Sent request for third opinion on the article 74.80.182.73 ( talk) 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that moving the section on the Catholic church's ( /info/en/?search=Catholic_Church_in_Canada) residential school murder of children to the page about Kamloops school ( /info/en/?search=Kamloops_Indian_Residential_School) is appropriate, and is in fact the type of systemetic racism that resulted in this story being hidden for so long.
That would be like removing the reference to holocost from the page about Nazi Germany, to just be on a specific camp.
This was one school, but we know there are children's bodies at most if not all other residential schools operated by the Canadian catholic church
This is not a matter of opinion, its factual that the church oversaw schools where children died. Kamloops is but one school.
I agree it was placed in the wrong section (population) but it could be moved up, or down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:187F:2600:89C4:9164:1B41:5DEE ( talk) 19:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The death of at least 3200 children is not a random event that occurs every day, it's not even comparable to school shootings, which are not governed by the same organization. These residential schools were governed by the Catholic Church, systemically seeking to erase the culture of indigenous people in Canada (the proposed edit is for Canadian Catholic WIkipedia page, not the entire Catholic School Wikipedia).
"The system forcibly separated children from their families for extended periods of time and forbade them to acknowledge their Indigenous heritage and culture or to speak their own languages. Children were severely punished if these, among other, strict rules were broken. Former students of residential schools have spoken of horrendous abuse at the hands of residential school staff: physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological. Residential schools provided Indigenous students with inappropriate education, often only up to lower grades, that focused mainly on prayer and manual labour in agriculture, light industry such as woodworking, and domestic work such as laundry work and sewing."
These are not *horrible incidents that happen every day*, this was a system of oppression and harm enabled by the Canadian Catholic Church, as articles cite. This was present accross ALL residential schools, and thus a much bigger story than one school page.
The Catholic Church ran most of Canada's residential schools, remains silent about their devestating legacy. (and we are helping them by omitting this history from their wikipedia page.
Hello PerpetuallyGrat,
I asked "How can it be incorrect when it is basically saying the same thing?" on this difference, which you reverted
May I ask you about the difference between your "citing racist imagery" and my "imagery they deemed racist and insensitive"?
The only difference I can see is that my version makes it clear that this is the publisher's judgment, not Wikipedia's. According to WP:NPOV Wikipedia should not endorse such judgements.
Neither is quoting the exact words used by Dr. Seuss Enterprises ("portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong").
Now, I don't object if you insist on "hurtful and wrong" being quoted (but note it wasn't cited on the Mulberry article before either) but that these books "portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong" is not an objective fact, especially not equally for all six books. Your insertion of or reversion to "because they portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong" however claims that they are indeed. And that goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Str1977 (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi PerpetuityGrat I'm new to wikipedia and I'm trying to slowly fix a page that was made about me and is full of information that is irrelevant or no longer has online references outside of an archive - what am I doing wrong? YuulaBuula ( talk) 19:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Already a pro 4 weeks in :) Hillelfrei talk 15:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC) |
By the way, the right-wing populism category as been used for people long before I started editing with pages like Donald Trump and Josh Hawley.
But Either way, Ideologically, Mary Miller is among the Nationalist Republicans.
She has a track record of being one of the Republicans with a nationalist rehtoric.
Admittedly, not every Republican is nationalist (most probably aren't), but some are like Donald Trump Fenetrejones ( talk) 16:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
All of these Republicans are known to be America First (Policy) which is the American Nationalism of Trump. But sorry for not being clear enough, Wikipedia itself counts America First (Policy) as American Nationalism. (Sources not included if already listed)
Examples that are not Trump Republican types include (Doesn't inherently equal anti Trump): Libertarian Types like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, Trump Critics like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, and Mainstream Republicans like Mitch McConnell Fenetrejones ( talk) 16:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Note not every Republican who objected to the results are America First (Policy) Nationalist type, but some of them are Fenetrejones ( talk) 16:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 16:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Mary Miller (politician) 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. Bacon drum 22:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
ahead of the curb | |
great Idea making the page 2028 ahead PbesartBekteshi ( talk) 01:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC) |
Hi PG, can I just check whether you had a consensus for the mass removal of portal bars from biographical articles. A query's been raised at the Portal project. Cheers. Bermicourt ( talk) 21:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hoping to start a discussion here on
User:Kendalandrew.
