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Megaceroides algericus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your work keeping wild horse up to date. Iamnotabunny ( talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm just curious. If the Fox news RfC were to end today, would Fox News still be labeled as a reliable source? When do you think the discussion will end? Scorpions13256 ( talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
May I kindly ask you to take a look at Talk:Mustang#Final_draft? I’m not certain I got the right sources cited to the right content, there was so much discussion and many drafts. (Seems like there were two Weinstock studies, but am now just seeing one...?) And we need consensus to unlock the article and fix the contested content. Montanabw (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey Hemiauchenia! I noticed in your comment here that you link out to Sourcewatch. Is this a generally good source for this kind of reliability question, or is it more like MBFC, where it isn't particularly 'reliable' itself, but is good for a gut check? Thanks in advance for your time. Jlevi ( talk) 00:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
64+20+32+9=125 how did you come up with 132 total?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
We were working on Irish elk at the same time. I wiped out your changes. Sorry. Usually I painstakingly merge the other editor's changes into mine, but this time it was too complicated. Since you know what you were doing, it's easier for you than for me to do your changes again. Sorry again. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 01:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donghe Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 25 July 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 Jianfengia, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. 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 only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not remove a redirect without establishing consensus. P,TO 19104 ( talk) ( contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I assume you are familiar with BRD. An editor made a bold edit, (and refused to fix after a polite request) so I reverted. The next step is to open a discussion. Please do so.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Please don't place {{ banned user}} on a user's user pages unless they have been banned by the community or arbitration committee such as you did here -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors ( User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede 66 22:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, hope its ok for me to ask you for help on RS from time to time. You have been quite helpful thus far.
I see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#HuffPost_contributors. Would this article be considered "contributor" or "staff" or maybe something else? I'm asking cause its used in WP:BLP. VR talk 16:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Vice regent: It's the opinion of well known intellectual Sam Harris, I think it's fine to use as long as it is WP:INTEXT attributed to Harris. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
CHECK THIS OUT! I wonder if the synonymy of Caiman venezuelensis is 100% sure? they also got Balanerodus as a nomen dubium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Congrats on nominating for deletion the longest running hoax on Wikipedia! Amazing that nobody else managed to get it deleted. Thank you for actually CSDing it! MrAureliusR Talk! 00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC) |
Hello, this is the account that you claimed has multiple sock accounts. I have nothing to do with the other accounts that reposted my edit. The reason they did this is probably because I think it is clear that this edit improves the Wikipedia page President of Azerbaijan by adding reliable neutral information. I think that the IP adress 109.93.13.102 is edit warring since they reverted the edits that other users published and when reposted, they removed it again. I hope by reading this you have understood I have nothing to do with the other accounts. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor331 ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia it might be that they are sock accounts of another account, but as I said before I have nothing to do with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor331 ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC) @ The Editor331: There's currently an open sockpuppet investigation, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor331 If you aren't the sockmaster the CheckUser will exhonerate you. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, this litoptern you get for the continuing improvement of and attention for the fossiliferous formations of this world! Have a great weekend, Tisquesusa ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey I have a question about WP:RS again. I was reading WP:USESPS and noticed that "government publications" are considered "self-published" Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Identifying_self-published_sources. Yet Pew Research Center is considered reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Many government agencies in north america publish high quality reports like StatCan. Both Pew and StatCan have their own internal editorial review that check for accuracy, and both collect their own raw data and have internal experts analyze and interpret it. So why is StatCan SPS but PEW is not? VR talk 19:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok.
but only for a camelid connoisseur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1421:5D40:5173:B714:5D3B:C321 ( talk) 04:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Edit was an unintentional rollback in Windows. Thanks for correcting. SamHolt6 ( talk) 00:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grès à Voltzia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dolomite.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't see this at all, what a strange conclusion to make... Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 19:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Re:
My comments made towards you about the spelling of The Grayzone were, in retrospect...
I have no idea what it was about: I do not know either of yous (found it by chance), but bows to you for having written it.
Kudos! Zezen ( talk) 19:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tanyderidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:
Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric talk 00:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Look dude, I can't stress how embarrassed I am for you when I see you post. I'll tell you straight just once, so you can be a full and equal participant, if you want to be. Sometimes people want to be caught. It's all about the circumstances in which they are caught. Wikipedia routinely invading the privacy of people with real sounding names, simply because they post about the Daily Mail, regardless of topic, regardless of location, that's a bad thing for Wikipedia. I know it, the people CheckUsering me know it. It's big boy stuff. You can do what you want, but have a look around first. Get to know the field. Do the people who get sucked further and further into the sock hunter / sekrit keeper role, and further and further away from the content writing, do they look happy? Do they sound happy? Are they having fun? Is it a hobby still? If the name Jytdog doesn't mean much to you, look him up. I don't know why you edit Wikipedia, you might genuinely be one of those people who thinks it's an encyclopedia, and are doing what you do out of simple innocent enthusiasm. Don't let me shatter the illusion for you. Get into my business for long enough however, you will soon get to learn things about Wikipedia you probably never ever wanted to know. It can be quite cruel, opening people's eyes. I've seem them change. You're only three years in, which is no time at all. Keep your innocence for as long as you can, and allow yourself the most peaceful way to leave Wikipedia, by just getting bored. Because if you're honest with yourself, you're already nearing that point. Watching out for me, with your big boy's mallet in your sweaty palm all ready to go, that's getting to be more fun than writing about boring old paleontology, am I right? Choose life. Barry The Bat, But Not BatMan ( talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Note: User is a sock of Brian K Horton ( talk · contribs), almost certainly the same user as JackTheJiller/Crow's Nest on offwiki forums and also possibly the same as the long blocked MickMacNee. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Robin Was The Real Hero: Crow, My first edit on Wikipedia was in March 2013 as an IP user diff (the IP is dynamic, and is now no where near where my address at the time was, it is obvious I am a UK based user like you from other edits I've made anyway). Your age estimation is somewhat off. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "And you're not some kind of child genius, that much is painfully obvious." You say that "Is this hostile?" but that sentence makes you sound like you're trying to call me stupid, and it's difficult to charitably interpret it otherwise. If your referring to my spelling errors, I've been having long-term neurological issues that substantially predate me creating this account that cause them, and I apologise for the resultant lack of tidiness.
Nobody on Wikipedia is a genius, me included. We are here to write a general purpose encyclopedia, not to write novel research. What I meant by "free reign" and "nobody intereferes with my edits" is that unlike Israel-Palestine etc. where your edit is likely to get reverted, I can get on with writing what is reflected in papers. One of the things that is nice about writing on obscure topics is that you know that if you don't write it nobody else will. It's also rewarding to see the consequences of my editing reaching the wider internet, it's hard to imagine this reddit post existing unless I created the Megaceroides algericus article.
I wonder what your take on the Wired piece Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet. You've spent much of your time for at the last few years complaining about Wikipedia on various forums. Let me ask you this, you tell me to "choose life" yet you fail to make this choice for yourself, why? Why devote your time to something you know you cannot fix and that your efforts to do so are futile? I recognise that Wikipedia as a website is deeply flawed, Its incredibly small, white, 90% male insular community is totally unrepresentative of its readers, (and so are the even smaller criticism forums) but nothing that you are doing is going to help the deep issues that Wikipedia has, I'm not sure anyone can. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just a note on your creation of
Template:Taxonomy/Erdtmanithecales. There are two distinct classification hierarchies for the parent spermatophytes/Spermatophyta. Setting |parent=Spermatophyta
produces a hierarchy in which "Plantae" doesn't appear (see
Template:Taxonomy/Spermatophyta). Setting |parent=Spermatophytes/Plantae
produces a hierarchy in which it does. The latter is preferred by
WP:PLANTS, and seems to me more appropriate for an article whose opening sentence is "
Erdtmanithecales is an extinct order of gymnosperm plants". However, if you don't agree, feel free to set the parent back to "Spermatophyta".
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karabastau Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
It has been done... all phanerozoic periods use the phanerozoic template now. Benniboi01 ( talk) 04:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amphibian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anura.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dream (YouTuber) 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/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination) 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. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed at WP:RSN that you were concerned with the amount of articles that had citations to Jihad Watch. I was also concerned. I've taken the liberty of removing or replacing every citation that wasn't used for pure aboutself reasons: [7]. Please let me know if I missed something. Happy editing!-- Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk) 23:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Swag Lord was supposed to be observing an interaction ban with me, which they've broken several times. Their comment at the RfC was a violation which I understand is why they struck it, but apparently they decided their next step is to play games and be petty about it, fully aware I was being patient and allowing time for the RfC to finish after being attacked for even starting it.
I'm hanging my hat up for a while. There's no point trying only to be attacked, harassed, hounded, and then find myself put into "no option is the right option" situations every time I try to do anything at all. IHateAccounts ( talk) 03:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Dream icon.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{ Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JackFromReedsburg ( talk | contribs) 17:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pachycormiformes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pachycormus.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey,
I'm trying to determine whether Majid Rafizadeh, whose website calls him a " world renowned political scientist", is a reliable source. He seems to have ties to the Saudi government and his list of publications seem to consist only of op-eds, things published by Saudi agencies, and..."Harvard pub". This is an example of such a "Harvard pub" published article.
Would Harvard pub be considered an independent publisher? Would it be regarded as peer-reviewed? Thanks in advance and sorry for the bother. VR talk 19:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Vicennalia | |
Thanks for all your work for the encyclopaedia; it's twenty years old today! GPinkerton ( talk) 19:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich ( talk) 02:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
-- RexxS ( talk) 16:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you still making progress on Irish elk? There hasn't been significant activity on it since our edits way back last summer. I'm just wondering if that's still your goal? User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 22:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing that you said that ""indigenous people" (a term rarely used outside a western settler colonialism context)", I have to correct you, "indigenous peoples" might not be a term found in da-to-day life but it is the legal term in international law and significantly fought for by indigenous peoples, because it legitimizes rights beyond mere minority rights, because they are recognized as peoples, which is significant particularly for international law. And it is not North America centric, at most Americas centric. Nsae Comp ( talk) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the other day on FTN links to RationalWiki, I can't say that I've looked closely if it applied, but just wanted to make sure that you knew about the WP:OUTING policy. I think you're doing good work and this is taken very seriously on WP (productive editors have been banned over it, some may also have been lured and took the bait). There's this paradox where we're often obliged to keep what we know (even if hypocritically, unfortunately, it's like AGF with obvious socks). — Paleo Neonate – 06:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
If individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums.When you say
productive editors have been banned over itI guess you are referring to Jytdog? As you are no doubt well aware, Jytdog had an extensive history of blocks for posting idenifying personal information, such as emails and linkedin profiles, and the final straw was when he rang a person based on off wiki research, which is way over the line, and not something I intend to do. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 09:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lab_leak_COVID_conspiracy_theory,_again regarding unjustified and false accusations. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. Billybostickson ( talk) 00:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, you're an experienced editor. There has been a lot of heat at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and I have a feeling your edits might – slightly – have fueled the fire. Without technically banning you, may I kindly request that you avoid editing that page for now? The discussion will be evaluated by an administrator (or multiple administrators) experienced with closing deletion discussions, and further comments are relatively redundant as you have clearly made your point. Thank you very much in advance; feel free to simply remove this message to acknowledge receipt. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 00:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Even if the connection between a Wikipedia editor's account and their account on another website is clear (e.g. same username on both platforms), connecting them to that account (assuming they have not made the connection themselves) is still a violation of WP:OUTING. Please do not do that again. If you need to bring in off-wiki evidence of any sort, send it to ArbCom. GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your good work at Whitney Wolfe Herd! Marquardtika ( talk) 03:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Hemiauchenia, can you please take a look at Bilorv's recent edits to The First TV? It feels to me like a backdoor attempt to ignore the consensus that we established and turn the article into an attack page, but I hesitate to confront the situation directly due to my COI - maybe you could assess it from a neutral vantage point. Thank you! D00dadays ( talk) 13:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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 " /info/en/?search=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) 17:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Requests for oversight should be done by email, see WP:OVERSIGHT. Posting it on wiki only compounds the problem. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 23:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Hemiauchenia, I'm so so sorry for mistakenly indeffing you. I must've clicked on the user I reverted to, rather than the user I reverted, by mistake. That was completely my fault. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
bruh dream us born on august 12,1999 and u keep changing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBM Red ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Proficiently understands the usage of reliable sources at Talk:Dream (YouTuber) and defends Dream (YouTuber) from unsourced claims. As one of the creators of the article, I bestow this barnstar upon you. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC) |
Hi there! I noticed you had a bit of trouble using {{ Requested move}}. Please substitute the template and include your reason, for example as below:
{{subst:requested move|Lineage B.1.1.7|It's clear that the term "Variant of Concern 202012/01" has fallen out of use and that "B.1.1.7" and related terms are now the common name for the lineage used by most sources, including the British Government [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nervtag-paper-on-covid-19-variant-of-concern-b117] [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nervtag-update-note-on-b117-severity-11-february-2021], as such I propose a move to a "B.1.1.7" related name.~~~~}}
I'm no expert by any means, but I hope this helps! ArcMachaon ( talk) 00:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
{{subst:requested move|
{{requested move/dated|
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Feynstein ( talk) 18:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi again, I think it would be better if you could answer in
WP:ANI directly instead of leaving comments in summaries trying to defend yourself by insinuating I think there's a conspiracy behind this involving you. "People are misrepresenting my comment as if this is some kind of conspiracy, when it is just my opinion. As such, I have struck the comment in order to avoid the cause of more problems.
".
[10] For your information though there can be a generally concerted effort without the need for it to be a conspiracy. People with the same mindset usually tend to stick together. The difference with your comment is just that you made it explicit. And you said "as usual on Wikipedia"... As if it's ok to stonewall people into getting topic banned. Or if it was a thing you were into. I mean... In how many ways can someone misrepresent a clear statement like that? Anyway please come to ANI to explain yourself so we can get to the bottom of this, thanks!
Feynstein (
talk) 00:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey there, just making sure you saw this. Some of my pings haven't been going through lately for whatever reason, so you may not have seen my message. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 20:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, thank you for your response on the discussion page. As mentioned, I'm reading up on criticisms of the theory, from both proponents of the plume theory and more impartial observers. I will add the criticisms section, along with making the other proposed revisions, in the next few weeks. The current page was just a starting point, my intention being to produce a page that is informative, well-supported by relevant literature, impartial, and critical. I realise that, as it stands, it falls short of at least some of these aims. Thank you for allowing me the time to make the necessary improvements. All the best, SphericalSong ( talk) 15:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Anarchyte ( talk • work) 17:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit (blether) 15:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
you reverted my dream edit but dream said his name is clay on purpose /info/en/?search=Talk:Dream_(YouTuber)#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_17_March_2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgegod245 ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
See [11]. You may also be interested in the related discussion here [12]. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:52, 23 March 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.
No, I can't fix your edit conflicts. I've already spent ages fixing my own, so why do you expect me to fix yours too? Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the material was there before. It was removed. I restored it and sourced it better. And discussed.(BRD) The other editor removed it a second time. The concerns have been addressed and are under discussion. Your reprimand acts like there are reversions for no reason. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
You reverted an edit I made on TCM. The intro is an important part that sums up the entire article. TCM like Yoga, is an alternative therapy with many different practices. Some of it are Herbal drinks and tonics and others are exercises like Tai Chi.
I have issue with the current article intro as it fixates on an opinion piece who have provided Zero evidence that disciplines like ginger, Tai Chi, etc are useless and to be avoided. Are there evidence to imply that people should avoid Tai Chi and drinking ginseng. I don't believe there's any harm in doing so and instead the few studies have shown benefits.
The intro should be mindful that we currently don't know everything about the human body. Sometimes a natural herb that was later discovered to have benefits for the human mind can take decades for scientific research to understand..and even then it's more a lack of research rather than evidence that keeps us from knowing whether it works or not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-Hydroxytryptophan
As long as there's a lack of research to confirm that Tai Chi, ginseng, etc are completely harmful or useless. I think it is harmful and downright closeminded to allow such a prematurely and unfounded solid conclusion of such a vast discipline, to be the top intro. Casualfoodie ( talk) 09:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
For example - Note the last edit that I did on this article, was undone. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&oldid=1018200943 One guy first claimed it wasn't backed by solid sources. Then deleted it. He was wrong so I put it back in. Then another falsely claimed it was a commercial endorsement despite it's actually not. It's from an impartial government institution that after a review of the evidence, recommended acupuncture for managing chronic pain. They are not commercial but working for the public interest only to help sufferers reduce their pain so it's not a commercial endorsement but major historical and relevant facts. I will address that issue later but I don't feel this article has editors that are willing to be impartial but seem overly vested to delete any info that even remotely supports acupuncture like the edit I just mentioned.. Even if I add in that scientists successfully treat inflammation in mice recently ( which is true) , I am certain that adding such ture and well backed info, will get a lot of opposition and fighting before it finally gets added in. And I don't have time for that.
In regards to your comment. It's not up to us or the overly vested skeptics to conclude whether or not exercise or spices are good for us. It's still up to the scientists (who actually done research on the matter) first. And from what I read from research on acupuncture, scientists have made it clear that they are only just starting to understand the effects of acupuncture and newer systematic reviews are different from the older ones in that they conclude that evidence shows it's more than a placebo effect. Yet the current plus-related acupuncture wiki article page is heavily outdated. It only still shallowly shows the systematic reviews from more than decades ago as if that's the final study. It doesn't even mention the newer updated systematic reviews in equal detail that had concluded that evidence shows acupuncture as more than a placebo effect and its findings. https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20180521acupuncture.html I do plan to at least update and address the article properly and add in the newer systematic reviews but I am still just a volunteer and I have my own professional life to take care of. So you can still reply to me here and I will address it in a few months time. Casualfoodie ( talk) 07:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry to bother you out of the blue but, looking at
this, I just wanted to politely nudge you that it's conSensus
rather than conCensus
– that is, it's more to do with consent
than census
, very tempting though the latter is. Gah – I know it's a PITA when some unknown irritant shows up on your Talk page weebling on about spellings, but I just hoped it might save pain in the future! Cheers
DBaK (
talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to give some justification on my revert. BLPSPS does say to avoid self-published sources, however, it does have an exception for sources published my the subject of the article: unless written or published by the subject of the article.
Thanks! If you don't object, I think I'll partially re-add some of the references.
EpicPupper (
talk) 16:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@ EpicPupper: I object. We do not need to include every minor controversy covered by muckrakers like Dextero in BLP articles, per WP:NOTNEWS. The controversy had no lasting significance. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I’m interested to know how an experienced Wikipedia editor might determine that ‘Sapiens, f***ing really?’ is an appropriate response to a novice editing a line in good faith? Would be glad to hear back on why you’re disparaging of ‘Sapiens’; and/or why the line I added isn’t more appropriate? Hope your health is continuing to improve. regards, Andrew @ajjmcd
I do not have a relationship to Alan J Cooper. I am a scientist and I found his article on the Laschamps Geomagnetic excursion. I was interested in doing further research on Dr Cooper and his work and I found that his Wiki page had no mention of this new work. I went to add this information as I feel it is important that his wiki page includes this new work. However I also checked the history of the page before making my edit and read through the previous edits and your immediate removal of said edits. I read the edit that Andersjames0921 made and chose to put back the section about the research into Laschamps Geomagnetic excursion as it was well written. While I was revising the edits I noticed the changes about his situation with the University of Adelaide. I read the two articles linked on the page and the edit Andersjames0921 made and I feel the edit Andersjames0921 made describes the situation in more detail and is a more balanced perspective.