@
ProcrastinatingReader:
@
Edwardx:
Since it seems that the three of us are trying to repair the articles that User:Kendalandrew has been editing, I thought I would call us here to discuss. The edits by User:Kendalandrew violate so many guidelines and policies, I decided to removed all the recent content. I really hate to do that, but the content is unencyclopedic in nature and... well
WP:NOW. I saw one of your edits in recent changes and honestly did not know what can of worms I would find. Wow. To me it seems as if the user is hell-bent on vilifying (via
WP:UNDUE everyone involved with this apparent controversy. I know nothing about whatever is being alleged in the sources, but it really looks like to me that they are not here to improve Wikipedia.
Articles affected:
-- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 20:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Why do you have that section of "Articles I've created"? I removed them, and you reverted with an edit summary of "Ok"; what does that mean?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toe walking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bilateral. 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) 06:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
What are you talking about ? You mean the official records from Universities and US censuses (sic) ? Hell why are you talking about medical things, I've never posted anything about medicine, period. What articles are you talking about ? Ummunmutamnag ( talk) 14:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Please include sources when adding content to Wikipedia" ? I AM. What are you even talking about ? Ummunmutamnag ( talk) 14:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Ummunmutamnag: oops, I added the wrong template. You need to add sources to everything you post on WP. I noticed that you included a lot of information that is not sourced. That's why I let you know on your talk page. And calm down, my gosh! The article you created, Alfred Christian Fleckenstein, doesn't include sources for the most important portion of the article. WP:BLP articles need to have everything sourced. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 14:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
And what do you mean by " the most important portion of the article." ? Ummunmutamnag ( talk) 14:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, if you mean a link to him having written "The Prince of Gravas" beyond the same name, middle initial and titles earned through the University of Pennsylvania, then all the biographical information on him is confirmed in two separate editions of class records from The University of Pennsylvania available on the Internet Archive. But additionaly I have now linked that information together with another document from the University, 1917's "General Alumni Catalogue Of The University Of Pennsylvania", where it confirms Alfred Christian Fleckenstein, who graduated in 1893, is also the writer of "The Prince of Gravas". Ummunmutamnag ( talk) 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC).
You've now reverted or partially reverted my edits on multiple articles that you've never touched before I edited them. This is a clear case of WP:HOUNDING. The only reason I'm adding this to your talk page is because I read the section and it recommends I try to deal with you directly before I take it to an administrator. So, this is your only warning, and it is a courtesy only. My next step is a report to an admin. No reply is necessary. Benicio2020 ( talk) 23:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey! Someone on Teahouse let me know about your userpage (They said that you had any and all of your links as a Rickroll which isn't true), I would advise you to add the template {{
humor}} to your userpage so people don't take your "articles I've created" section seriously as every link in that section either goes to
WP:RICKROLL or
Rickroll. Thanks!
Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (
talk) 19:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I have decided to remove the links myself as people don't really find it funny. Please don't do this in the future unless it's obvious that it's a joke. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 ( talk) 19:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey! I noticed that you added the feeling discouraged thing on your userpage and I want to help. I'm just wanting to know what's the issue. ― Blaze The Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#0001 14:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, that's a fair question. The answer is that I applied a range block to an IPv6 range. Basically, a disruptive user was creating problems on those articles, and was changing IP addresses so rapidly that blocking individual IPs would not have helped stop the disruption. Since there were other constructive edits from the IP range, presumably from other users, I didn't want to block all of the edits coming from it, so decided to partially block the whole IP range from editing those specific articles. The linked policy pages explain how range blocks work far better than I could. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the birth year edit of Greig Nori, I'm not sure if this is the reliable source, but this article, which dates back to September 2008, refers to Nori being 43 years old at that time, thus making 1964 his birth year. Excuse me if I'm writing it here instead of providing it as a citation in the corresponding article, but like I've said earlier, I'm not sure whether the provided source could be considered reliable, so I thought it would be wise to consult with you first on that matter. 92.43.167.68 ( talk) 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing the likely non-notable water parks article to my attention! Dronebogus ( talk) 19:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC) |
I'm assuming I referenced List of water parks in the Americas, which really should be a category instead of a list. Thank you for nominating that for deletion. Cheers, and thanks lol. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 20:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for being the most clearheaded one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest living state leaders!