I am curious as to why you are removing edits about published science labelling them as potential conflicts of interest, immediately after they are published. -- Ledgereyrar ( talk) 02:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
What is your connection to Dr Alan J Cooper? You seem to have some sort of connection, your reasons for undoing my edits seem to be based on emotional reasons, using words such as 'puffery', 'terrible' and 'crap prose'. Similarly your username is a fossil, so it appears you work in a similar field.
I hadn't been aware of WP:FORBESCON. So here's one of those all-too-rare "thanks for reverting me" messages. I appreciate your diligence! Generalrelative ( talk) 19:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marl Slate Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dolomite.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
-- Hipal ( talk) 02:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
You've taken a sourced/fact-based edit, and deleted in favour of one that is rife with opinion. For example, the edit that you added calls a physicians claims "erroneous." This is pure opinion, and whose?
On 11 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Love Has Won, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in April 2021, the body of the founder of the new religious movement Love Has Won was found mummified and wrapped in Christmas lights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Love Has Won. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Love Has Won), 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) 00:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 10,617.5 views (884.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2021 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Hemiauchenia, upon attempting to add the word 'book' in brackets, (e.g., [[ ]]) no external link suffices from my end. Can you take a swift look at the article page and provide feedback on this inconvenience. /info/en/?search=Draft:Love_In,_Love_Out:_A_Compassionate_Approach_To_Parenting_Your_Anxious_Child
Thanks.
Multi7001 ( talk) 05:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Multi7001: I have no idea. The best place to ask is the Wikipedia:Teahouse. I hope they can be of assistance. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
"I would like to see discussion on the talkpage about whether this content is due for inclusion out of principle".
This isn't a valid reason to revert an edit, especially not given when I checked the talk page, there is no discussion on my edit on the article nor my talkpage, suggest you identify what part of the edit you have an issue with and why, post on the article talk page and also post on MY talkpage, rather than revert the whole edit for some undisclosed principle. Wikipedia works on the principle WP:ROWN.
Aeonx ( talk) 13:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia, if you assessed my edit was WP:UNDUE why have you not made any such comment to that affect on the article talk page or in your revert of my edit? Perhaps you can explain on the talk page why? If not I will add discussion to the article talk page later today. Aeonx ( talk) 04:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The newest Israeli PM penned this editorial in the New York Times where he praises himself (like politicians frequently do) and this is used in Naftali Bennett. WP:ABOUTSELF says we can't used self-published sources if they are "unduly self-serving". But is this a self-published source? Given that NYT often publishes editorials from those they disagree with I doubt they edited Bennett's piece before publishing it. Or should we assume that everything NYT publishes, including editorials are always vetted for accuracy? VR talk 18:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, just writing to let you know that you can find your cladogram at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Cladogram requests#Caprinae phylogeny in case you forgot. Sorry if you have seen it already :) Draco phyllum 07:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm travelling with horrible laptop & didn't even see, much less edit this page. No idea what happened. Johnbod ( talk) 19:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Compsemys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basal.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi I am curious as the edits you did on the Pleurodira and Chelidae. You have replaced ICZN nomenclature with PhyloCode. No living taxa of turtles use PhyloCode there official list of species as followed by CoL and Reptile Database, and Wikispecies is the IUCN Checklist of the Turtles of the World. This is also the nomenclature that is recommended to be used here. Names with Pan-... are actually nomenclaturally unavailable as they fail to conform to the rules of the ICZN which is adhered to by Chelonian Researchers. Turtles are Order Testudines, Sub-order Pleurodira for side necks and then it goes to families, you can put the Podocnemids and Pelomedusids into Pelomedusoides if you wish. This arrangement you have done does not follow the currently accepted taxonomy for these taxa. I know Walter Joyce and his recent paper, but it is not followed by Chelonologists. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I reverted your change here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bret_Weinstein&curid=57169820&diff=1032022661&oldid=1032017279
The reason I felt this revert was necessary is this article is undergoing an NPOV noticeboard here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bret_Weinstein_NPOV_breach_in_lead_paragraph_footer.
And a VICE reliable source noticeboard here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vice_on_Bret_Weinstein
I think it is premature to include more edits, especially given the recent protected editing and ongoing discussions both in the above noticeboards and the talk page itself. I encourage you to participate.
Thank you and happy 4th FrederickZoltair ( talk) 03:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Hemiauchenia,
I mentioned that Dream was criticised by some for not donating enough to the Trevor Project, since that stream was the only one he did for the entire month of June. Could I still mention it?
-GBAlph4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBAlph4 ( talk • contribs) 14:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, so what would be the Wikipedia equivalent of talking to your manager? I would like to dispute your unilateral closing of an open discussion, which has yet to arrive at any conclusions. Twice already. In the last one, which you may have missed, my point of view received a voice of support. Does that count for nothing? Dylath Leen ( talk) 19:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Dylath Leen ( talk) 09:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am NOT "involved in a significant controversy or dispute with Grabowski", neither "on- or off-wiki", nor am I "an avowed rival of that" person. Likewise there is no "legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes" I'm involved in with him.
The fact that HE chose to apparently mention my editor account in a absurd op-ed which HE chose to write does not create BLPCOI. I've been mentioned by Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and several other outlets but obviously I'm not about to stop editing those articles. This is not what BLPCOI implies. Volunteer Marek 18:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find words for this situation. Suppose there is a WP:DISPUTE where users disagree on whether historical event X happened. We have 3 kinds of reliable sources:
If, for example, X is the Holocaust we have plenty of sources of type A. We also have many sources of type C (which document Holocaust denial), but very few of type B (because not many scholars, if any at all, actually deny the Holocaust). Thus we say Holocaust is a fact, it is not "disputed", and we must use wiki voice for it.
So how do you explain a situation where someone "rebuts" sources of type A with sources of type C to argue event X is "disputed"? What policy or guideline covers this? Do I say "voice matters"? Do I say "a viewpoint's WP:WEIGHT isn't just judged by a source that covers it but the voice used by that source"? Is this something that is not covered appropriately by our policies? Thanks! VR talk 20:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, You have deleted many weeks of work when you deleted parts of the article "Martinus Thomsen". You can´t just delete 38.165 bytes without conferring with anyone and without the consensus of administrators. Please don´t do that again. The article is well balanced. See for example the section "spiritual science". I just report what Martinus teaches, just like the article "Martin Luther" just reports what Luther teaches. It´s not my personal opinion. If you talk about violating NPOV, I suggest you rather look at the article "Christianity and Theosophy". That article is unbalanced.
You say "unsourced". What do you mean? There are many references. Alexandramander ( talk) 20:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Due to your previous contributions to
Wellheim Formation, I'd like to ask you for your input on its talk page.
I made a
proposal for a sub-section that cleary states that certain claims by the producer (and other sources repeating them, while referring to that company) do not represent the view of mainstream geological research.
I feel that this is an important point for the article that will likely get challenged by the producing company in the future. So why not get consensus for such a clear statement now? --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk) 16:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. E.yorke0 ( talk) 20:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I have no affiliation with the Physicians for Patient Protection. I am a medical physician (thus familiar with news in medicine), and recently read an unrelated newsletter regarding vandalism of the page on Wikipedia. My intention was to clean up vandalism in medical articles, which I usually do anonymously but happened to be logged into my Chess account (EntmootOpening) at the time from WikiBooks. Thank you for your shared concern in ensuring pages are neutral.
EntmootOpening ( talk) 21:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me about the COI. I've opened a sock investigation into Science, Diamond and Bonafide. If you could add any further evidence or comments on the discussion then please do so and take a look: [13] Thanks. Inexpiable ( talk) 19:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Why were the changes deleted? what is the problem? I returned the data and added references, as suggested to me after the first deletion of my change. АРК9367 ( talk) 22:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry for that. My bad. Thanks АРК9367 ( talk)
MikeGHaitian Hi Hemiauchenia,
I got a notification from you about edit war in regard to a conversation with SunDawn. I am trying to underdand what I did wrong to prevent being an issue. From my point of you, the issue is that SunDawn keep deleting updates that I made to an article on President Jovenel Moise adding some facts on the basis that I did not provide proper reference. I managed to figure out how to provide proper reference and notified SunDawn so it doesn't get deleted. Please see the communication below to let me know what the issue is. In the process, I kindly pointed out a factually incorrect information on the article instead as to where president Moise died instead of just deleting SunDawn's work. I thought that was more polite. Please help us resolve any issues in the interest of freedom of speech for all Americans.
Hi Sundown, on the changes I made to the Jovenel Moise article. I added some links to help you with sources, and thanks for pointing that out as it lands more credibility to what I was saying for a person who don't follow Haitian news as closely as I do. So you know I am Haitian and follow Haitian politics closely, like everyday. I know about everything I wrote in that article, and they are facts. Please feel free to reach back out if you have questions instead of just deleting what I wrote. Thanks,
Hello MikeGHaitian (talk · contribs)! Hopefully you have a nice day! I reverted your edits here [1] because your edit did not cite any sources, per WP:CITE. If you have references for the material, please add it to the article, otherwise it can't be accepted. Happy editing! SunDawntalk 09:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Hello, I added the links to the sources in parentheses. That's a way to reference the work. Hello MikeGHaitian that is not how referencing works. Please read about WP:CITE to see how to reference properly. Furthermore, most of your edits are just news pieces, and per WP:NOTNEWS most of the materials added can't be placed into the articles. So, you can't add every single infrastructure development on the country on the article page, though I would argue that major developments can be added. Finally, YouTube is not a reliable source per WP:RS so you can't reference to YouTube links.SunDawntalk 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Hi Sundawn I figured out how to properly add the references and it should be good to go now. By the way President Moise's home where he was assassinated is not located in Petion-ville. It is located in Pelerin 5.
I rolled your change back because I think it's incorrect to associate this subject with telecommunications. It's not a telecommunication device - it's just a scam. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Think you haven't noticed, Hemiauchenia, but Level 5 Animals has been filled by myself and Larrayal to 2,400/2,400 [14] [15], and your recent 3 additions has pushed that to 2,403/2,400. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Please avoid edit-wars! You have repeatedly removed scientifically substantiated discoveries without consensus with other editors. You accept fanciful speculations about Atlantis and aliens, but not scientific facts about geopolymer-concrete and historic records? Please restore: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pumapunku&diff=1043779923&oldid=1043778900 -- 79.7.112.133 ( talk) 15:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 01:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Hemiauchenia:
Hello,
I partially reverted your changes in the introduction of
this article.
The reason I felt this revert was necessary is this article is undergoing an
NPOV noticeboard here.
(which I just noticed you introduced yourself on October 5)
And
in the talk page here.
I think it is premature to include more edits on this subject, especially given the recent protected editing and ongoing discussions both in the above noticeboard and the talk page itself.
I encourage you to participate.
PS : However, I have reintroduced the list of English speaking sources you rightly added, to add up to others already presented in the article on this subject, and all the more because they also quote Zemmour other than "far right" for some of them.
cheers, --
Emigré55 (
talk) 05:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Can you please clarify that your comment here refers to a hatnote TO THE BAND? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 00:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
"undid revision 1051389870 by JJK2000 (talk) See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Sportskeeda_generally_unreliable?, there is consensus that SportsKeeda is unreliable for BLPS"
Well maybe you should have lead off with that. Kind regards, JJK2000 ( talk) 06:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@
Hemiauchenia: regarding your edit
here:
As stated by
WP:NPA
here: « It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. »
Hence, I kindly ask you to remove your edit. Thank you in advance.
Also,
WP:AVOIDYOU: « As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people ».
This is neither about me, nor about my opinion. This is about the article and its content.
WP:NPA: « Personal attacks are disruptive. On article talk pages they tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together.»
Thank you, --
Emigré55 (
talk) 09:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Hemiauchenia, the reason why i changed Mr. McDermott's korean name from Kim Chong-Nam to Kim Chong-nam is because of todays romanizations of korean names. The linked article (Source Nr. 3 on his page Disappearance of Patrick McDermott) is from the year 2000:
Back in the day Wikipedia etc. didnt exist. And the author of this article used a romanization which is outdated since many years. Not just Wikipedia, but also the United Nations and the International Organization for Standardization writes korean names either with lowercase after the hyphen, or in some other romanizations as one name together. It's Ban Ki-moon, not Ban Ki-Moon, or Kim Jong-un and not Kim Jong-Un. It's up to you, but dont you think it would be ok to change Kim Chong-Nam to Kim Chong-nam? Best regards. -- Alleingänger ( talk) 12:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Really? WTH? It's spring time (at least in the southern hemisphere). WP:Civil. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big John (dinosaur). 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. Two can send condescending, patronising edit warring notices Indeed, your edit summary was the well spring. Figure it out. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
We've all been here long enough to realise disagreements happen, and sometimes we lose our temper a bit (I know I do!). Take a step back and grab a cup of tea or something, please. I've left the same message to them as well ~ TheresNoTime ( to explain!) 16:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you are not directly involved but perhaps you wanted to be aware of the existence of this ANI discussion: [16]. JBchrch talk 16:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! Not sure if I replied adequately or represented the various positions and concerns I have on the article, but hit me up if you need more information before making your edits, I've actually been studying this question for quite awhile academically and also have lived in several of the most affected areas / am an indigenous & "indigenously-interested" person, so there's plenty more that could be said for sure and you seem like the type of person who is genuinely interested in digging deeper, so just let me know. I don't mind one-on-ones with you or other serious editors to figure out the best solutions, I'm just not sure how much detail is expected by people commenting on the Talk page right now: from what I can see, the answer is "not very much", and I've already possibly overcommunicated for that forum. Fatbatsat ( talk) 06:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi. By changing the rank on this template you're creating incosistencies that show up here. Also your changes are unreferenced. Can you explain what you're trying to achieve? YorkshireExpat ( talk) 20:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Hemiauchenia, I noticed that after the new redirect was made after the Kate Miller article was deleted, it had an effect on the now closed AfD [17] - If you click on the Kate Miller name in the old AfD, that now directs to the notable Kate Miller-Heidke, which may be confusing if anyone needs to look at the AfD. Do you think there really needs to be a Kate Miller redirect page? Netherzone ( talk) 00:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
And the Deletion Log now points to the wrong Kate Miller. [18] Netherzone ( talk) 00:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kate Miller. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 4#Kate Miller until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Netherzone ( talk) 01:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it felt to me like we were all very close to mild improvement on the Eskimo page. Now I don't know where we are. There seemed to be almost unanimous agreement to move the page closer to being about the term, if not the whole way. I assume the A B lead discussion requires an uninvolved administrator. Then we could have a formal discussion about either page name or page intent. How do you see us moving forward? Dushan Jugum ( talk) 20:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Dushan Jugum: I think a request should be made at WP:RFCLOSE for someone uninvolved to close the RfC, given the lack of new comments. I have no investment in the etymology dispute, and probably won't comment further on that. I am thinking of also opening a second RfC on scope, which I think will be the best way forward. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Obivously, this [19] was the best temporary remedy. But a pity for the Reich paper. I'll think of a short and handy way to reintroduce the gist of the paper (as far it concerns the circumpolar peoples) in a more sensible way. – Austronesier ( talk) 19:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roproniidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello
I tried to ping you about a new proposal
here, if you wish to comment. Regards,
Moonraker12 (
talk) 03:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Your previous comments on Forbes as a reliable source for Wikipedia. The current distinction of Forbes print copy being reliable and Forbes.com being unreliable does not appear to be a useful guideline for most Wikipedia editors. Especially since all of the articles (print copy version or dot-com version) are generally accessed through Forbes.com anyway. My own experience is that the articles are almost always reliable and match one-for-one on numbers reported with other reliable sources. This leads to editors needing to mechanically redo sources which match up one-for-one with other reliable sources and switch for no other reason than this "red light"/"green light" policy on Forbes.com being red-light and Forbes print edition being green-light. Many editors are losing much edit time apparently for no reason. If Wikipedia editors are losing their contribution time to this odd distinction of a red-light and green-light policy for Forbes, then should the distinction be re-evaluated? ErnestKrause ( talk) 17:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@ ErnestKrause: This is something you should take up with WP:RSN and not my talkpage. Forbes.com staff content is considered reliable Forbes Contributors content is not, see WP:FORBESCON Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Um, wasp = Apocrita, less ants and bees, so its parent, if it has one, is Hymenoptera. It isn't a subclade of anything, of course. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the citation to the NY Times in this edit at Eric Zemmour, regarding the announcement of his candidacy. Thanks also, for using an *English* source, instead of the French sources that others have been adding; Wikipedia prefers English sources when available, so by adding this one, you are supporting the best possible WP:Verifiability of the article. (The French sources added by others are not wrong, they are just not optimal.)
Two tips:
|lang=
or |language=
param in your citations for an English source; i.e., adding |language=en-US=
to that citation isn't needed, so you can save a few characters that way.Both of these date wordings are correct in English, but the second one is preferred by the Manual of Style's guide to date formats and does not contain the. As long as one format is used consistently throughout an article, there is some latitude of choice; usually, the first major contributor sets the tone, and others should follow. If there is no prior pattern, I would use the most international version, "30 November 2021". For more on this, see MOS:DATEFORMAT and Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines. Thanks again for your contributions to the article. Mathglot ( talk) 21:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
|language=en-US
is perfectly acceptable and possibly desirable; see my reply to Editor
Mathglot at
Wikipedia talk:Citing sources with Zotero § Use of cite param 'language' with value English. The article from The New York Times is behind a paywall so |url-access=subscription
is appropriate.The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for using your expertise to improve Amabilis uchoensis and Podocnemididae, and for your kind helpful remarks at DYK. HouseOfChange ( talk) 03:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hey Hemiauchenia,
Re: this closure - I appreciate you wanting to prevent further degradation of the discussion, but I don't think the summary properly reflects what happened there, nor am I sure that the discussion should've been closed (rather than having portions of it collapsed), since votes are still coming in. I think closure should've been done by an admin; included a summary of the consensus; and considered that PAs were heavily one-sided. What do you think? François Robere ( talk) 13:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
My apologies, I reverted your edits by mistake! I self reverted (not sure why it reverted that page I was reverting vandalism on another page!!!) Tommi1986 let's talk! 18:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, regarding your revert here, there was nothing about soap opera there. The liberal media is a big source for Wikipedia, it is biased according to respectable sources and Wikipedia itself has a liberal bias. This is a serious issue, not a drama, and your revert is just an attempt to shut down a serious conversation about the reliability of the sources - and subsequently about the neutrality of Wikipedia. It means suppressing the views that are not mainstream. The topic can be discussed and the conversation can be eventually closed. But your revert means trying to pretend that opposing views do not even exist. Please restore my edit. Thank you. -- Barecode ( talk) 09:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy regarding "Citing yourself":
Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason , but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.