Dronebogus (
talk) 19:49, 17 October 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 discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. 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.
― Tartan357 Talk 04:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
How is not noting a false claim that has been fact-checked multiple times not relevant? Multiple organizations have called him out. 70.191.130.23 ( talk) 05:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Source says B.S., Bachelor of Science says "BS, BSc, SB, or ScB". Doug Weller talk 15:13, 17 November 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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
Doug Weller talk 15:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi PerpetuityGrat! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, .
|
What part of Skees suggesting to throw out the “socialist rag of a constitution” was not what the source said?
Directly from the cited source: Rep. Derek Skees, R-Kalispell, was also unhappy with the court’s decision to grant an injunction, calling it a failure.
“There’s no basis in our constitution to use the right to privacy to murder a baby,” Skees said. “The courts have humongously failed and we need to throw out Montana’s socialist rag of a constitution.”
And what was removed from the page: In 2021 Skees, upset with a preliminary injunction to anti-abortion bills, suggested “we need to throw out Montana’s socialist rag of a constitution.” 69.145.41.25 ( talk) 01:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I see you removed "[name] was among 126 House Republicans to sign an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania" for numerous people, on the basis that the provided sources didn't specifically mention [name]. It took me five seconds to find a reference that did mention them in each case. I have restored six of those removals with this source:
"List: The 126 House members, 19 states and 2 imaginary states that backed Texas' challenge to Trump defeat". The Mercury News. Bay Area News Group. December 15, 2020.
but I see there are several more of your removals remaining. Please would you consider restoring the rest with that source? Five seconds to seek a source might have been the preferable approach. Thank you. soibangla ( talk) 15:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
having the name of the subject in a listis perfectly acceptable for this purpose. soibangla ( talk) 17:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi PerpetuityGrat! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hi, I understand I need sources and citations for the Donald Payne artcile. I put the inline citations after every edit. I will do so again though and they are all reliable sources when you click on them. Thank you DonMan7 ( talk) 19:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I noticed your thanks on the fix to Katie Zolnikov (thank you back!) and your discussion on issue with infobox consistency, I couldn't agree more. Your fixes have been very helpful! I've started working on checking Wikidata Items for the US as part of Wikidata:WikiProject_every_politician/United_States_of_America. I've gone through all 50 state current senate persons based on the current lists and checked information against Wikidata.
Building out Wikidata, keeping the data in sync, and linking with External IDs enable tools for finding gaps, errors, or conflicts in positions like California Governor and could highlight maintenance tasks or gaps. I'm not sure what will need to changes would be needed to make this work with the members of a state house of representatives or senators, probably need to have legislative session and district info as part of the position held for a person.
I'm not advocating use of Wikidata in mainspace (though I'm in favor of figuring out how to work with Wikidata as a complement), but I think we can agree, consistency of infobox data may benefit the community and additional tools could help with finding gaps and errors. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? ( talk) 17:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for calling attention to the unnecessary archiving of Talk:Koukourou. However, I have deleted the page where you pasted a copy of the original page, and removed the original page back out of archive. That is the correct way to deal with inappropriate moves, because copy-pasting over the redirect and then deleting the moved page loses the editing history, which must be kept for copyright reasons. JBW ( talk) 15:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you cleaned up my expansions on an article ( Moffie Funk) with a comment about "Fixing lots of errors...". Since I plan on continuing to expand and destub a lot of biographies, including some more local politicians, could you point me towards any templates, guidelines, or good articles to refer to? That would be helpful, especially since Good Articles like Ann Rivers also include vote statistics in the text, so I'm not sure why that addition was removed entirely.