The paper being cited (Ostachuk, 2019) in the "Crab" page is relevant: it has been published in the journal Evolutionary Biology, it has been cited 4 times so far, and it has been downloaded 418 times from the publisher page [24].
Hemiauchenia has been extremely violent with his/her commentaries from the beginning. He/she (who knows who he/she is?) has been trying to accuse me from unethical behavior ("Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own work"), when it is clear according to Wikipedia policy on "Citing yourself" that this not a crime or violation of the terms of use . I advice Hemiauchenia to be more respectful and polite, as I have been, and not to accuse me of false denunciations. In my edits, I have not only cited my own work but others too (5 different citations in the article "Crab"). I will not further discuss the quality of my work with an unknown person with unknown academic formation.
It seems to me that you do not want to accept Wikipedia's own policies: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP: SELFPUB, and is not excessive". It seems to me that there is not much more to add, just accept the reality of the facts and evidence. If citing yourself were a conflict of interest or a crime, you would not be allowed to cite yourself in scientific publications. If this is allowed in true academic publications, it does not make sense that it is not allowed in a general information web page, the content of which is not considered academic or scientific literature.
It is clear that all my edits are in my name, since my username is my name, so it is quite redundant to clarify that the edits were made in my name. I have nothing to hide and I registered on Wikipedia with my name. This gives transparency and clarity to the system, and automatically eliminates any type of conflict of interest (since everything is in view and registered). The use of pseudonyms only contributes to confusion, turbidity, opacity and impunity, and does not make it possible to reveal the conflicts of interest and the hidden interests that these people are defending. I don't think security has anything to do with this. This is not Wikileaks. Aostachuk
Sorry about that, misclick on a twitchy Chromebook. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I take issue with your assertion that I'm adding original research to this article. I'm not. This has been discussed exhaustively by a large number of people. The ICZN has clear rules - all I did was point out the ICZN rules that pertain to this situation and indicate their implications, which are as clear as a bell.
I'm far from the only one who realizes this.
I'm not interested in what may or may not be said on Darren Naish's blog. Blogs are not legitimate sources of information.
I stand by the text I added.
not trying to be a jerk, but I'm basing my text on my 30 years of experience as a professional systematist. I didn't do "research;" I saw immediately what the situation was and pointed it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Your assessment of the situation regarding Wellnhopterus is factually wrong. I'm sorry, but it just is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Could you provide me with a list of Wikipedia articles to which I've contributed?
You're not interested in my expertise, so I think it would be best if they were deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrochu ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey, apologies for moving that redirect without a prior discussion. I just stumbled on it and saw that it redirected from "religion" to "Christian denomination" and thought that was a bit strange, so I moved it without thinking anything of it, not realizing that there would likely be templates that used the redirect. Thanks for reverting and clarifying the need for discussion. Where would I start something like that? Would it be in the talk page for the redirect itself? -- Grnrchst ( talk) 14:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hemi! I wanted to take this time to thank you for all you do at Wikipedia, and especially for your help at BLPN. It's such an important policy, and I'm glad we have you around to help. I wish you a very merry holiday season, and may the new year bring great happiness and joy. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth ( talk) 08:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand that the mammal lived long before human presence, but I included it because the section of text does not make it clear that it is referring only to recent history. I think it wouldn't hurt to include the link, since it does not disrupt the flow of the article, and the SBM article has relatively few other articles that link to it. An anonymous username, not my real name ( talk) 15:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I see you reverted my edits at Janzenella. I've fixed the taxobox for you (again). No need to thank me ;); but I left it as a {{ Automatic taxobox}} this time.
I've had a discussion about this sort of thing before. It appears there is no consensus on how to do taxoboxes when there is only one extant species, but a fossil record of others. I guess the question I would ask is, would and of the species (fossil or extant) get an article of its own, or is this unlikely; I feel the latter in the case of this wasp. Therefore, a speciesbox feels better to me, as it makes the species a topic for the article too. I'm not too precious about it though.
Being honest, there is an element of autopilot about it. Cheers. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 17:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding my use of EB: not sure what warrants its removal.
I think you may have misunderstood what [ "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica"] refers to: per EB, "The vast majority of articles attributed solely to the editors have been written, reviewed, or revised by external advisers and experts, and the lack of formal acknowledgment of their contributions was an editorial policy dating to the 1970s." Not a crowdsourced entry.
The piece of information I referenced is just being used to support the categorization of the Afar language as part of the Saho-Afar language group. KaerbaqianRen 💬 23:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The cycle is BRD. Not BRR so you get your preferred version, D. Take it to the talk page. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: WP:AN3 is that way. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
you can I would like a refund please I need your help with this matter as soon as possible I will be there at the same time I don't have a pictured in the hospital with my mom in the hospital with 105.112.217.105 ( talk) 11:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Re: Undid revision 1066560509 by SVTCobra (talk} It's not outing in this case, as the editor themselves was linking to the material in their edits
Sorry, but it had every appearance of being exactly that. There was no mention of it in the COIN post. I don't think anyone should be required to search all edits by users before reporting outing. But if you are right, you are right. -- SVT Cobra 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Just an update for you: I have been familiar for quite some time with the socks of WCF editing from an Austrian IP range. For some strange and silly reason, the disruptive editor DerekHistorian was confirmed as a sock of WCF, even though he actually geolocates to the UK (as can be seen from numerous Google books bare URLs) and must be a different person also based on editing behavior that's different from the Austrian IP edits. Vamlos exactly fits within the behavioral profile of @DerekHistorian, and I have been looking for sexy diffs to prove it. Even though the problem editor is blocked now, I think @valereee has dug up a diff that might be useful to disentangle the WCF SPI mess. – Austronesier ( talk) 13:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
So adding a comment from the academia is accepted as self promotion but a random guy can decide wheter it is a promotion or not. I strongly find your actions on the revisions offensive as I believe that even the knowledge that you have is not only exist but also does not exist. ForTheScience ( talk) 19:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-"American Society of Mammalogists including bison species within Bos". The fact that a certain group of people place Bisons within Bos does not make it valid. Bisons as a whole are still placed in their own genus by the vast majority of scientists and biologists. Not to mention that during an edit war all participants in the conflict must be called out. Yet apparently i am the only one, which proves the bias of Hemiauchenia. It takes multiple studies to confirm the classification of organisms. And genetic analysis already found genetic similarities between American and European Bisons. Not to mention the morphological and genetic differences between Bos and Bison species (extant and extinct). So my edits are justified. The bias of Wikipedia users is the reason why so many information in articles is incorrect.
"If the American Society of Mammalologists includes Bison within Bos, then we should too" That has to be one of the worst biases I've ever seen. Just because one study says so doe snot mean every other study will agree. And am sure your only saying we should believe it because it has the word "American" on it. Look, i have nothing against nationalism but for god sakes, when it comes to scientific research one must be biased to multiple articles that have the most logical explanation. One article who study did not took in consideration the incomplete lineage shortage amongst Bovini is not very trustworthy. /info/en/?search=User_talk:56FireLeafs
If its true that Bisons are within Bos, then i need you to explain me the relationships between modern Bison species and extinct ones (its worth noting that a study pointed out that the Wisent is possibly the descendand of the Pleistocene Woodland Bison, who in turn looks very similar to the Wisent). And i also want you to show me to morphological similarities between the genus Bison and Bos. If both are concluded to be morphogically and genetically similar enough i suppose we could reclassify them as part of Bos. But we should probably talk about this with more scientists. /info/en/?search=User_talk:56FireLeafs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Please explain your analysis of the reliable sources regarding bison at the article talk page. That strengthens your argument enormously. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
BuySomeApples ( talk) 07:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Hi! I was wondering, would you be able to provide your perspective regarding my move proposal on the talk page of Short-faced bear? Although I proposed it a while ago, none of the page watchers have replied. I would appreciate your honest feedback. Thanks. SuperTah ( talk) 14:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I've checked the evidence you and other users showed me and now that i think about it it makes sense that Bisons are placed within Bos. The fact that Yaks have shaggy fur like Bisons confirms they speciated from yaks. Multiple species of Bos like Gaurs, Zebus and Aurochs have spines similar to those of Bisons. They fact that they can safeley breed with cattle proves their effectively part of the Bos genus. Not to mention many people question if Bisons breeding with cows was even a problem. Ive checked the skeletons and morphology of both extinct and extant Bison species and all of them are very similar to Bos species. So yes i can now udnerstand they are part of Bos. I am so sorry for the trouble i caused last time, now i want to be part of your project to understand the placement of Bisons within the Bos genus. 56FireLeafs ( Use talk:56FireLEafs)
Considering you PROD'd this article and the PROD was contested, the next step if you wanted to pursue deletion must have been AfD. Draftification should never be used as a backdoor for deletion, and articles over 90 days old should not be draftified. Curbon7 ( talk) 06:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:Russian_cruiser_Moskva#She_or_it? General Vicinity ( talk) 03:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Your edit-warrior friend (it seems he's my problem now) has neglected to notify you that he has begun a discussion at WP:DRN#Peet's Coffee. Avilich ( talk) 02:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
You are asserting something as a fact for which there is no consensus. I have not asserted an alternative, just removed the suggestion that no alternatives are in play, which there clearly are, including among experts. StN ( talk) 02:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your input - I am aware and looked at User talk:Akram GameYT#Cr1TiKaL, but I wanted Akram GameYT to acknowledge there was no supporting edit summary for the deletion. There has been a rash of new users wanting to weigh-in on bios of gamers, etc., including uploading copyvio images. I don't agree that British public records are violations of privacy, they know when registering that details are available to all. I was mouthed-at by an admin many years ago, but that was equally WP:SYNTHESIS . rgds,-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 01:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Fasscass. I noticed that you made a comment on the page The Grayzone that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at The Grayzone. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasscass ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on The Grayzone. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasscass ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Evolutionary anachronism is important and my reference is not vague.The wood-pasture hypothesis is important for rewilding. Wrglahl LCD söz ( talk) 12:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
There are days I wonder why I try doing things by the book. It just gives others an opening to be anal-retentive. I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about. Kent G. Budge ( talk) 13:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
No circular crater remains at Yarrabubba; however, the structure has an elliptical aeromagnetic anomaly consisting of an even, low total magnetic intensity domain, measuring approximately 20 km N–S by 11 km E–W (Fig. 1)18. The present day exposure represents a deep erosional level, as neither impact breccias nor topographic expressions of the over-turned rim or central uplift are preserved. Therefore, the ~20 km diameter magnetic anomaly has been interpreted to represent the remnant of the deeply buried central uplift of the structure, which is consistent with an original crater diameter of 70 km. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia: If recent studies use the morphological dataset to recover the Antillean sloths within Megalonychidae, then should the genera in the Megalocnidae article be covered in the Megalonychidae article? Patachonica ( talk) 18:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Megalonychid Sloths from the Early Late Hemphillian (Late Miocene), Curré Formation, San Gerardo de Limoncito, Costa Ricapublished in 2021, over a year after the molecular results came out, don't even mention either of the two molecular papers. So it's not clear whether the authors of the papers even dispute the new molecular phylogeny at all. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia, I was just attempting to address specific issues raised by SandyGeorgia, but I've no problem if you want to rewrite the whole section, it could probably do with it. Mikenorton ( talk) 19:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia: Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit on the Valgipes page because the image is from a paper that is for non-commercial uses, which sadly cannot be used on Wikipedia. But the problem is, this version links to the same paper (which is NC) while the one I linked is CC BY 4.0. Patachonica ( talk) 03:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chinese paddlefish paddle closeup.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I tried to refactor the RFC to address the concern instead of closing it. I see that you've closed it but I did move my comment into the survey. Would you consider reverting the close and instead addressing the concerns? Andrevan @ 15:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I started a thread at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Andrevan @ 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Huh? Why are you posting a link from the noticeboard to its talk page? Do you have a specific objection to the version I added or are you just trying to prevent such RFC from being posted at all? Andrevan @ 18:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you closed my
WP:RSNB RFCs because it did not meet the requirement for a "brief and neutral statement"
. I am trying to figure out what is not neutral about this because the statement that is copied by Legobot is brief and is neutral (formatted as "Should we do X?"). If there are ways to improve it please let me know.
Aasim -
Herrscher of Wikis 23:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia. I see you are concerned about the state of some "Evolution of" pages, including Evolution of fish which I wrote a decade ago. I have no particular background in fish evolution. I wrote the article only because no one else seemed willing to write it. No one has advanced or corrected the article much since it was written, so it would be excellent if you have a background that allows you to do that.
Over the last three years there has been a tidal change in the availability of CC-BY papers in many science research areas, such as marine life and microbiology. There are excellent CC-BY papers, including reviews, some with superb illustrations. If these papers are leveraged appropriately, Wikipedia can make huge gains in its ability to document these science areas. When I noticed that, I made efforts to use the CC-BY articles to expand articles or start new articles that ideally would have been written years ago. However, you say using substantial passages from CC-BY papers in articles without paraphrasing them is "intellectually and morally murky at best". Can you explain your grounds for thinking that?
I agree some more recent use I made of CC-BY papers needs trimming and grooming. I was feeling the priority was first to get the relevant material into an article. Then I, or some other editor, could later better integrate it. I am old now, constrained by terminal health issues, with neither the energy nor the concentration to do a lot that is useful. But I hope to spend some remaining time better integrating some of these more recent articles. Regards. — Epipelagic ( talk) 00:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Hemiauchenia! Your work on Chicxulub crater has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Chicxulub crater (estimated annual readership: 1,276,899) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
An IP address (who I believe is our good old friend Lapitavenator) went ahead and created the page. It's mostly duplicated from the Kronosaurus article, so do you think it should be redirected again? 2001:4453:5F7:6400:5802:EED6:7415:A623 ( talk) 12:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey Hemiauchenia,
I don't want to start revert wars and basically I'm not an expert in writing Wikipedia content so probably can learn something. Just curious, why did you do this revert? "No evidence of significance" is like the most subjective explanation ever :) I believe the cult's mention in a song by a rather popular band is no more or no less "significant" than its mention in some random series. Basically this bears a thought that the subject was referenced in both movies and music. Psfinaki ( talk) 12:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Chicxulub crater to be today's featured article for an unspecified date. As an editor who has worked substantially on this article, you are invited to comment on its suitability as a TFA on the nomination page. Thanks, and happy editing. Z1720 ( talk) 19:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I have been working on Trans-Himalayan themes for the past year, and during that time, I noticed that Tsergo Ri's page was missing. As a result, I reconstructed this page. While carrying out the execution, I discovered your redirection and made the appropriate adjustments. I hope that you will well receive my contribution. If you believe the page still does not have sufficient trustworthy elements, you are welcome to change it back to a redirect at any time. RPSkokie ( talk) 13:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I quoted you here and wanted to let you know as a courtesy. CT55555 ( talk) 13:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Kiwi Farms 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. 0x Deadbeef 12:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Can I readd the paragraph on the CPBE in a sub-subheading under the subheading dealing with Marine Invertebrates on the Permian article? I think that would be most appropriate given the CPBE only extends to the Permian's earliest part and is really relevant only to marine invertebrates. Anteosaurus magnificus ( talk) 16:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what happened, but it was not intended! Sorry Firefangledfeathers! Dumuzid ( talk) 22:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough on the "s. I wondered how you felt about sensu lato. I can't work out how/if auto taxoboxes do that. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 19:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
The "Families" section in the text of this article now conflicts with the infobox. I'm not sure of the best way to resolve this, so I'll leave it. Bob Webster ( talk) 17:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I have undone your undo as Marinus rens van der Sluijs is a credible historical linguist and comparative mythologist, who has a page awaiting moderation. His articles were critical of Velikovsky, not supportive of him. I guess you may have misunderstood this? A more reasoned explanation might have been sensible. Rens points out that others have forwarded ideas similar to Velikovsky before him, and that Velikovsky failed to credit them. This is pertinent, and rarely if ever mentioned in other criticisms of Velikovsky.-- David Highfield ( talk) 09:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Skyerise ( talk) 17:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You are being contacted because you participated in this NPOV noticeboard discussion. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the Male expendability talk page. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 17:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays | ||
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton ( talk) 01:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC) |
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 13:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
See here. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The revisions you've made re the classification of Chimerarachnida, Araneida, etc. don't make sense. For example, the taxobox at Tetrapulmonata has Araneida as a suborder but it includes the order Araneae. The overwhelming majority of sources treat Araneae as an order, so this is fixed. The only way to make sense of the ranks is to treat the higher ones as clades, at least in the taxonomy templates and the taxoboxes. Obviously all alternatives should be mentioned in the text. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello Hemiauchenia, in the image under subhead 'Morphology', the last line of the description states, "Black bars for B,C,E = 1mm D = 0.6 mm" to denote scale. However, there are no letters (B thru E) within the image. Please clarify. Thanks. Woodlot ( talk) 20:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).
Please remember that as the person attempting to make a change to the article, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify the change, and to get a consensus if it is disputed; and again, please do not edit war. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like best practice. For the record, I am taking it that the answer to my last question is no. No worries, that was all I needed to know. And thanks for the discussion, however dysfunctional. Elinruby ( talk) 00:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi good day, I saw you removed an edit I made (adding "Template: Acrogymnospermae classification" ) on the Gymnosperm page. You made mention the taxonomy is "abysmally bad regarding fossil taxa". I know it is hence I created one, because:
1. No where else on wikipedia is there a consensus classification of fossil gymnosperms. 2. Can you point me to what you would deem a satisfactory classification. 3. The intent was to bring gymnosperm pages up to standard as in Bryophytes, Ferns and Angiosperms all have a Template classification. So rather than just wholesale removing badly created content, you can help improve it by either fixing errors/adding content or suggesting how someone could improve it.
Warmest regards, Videsh Ramsahai ( talk) 14:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Hemiauchenia. You recently reverted my edit on this page, in which I removed dates next to taxon authorities within the taxobox, in line with accepted customs of botanic taxonomy. Your edit summary was Do they really hurt, though?, and my answer is - its not just about customs of boranic taxonomy, but also uniformity of the presentation of articles across the entire Wikipedia site. I don't recall seeing any other botanic taxon page that includes dates in the taxobox/speciesbox − this page as it is now appears like a leper in the markets. Please revert your reversion. Junglenut | Talk 12:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Chimerarachne.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Can you review the most recent edits on this please? Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
You mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Numbeo&action=history "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion " There is nothing stopping the article being taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to gain a broader consensus on the matter. But my knowledge of Wikipedia was not good enough to bring it there. Is there something you could assist? Mladen.adamovic ( talk) 09:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dronebogus ( talk) 17:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you extensively edited Zygadenia after Kirejtshuk (2020) a few years ago, so I wondered if you might be able to help me figure out if a separate article should be made for Notocupes or not. Kirejtshuk (2020) treats Notocupes as a synonym of Zygadenia, but in a number of other articles both before and after they are treated as separate genera. In particular I'm thinking of articles such as Ponomarenko & Ren (2010), Strelnikova & Yan (2021), Lee et al. (2022) and Strelnikova & Yan (2023). Some of these suggest that Zygadenia should include only the isolated elytra fossils (there are currently 11 species for these), and Notocupes is therefore implied to be only for complete body fossils (the other >60 species). Does this seem consensus enough to split Notocupes from Zygadenia on Wikipedia too? Monster Iestyn ( talk) 20:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I think you should expand and get into more detail on the evolution in that article and frame it some it is less centric on the modern species. LittleJerry ( talk) 10:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, if possible please keep an eye on the Klete Keller lead, a vandal is trying to revert it again. It has been proven multiple times "convicted felon" is a contentious label and not appropriate for a lead sentence. Thank You. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive349#Klete_Keller 172.56.160.252 ( talk) 04:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I tried to reverse the redirect on this article using "Db-move", and you suggested that it go through a proper move request. Do you know what template I should use for that? Thanks in advance for your help. Bob Webster ( talk) 02:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey there. It's been a while, good to see you.