Thanks, originalmess talk 20:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Here to discuss the revert you made on my Liz Truss edit. You said "I'm not sure how this inclusion is necessarily encyclopedic [sic]". How so? The definition of an encyclopaedia is "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically". This definition is very broad and I definitely think this edit can fit within it and is justifiable. Claiming expenses is a key power of MPs, which is her job and one of the main things she is known for. The topic of MPs claiming expenses even has its own Wikipedia page itself relating to the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. Given those facts I think this is more than adequate for inclusion. Helper201 ( talk) 09:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.
Your entire talk page is filled with people warning you for vandalism and abusive behavior. Please stop making biased edits and removing factual information-- especially that with several sources. Based on the timing of you editing the page for Molossia after I edited a blocked user's talk page, I am assuming this is a socketpuppet. You already have multiple accusations of being one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherriGasoline ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I am aware of how the leveling system works. I chose a level 4 based on your previous behavior towards other users, past investigation, and yes- adding false information. There is no verifiable source for Molossia being a comedy project. In order to add that information, you had to erase 4 reliable sources. You included it without even attempting to add a source. You went back and removed factual information again, this time choosing to create major structural and grammatical errors in the article, because of semantics (which if you felt were wrong, would have taken less time to simply change the wording). This 'information' you added has resulted in several users getting muted, you can view the edit history to see how many people have been blocked from editing because they would not stop inserting the same incorrect information you attempted to add. Its simply not true. I have already had a moderate manually review the information and they have confirmed the legitimacy of my sources. At this point, re-adding this information or removing factual details without even attempting to add a citation would be considered hounding. The information is not even debatable. No sources back up your claims. CherriGasoline ( talk) 13:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
hello
my edits are not un sourced, but they are removing sources that have nothing to do with the article
what do azerbaycan refugee conditions have to do with artsakh? they have their own page on internal displaced people in azerbaycan
thank you.
Əfşar Əliyev ( talk) 19:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
You reverted an edit of mine in its entirety, apparently because you disagreed with the removal of one word. Firstly you should read WP:WTW. And secondly, if despite reading the clear guidelines, you still wanted to include the word, you should have just added the word back, and not undone the rest of my edit. To trash what I did entirely as you did can only have been intentionally disruptive. Hiralious ( talk) 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. Take it to the talk page, I was restoring the version that was before your edits. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at TSLAQ, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop attempting a drawn-out edit war on TSLAQ. I opened a Talk page discussion prior to your latest undo and that is where we should discuss the issue. QRep2020 ( talk) 03:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dorothy Moon § "Far-right". ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:27, 10 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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
How do you know that Nerodimë e Poshtme is in violation of WP:COPYPASTE? Do you have the source that the author copied from? I wasn't able to find anything online. Dazzling4 ( talk) 02:28, 13 October 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Sent request for third opinion on the article 74.80.182.73 ( talk) 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that moving the section on the Catholic church's ( /info/en/?search=Catholic_Church_in_Canada) residential school murder of children to the page about Kamloops school ( /info/en/?search=Kamloops_Indian_Residential_School) is appropriate, and is in fact the type of systemetic racism that resulted in this story being hidden for so long.
That would be like removing the reference to holocost from the page about Nazi Germany, to just be on a specific camp.
This was one school, but we know there are children's bodies at most if not all other residential schools operated by the Canadian catholic church
This is not a matter of opinion, its factual that the church oversaw schools where children died. Kamloops is but one school.
I agree it was placed in the wrong section (population) but it could be moved up, or down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:187F:2600:89C4:9164:1B41:5DEE ( talk) 19:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The death of at least 3200 children is not a random event that occurs every day, it's not even comparable to school shootings, which are not governed by the same organization. These residential schools were governed by the Catholic Church, systemically seeking to erase the culture of indigenous people in Canada (the proposed edit is for Canadian Catholic WIkipedia page, not the entire Catholic School Wikipedia).
"The system forcibly separated children from their families for extended periods of time and forbade them to acknowledge their Indigenous heritage and culture or to speak their own languages. Children were severely punished if these, among other, strict rules were broken. Former students of residential schools have spoken of horrendous abuse at the hands of residential school staff: physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological. Residential schools provided Indigenous students with inappropriate education, often only up to lower grades, that focused mainly on prayer and manual labour in agriculture, light industry such as woodworking, and domestic work such as laundry work and sewing."
These are not *horrible incidents that happen every day*, this was a system of oppression and harm enabled by the Canadian Catholic Church, as articles cite. This was present accross ALL residential schools, and thus a much bigger story than one school page.
The Catholic Church ran most of Canada's residential schools, remains silent about their devestating legacy. (and we are helping them by omitting this history from their wikipedia page.
Hello PerpetuallyGrat,
I asked "How can it be incorrect when it is basically saying the same thing?" on this difference, which you reverted
May I ask you about the difference between your "citing racist imagery" and my "imagery they deemed racist and insensitive"?
The only difference I can see is that my version makes it clear that this is the publisher's judgment, not Wikipedia's. According to WP:NPOV Wikipedia should not endorse such judgements.
Neither is quoting the exact words used by Dr. Seuss Enterprises ("portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong").
Now, I don't object if you insist on "hurtful and wrong" being quoted (but note it wasn't cited on the Mulberry article before either) but that these books "portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong" is not an objective fact, especially not equally for all six books. Your insertion of or reversion to "because they portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong" however claims that they are indeed. And that goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Str1977 (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi PerpetuityGrat I'm new to wikipedia and I'm trying to slowly fix a page that was made about me and is full of information that is irrelevant or no longer has online references outside of an archive - what am I doing wrong? YuulaBuula ( talk) 19:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Already a pro 4 weeks in :) Hillelfrei talk 15:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC) |
By the way, the right-wing populism category as been used for people long before I started editing with pages like Donald Trump and Josh Hawley.
But Either way, Ideologically, Mary Miller is among the Nationalist Republicans.
She has a track record of being one of the Republicans with a nationalist rehtoric.
Admittedly, not every Republican is nationalist (most probably aren't), but some are like Donald Trump Fenetrejones ( talk) 16:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
All of these Republicans are known to be America First (Policy) which is the American Nationalism of Trump. But sorry for not being clear enough, Wikipedia itself counts America First (Policy) as American Nationalism. (Sources not included if already listed)
Examples that are not Trump Republican types include (Doesn't inherently equal anti Trump): Libertarian Types like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, Trump Critics like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, and Mainstream Republicans like Mitch McConnell Fenetrejones ( talk) 16:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Note not every Republican who objected to the results are America First (Policy) Nationalist type, but some of them are Fenetrejones ( talk) 16:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 16:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Mary Miller (politician) 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. Bacon drum 22:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
ahead of the curb | |
great Idea making the page 2028 ahead PbesartBekteshi ( talk) 01:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC) |
Hi PG, can I just check whether you had a consensus for the mass removal of portal bars from biographical articles. A query's been raised at the Portal project. Cheers. Bermicourt ( talk) 21:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hoping to start a discussion here on
User:Kendalandrew.
@
ProcrastinatingReader:
@
Edwardx:
Since it seems that the three of us are trying to repair the articles that User:Kendalandrew has been editing, I thought I would call us here to discuss. The edits by User:Kendalandrew violate so many guidelines and policies, I decided to removed all the recent content. I really hate to do that, but the content is unencyclopedic in nature and... well
WP:NOW. I saw one of your edits in recent changes and honestly did not know what can of worms I would find. Wow. To me it seems as if the user is hell-bent on vilifying (via
WP:UNDUE everyone involved with this apparent controversy. I know nothing about whatever is being alleged in the sources, but it really looks like to me that they are not here to improve Wikipedia.