Anyway, I wanted to ask what the criteria is for categorizing modern politicians as fascists. I've seen some classified as fascists, like Bjorn Hocke. Firekong1 ( talk) 16:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
What is the criteria for adding common names for animals? Does it require a source? An example is when I add the name “European marten” to the page of pine marten, but it’s always removed by the user bhagyamani. I would like to know if we require sources for something like this. Firekong1 ( talk) 21:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Hemiauchenia,
I wanted to let you know that I just closed this discussion that you started. Also, on my own as an editor, I created a redirect from this page to Second American Revolution because they seem to be related concepts. This was not part of the AFD closure and if you disagree, you can nominate it at WP:RFD. Again, this was my own decision as an editor, not a consensus decision.
If you see this redirect turned into another version of this article, please let me know or tag it for speedy deletion, CSD G4. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hartebeests are now two separate species: the Northern Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus) with six recognized subspecies: the Jackson's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus jacksoni), the Lelwel Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus lelwel), the Senegal Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus major), the Swayne's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus swaynei), the Tora Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus tora), and the †Bubal Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus buselaphus) and the Southern Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama) with three recognized subspecies: the Coke's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama cokii), the Lichtenstein's Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama lichtensteinii), and the Red Hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama caama). 172.243.156.245 ( talk) 17:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
to get between someone and being shit all over at the drama boards, but yes, I do think it needs to be said. That account is obviously sus, and I think the only real objection anybody has is that it's rude to say it out loud. Perhaps it is impolitic for you to have said it, since that person is in the thread as well, but you are right. I highly doubt anyone would be surprised if it turned out a nefarious character was back for some lulz. jp× g 09:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
If MS paint is NOT allowed, then no paint images should ever be allowed, not even high quality ones. Kilimangoro ( talk) 20:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dream icon.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jonteemil ( talk) 22:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
You might already be aware, but they've also edited Nothofagus moorei. I saw your ANI report a while back and I've watchlisted the articles of every genus and species in the clades Araucariaceae, Podocarpaceae, and Nothofagus. Any other IP ranges or editing interests that I should be aware of? — SamX [ talk · contribs 04:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
There's a play about him opening in Manchester soon. I'm wondering if this is some viral campaign?
UK press is pretty weak over weekends, so we might not see anything until Monday. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not related to 73.115.150.4 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). We're located on completely different continents. The other IP has only edited one page while I've been editing Wikipedia for months now. And I'm not sure why providing two concrete examples of MR republishing blatantly WP:FRINGE and false articles is "not helpful". (As a funny sidenote, half a month ago I was accused of being WP:BKFIP's sock.) 93.72.49.123 ( talk) 06:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on Asoriculus. I didn't mind being reverted on the Balearic shrew merge as you followed up with a much better job. Klbrain ( talk) 10:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! What on earth is taking so long here? Best wishes, -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your tone at all. You already broke WP:NICE by using profanity against me, then you WP:EDITWAR on the article that I'm simply trying to fix an image of. What is your problem? I don't know what it is, but don't take it out on me. I was never mean to you, I don't know why you're being like that. Chumzwumz68 ( talk) 22:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I made unnecessary moves, however, I have been reverting Chumzwumz68's edits that have to do with Bison species. You're right that most bison species are in the genus Bison not Bos and that is why I am in the process of reverting of his or her edits, who thinks that all bison species are now in the genus Bos when they are still in their own respective genus Bison. Aceater ( talk) 13:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I consider the issue as settled, but what I was alluring to in the Stephanorhinus-article as evidence for human-induced extinction are recent global analyses. Most recently Lemoine et al. (2023), who find strong statistical support for human range expansion as the driving factor for late-Quaternary global megafauna extinctions. - AndersenAnders ( talk) 20:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that you deleted everything on the Indian Ichthyosaur page. I wish to ask, how do I get it back.
Have a nice day,
अथर्व कॉल ( talk) 22:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not at all familiar with this source, but if it is as poor as you suggest in your comparison to infowars, might it be worth taking it to RSN? Though, in this instance, it is correct that Wikipedia erred. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed in the deletion discussion for David Gokhshtein (in which we both voted Delete) you highlighted some suspicious accounts participating in the AfD. I found it very suspicious, too. I did a little digging today (out of boredom), and found a post by the "Director of Ops at Gokhshtein Media" (I won't name her, but you can find this in Google) on LinkedIn asking for 'Wikipedia experts' to get in touch with her. She posted this two weeks ago, right around the time of the AfD, and David Gokhshtein himself reposted it. The top reply to the post is by a Nigerian whose profile describes him as a prolific Wikipedian. So, it's safe to say her post is what led to the ...unusual... activity.
Just thought you might like to know your suspicion was justified! :) GhostOfNoMeme ( talk) 07:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
See this diff, please. Thanks. 50.75.202.186 ( talk) 21:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey there, I was under the impression that a closure which ended 'no consensus' could be continued if new info came up without having to take it to the admin noticeboard. I fully expect you know better, but would you mind pointing me to the relevant policy? I don't actually have an issue with how the close was handled. Riposte97 ( talk) 04:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
A California IP has been editing articles on taxa in the subfamily Machairodontinae to call them "tigers". I've watchlisted several of those articles, and I figured I should let you know if you weren't already aware. — SamX [ talk · contribs 07:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Do any of the cited sources include Palaeoloxodon in their trees? LittleJerry ( talk) 22:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
FYI, F.M. Claudin and K. Ernstson fight against Wikipedia. [33] Perchtinger ( talk) 13:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the recent rewrite of this page. It involves claims that bird mites can carry Lyme Disease, among other things, and I'm suspicious that the sources being used are not WP:MEDRS compliant. A few more eyes on the article seem warranted, given that it has strayed into very definitively medical territory. Thanks. Dyanega ( talk) 17:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for catching -- meant to put in on the Re'im page. Perils of having open too many tabs. Longhornsg ( talk) 21:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia,
In a prior discussion of Ad Fontes Media you indicated that it was a "self-published sources with no editorial oversight". Hence it was not RS. I just added the following updated description of their methodology to their Wikipedia article:
As of 2021:
The Ad Fontes methodology consists of multi-analyst ratings of news sources along seven categories of bias and eight of reliability. Each source is rated by an equal number of politically left-leaning, politically right-leaning, and politically centrist analysts, whose scores along each dimension are averaged (after any notable score discrepancies are discussed and scores adjusted if the outlier is convinced) (Otero, 2021).
Each analyst completes a political identity assessment; all analysts hold at least a bachelor’s degree—and most hold a graduate degree—with one-third holding or in the process of obtaining a doctoral degree (Otero, 2021).
Analysts are selected by a panel of application reviewers consulting a rubric of candidate qualifications—including education, political/civic engagement, familiarity with news sources and United States government systems, reading comprehension and analytical skills, among others (Otero, 2021).
Once hired, analysts complete a minimum of 20 training hours to learn the content analysis procedure before contributing ratings to the data set (Otero, 2021). [1]
According to Natasha Strydhorst of the College of Media & Communication, Texas Tech University, the ratings system provides "a viable operationalization of audiences' media selections". However, "It does not (and cannot) measure objective media bias and reliability, but it also shares this limitation with other available measures of the phenomena." [1]
Based on this methodology, would you still consider Ad Fontes to be a self-published source with no editorial oversight?
Nowa ( talk) 18:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a great example of the usual end-of-semester rush to add stuff however in order to get their grade. It reads like a high school term paper (and not a particularly good one either..) Ealdgyth ( talk) 23:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Let me teach you something. Let's say you have a strict budget and cannot pay all the subscription fees on all of the news sites you may need to access from time to time.
Take for example this interesting editorial from Haaretz, protected by a pay-wall: Israeli Jails Must Not Become Execution Facilities for Palestinians https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/2023-12-08/ty-article-opinion/israeli-jails-must-not-become-execution-facilities-for-palestinians/0000018c-45ed-db23-ad9f-6dfd35930000
No subscription?
Go to https://archive.ph/ 1) Paste the link in the lower black box
2) If this doesn't work, click on the upper red box.
This works most of the time, for most western news sites, like NYT, Wapo, London Times, Telegraph, Economist, etc. But not always... Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
And I never discuss block length in front of the blocked. When you become an admin, you can do things your way. BusterD ( talk) 15:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
okay, remove the name Armenian mammoth from synonyms, but let’s remove the skeleton??? Is he bothering you with something? Or are you confused by the fact that he is in Armenia????? You are ALL trying to remove him. Armen888 ( talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I am confused as to why you believe that extinct animals (like Camelops) do not have common names. Many do (" woolly mammoth," " American mastodon,"" woolly rhino," " dire wolf," " giant ground sloth," and so forth). It turns out that Camelops does, too, which you can look up yourself; see, for example, its entry at The San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance Library, and you will see other museum, library, and scientific sites list and explain the popular names as well. Since it is factually correct that the animal has popular names, how is it advantageous to Wikipedia users to prevent them from knowing these names? Is there a constructive purpose to making Wikipedia users find out about the popular names only by looking the names up outside of Wikipedia? Mdnavman ( talk) 01:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)mdnavman
Hike395 is wishing you
Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user
Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— hike395 ( talk) 20:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
...I'll remind you that the personalized rhetoric at BLPN is only going to hurt you. I get your frustration, but it's probably best to be the bigger person and strike that "low quality editor" comment yourself. If it were me getting heated in this way I'd want you to remind me too. Best wishes, Generalrelative ( talk) 05:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Lungfish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ceratodus.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I've started a thread at WP:ANI on Johncdraper's behaviour regarding this topic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, 'Unjustified reversal of the description of S. emiratus'. the species is called in its complete form: Stegotetrabelodon syrticus emiratus Khalaf because it was Norman Ali Bassam Khalaf-Prinz Sakerfalke von Jaff who described it in 2010 in the article, available online according to the reference I have indicated, and not Sanders in 2020. As for the reference to Futura in French for the footprints, it only repeats, in French, what the article by Norman Ali Bassam Khalaf-Prinz Sakerfalke von Jaffa says in English (and so many others after him just as available in English), specifying moreover, these fingerprints have been known since 2001. It is fundamental in science to respect the true authors of research work and not their commentators. Sorry for the form, I am not English-speaking but French-speaking. Obviously Petrochii, who was the first to define the genre, and Mackaye deserve to be cited. Sincerely 2A01:CB1D:3CF:CA00:C55F:BEE0:9538:A67F ( talk) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Advice you to keep Wikipedia a source of neutral perspectives. Present facts of both sides. Your recent deletions on Supreme Court judgment which is a fact makes the article would be wrong since it missed key point for the context in the page Wikidrifterr ( talk) 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Literally, every edit in the article was sourced from supreme court order and from reliable sources.
Shouldn't the court order be relied to know what court says than other random articles from left wing propoganda?
Factpineapple (
talk) 14:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
left wing propoganda [sic]seems hyperbolic. The recent RSN discussion about the Supreme Court ruling (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Indian_Supreme_court_rulings_for_archaeological_claims_regarding_Babri_Masjid) suggests that it's not usable for anything other than its own judgement. Newspaper are the lowest form of reliable source, and we should be relying on scholarly sources for a dispute as contentious as this. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi sir/madam,
you reverted my edit in Sean Kirkpatrick page because you siad:
1. Debrief is unreliable. could you please provide any evidence for this?
2. Sean Kirkpatrick is somehow a fringe topic! how it a person fringe? Samir-Tabarrok ( talk) 22:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
for starting the RfC at Ram Mandir! Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I found that you added an authority for the name "Amphioxiformes" in this edit. However, I cannot find any mention of lancelets in the journal volume you linked (searched for terms like "Leptocardii", "Branchiostoma", "Amphioxus", "Cephalochordata", found nothing). You also linked to a ZooBank page, but it merely lists the name with no authority.
As far as I have been able to find, the name "Amphioxiformes" was first used by Berg in 1937. Do you remember any details about this 1886 citation? Ucucha ( talk) 15:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about your way of proceeding. I think it's going to be confusing if you keep changing the proposal in light of the discussion. Wouldn't it be easier just to discuss your proposal for a while and then post a new proposal? Thomas B ( talk) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Can't you just hold off on changing your proposal until we've talked about it for a couple of days? Just self-revert back to version with my comment and wait for others to weigh in. Then decide what you think would be a good version. (Btw, it was not Hunt, but Hunt's wife, that got the job in Japan.) Thomas B ( talk) 21:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I will be participating in your proposal if you keep changing it in real time. Sorry. You can still just revert back to this version [34] Thomas B ( talk) 21:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
See IRMNG and but is not corrected inside the 2nd source on the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Go back and read the edit notes. The only 'edit warring' was from your side, claiming there was a 'consensus' and then just reverting instead of pointing out where that consensus was in your notes, on the talk page, or on my talk page.
I mean, yeah, blanking generally is a Bad Thing and you feel strongly about that particular page. I'll waste my time some day going through formal merge procedures... but you could (a) point out where that consensus was—it's not on either page's talk or linked from either one—or (b) just look at the content. I wanted the Jazeera in Algeria which is at the other list of the exact same words by a slightly different English translit. There's no daylight at all between the two pages and the laundry list of automated search tools dumped at the bottom doesn't really justify the needless and very unhelpful fork. — LlywelynII 23:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I added text that is more or less directly from the American Politics Research source. This is the part of that source I'm drawing that from: "Richard Spencer, who popularized the term alt-right and was identified as one of the movement’s leaders, disavowed his white supremacist beliefs in a text exchange with a journalist (Bassett, 2022) nearly five years after the Unite the Right rally. This is only the most recent example of Spencer’s fluid policy positions. He has repeatedly countered his own previous statements about what he believes and how he identifies himself ideologically." Fred Zepelin ( talk) 01:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that your edit here left a dangling sentence that reads:
"Other authors have used Sauropsida to include"
and then there's no full stop or object in the sentence. GliderMaven ( talk) 18:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Listen, I don't know what I did to earn your ire. I understand that fossil fish taxonomy is a tricky subject and perhaps some of my contributions may not be to your liking and you see fit to correct them, and that's all well and good. I'm perfectly fine with all that; I promise that I'm one to generally defer to the expertise of others and don't start edit wars. But with the hours I spend searching online for sources (e.g. to back up the stub pages I'm improving at the moment), I'm at my wit's end with you constantly being WP:UNCIVIL towards me and implying that I'm too dumb to do research in your responses to my edits. Here are some of your comments towards me from the past few months:
"Please actually do some research before blindly following a book." (the book I "blindly" followed in question is the taxonomy system that the whole site follows, and I was doing what I assumed would be proper)
"No. Please expand (other page) if you want to do something useful." (Implication that I'm wasting my time with the edits I choose to make. I initially had a good faith reading of this but now I'm not so sure.)
"Your slapdash editng is really starting to get on my nerves. It's obvious that you do not conduct proper literature reviews when you make taxonomic changes." (unnecessarily hostile and threatening first sentence, and see my comment about looking for sources for hours. What decides what is a proper taxonomic resource? If we are talking about a stem-group lineage here, one could either consider it a separate sister lineage or a basal member of the crown group. If you disagree, simply revert the change with your reasoning instead of accusing me of misconduct.)
I contribute to zoology/paleontology Wikipedia because it serves as a rare bit of solace for me in hard times and I can contribute to public communication of a subject I love and hope to pursue, and the stakes are low enough that even if someone disagreed, I assumed they wouldn't be hostile about it, but it seems I was wrong. I appreciate all your work, I really do. But please disagree with my edits nicely. I don't know why you're treating paleoichthyology like politics. I'm just trying to do my best. Geekgecko ( talk) 04:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
retainment of the old classificationin recent papers, then you should follow it while noting alternative schemes. Also, Lance Grande, one of the authors of FOTW 2016 and an expert on Acipenseriformes who probably wrote the Acipenseriformes part of the classification section in FOTW 2016, co-authored a recent paper (2023) saying that Chondrosteidae were in the Acipenseriformes. [42]. PaleoBioDB is a terrible resource for taxonomy because it is completely unable to handle multiple contradictory classification schemes so often the taxonomy collapses into a complete mess. The best way to learn about the classification of any specific organism is to read a selection of recent research papers and see where the consensus lies. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
want[ing] to spend too long on a single taxonis not a good enough excuse. What's the point of making rapid edits to hundreds of pages if a good portion of them are going to be problematic? Nobody is setting the timeframe for your edits other than yourself, so you have no need to hurry. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I notice that you have uploaded two paintings from "Substantial light woodland and open vegetation characterized the temperate forest biome before Homo sapiens". Firstly, I would like to thank you for this, and I would like to ask how you did this. I wrote to Science Advances asking for permission to use these images, but received no reply (presumably because you were quicker to ask?). Also, could you upload the other two images (fallow deer and aurochs) to use in e.g. the relevant articles? AndersenAnders ( talk) 10:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding another editor's repeated restoration of contentious material without discussion. The thread is /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nomoskedasticity_and_Douglas_Murray. Thank you. FirstPrimeOfApophis ( talk) 19:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
[44] Doug Weller talk 20:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I saw it was redirected from my watchlist -- looking at the previous revision, I can kind of understand why. It's a big fat nothing! It is hard to imagine how much rancor there was over this little article back in the day, when all it ever amounted to was that. Oh well! C'est la vie. jp× g 🗯️ 07:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit to Paleollanosaurus! Good job! —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ Hemiauchenia
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna ( talk) 18:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
i noticed that you reverted my edits on the Late Pleistocene. You said that it was incoherently written could you expand more on this. what can i do to make it more encyclopedic? I would like to understand this more because my edits is used for a class. Frances Mamman ( talk) 23:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
This period is also important in the study of human origins because this was when the human ancestry began to evolve shown in genetic and fossil evidence from Africa dated back to 300Ka. There is also a significant amount of evidence showing the evolution of a Eurasian species called the Neanderthal
I don't think all of your additions to the article are bad, but to be honest the article was not in a good state to begin with, and on the balance your additions would need to be fundamentally and deeply reworked to be acceptable. Can you not just show your instructor your sandbox? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palaeoloxodon cypriotes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molar.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)