Articles affected:
-- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 20:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Why do you have that section of "Articles I've created"? I removed them, and you reverted with an edit summary of "Ok"; what does that mean?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toe walking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bilateral. 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) 06:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
What are you talking about ? You mean the official records from Universities and US censuses (sic) ? Hell why are you talking about medical things, I've never posted anything about medicine, period. What articles are you talking about ? Ummunmutamnag ( talk) 14:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Please include sources when adding content to Wikipedia" ? I AM. What are you even talking about ? Ummunmutamnag ( talk) 14:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Ummunmutamnag: oops, I added the wrong template. You need to add sources to everything you post on WP. I noticed that you included a lot of information that is not sourced. That's why I let you know on your talk page. And calm down, my gosh! The article you created, Alfred Christian Fleckenstein, doesn't include sources for the most important portion of the article. WP:BLP articles need to have everything sourced. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 14:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
And what do you mean by " the most important portion of the article." ? Ummunmutamnag ( talk) 14:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, if you mean a link to him having written "The Prince of Gravas" beyond the same name, middle initial and titles earned through the University of Pennsylvania, then all the biographical information on him is confirmed in two separate editions of class records from The University of Pennsylvania available on the Internet Archive. But additionaly I have now linked that information together with another document from the University, 1917's "General Alumni Catalogue Of The University Of Pennsylvania", where it confirms Alfred Christian Fleckenstein, who graduated in 1893, is also the writer of "The Prince of Gravas". Ummunmutamnag ( talk) 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC).
You've now reverted or partially reverted my edits on multiple articles that you've never touched before I edited them. This is a clear case of WP:HOUNDING. The only reason I'm adding this to your talk page is because I read the section and it recommends I try to deal with you directly before I take it to an administrator. So, this is your only warning, and it is a courtesy only. My next step is a report to an admin. No reply is necessary. Benicio2020 ( talk) 23:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey! Someone on Teahouse let me know about your userpage (They said that you had any and all of your links as a Rickroll which isn't true), I would advise you to add the template {{
humor}} to your userpage so people don't take your "articles I've created" section seriously as every link in that section either goes to
WP:RICKROLL or
Rickroll. Thanks!
Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (
talk) 19:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I have decided to remove the links myself as people don't really find it funny. Please don't do this in the future unless it's obvious that it's a joke. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 ( talk) 19:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey! I noticed that you added the feeling discouraged thing on your userpage and I want to help. I'm just wanting to know what's the issue. ― Blaze The Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#0001 14:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, that's a fair question. The answer is that I applied a range block to an IPv6 range. Basically, a disruptive user was creating problems on those articles, and was changing IP addresses so rapidly that blocking individual IPs would not have helped stop the disruption. Since there were other constructive edits from the IP range, presumably from other users, I didn't want to block all of the edits coming from it, so decided to partially block the whole IP range from editing those specific articles. The linked policy pages explain how range blocks work far better than I could. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the birth year edit of Greig Nori, I'm not sure if this is the reliable source, but this article, which dates back to September 2008, refers to Nori being 43 years old at that time, thus making 1964 his birth year. Excuse me if I'm writing it here instead of providing it as a citation in the corresponding article, but like I've said earlier, I'm not sure whether the provided source could be considered reliable, so I thought it would be wise to consult with you first on that matter. 92.43.167.68 ( talk) 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing the likely non-notable water parks article to my attention! Dronebogus ( talk) 19:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC) |
I'm assuming I referenced List of water parks in the Americas, which really should be a category instead of a list. Thank you for nominating that for deletion. Cheers, and thanks lol. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 20:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for being the most clearheaded one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest living state leaders!
Dronebogus (
talk) 19:49, 17 October 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 discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. 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.
― Tartan357 Talk 04:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
How is not noting a false claim that has been fact-checked multiple times not relevant? Multiple organizations have called him out. 70.191.130.23 ( talk) 05:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Source says B.S., Bachelor of Science says "BS, BSc, SB, or ScB". Doug Weller talk 15:13, 17 November 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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
Doug Weller talk 15:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi PerpetuityGrat! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, .
|
What part of Skees suggesting to throw out the “socialist rag of a constitution” was not what the source said?
Directly from the cited source: Rep. Derek Skees, R-Kalispell, was also unhappy with the court’s decision to grant an injunction, calling it a failure.
“There’s no basis in our constitution to use the right to privacy to murder a baby,” Skees said. “The courts have humongously failed and we need to throw out Montana’s socialist rag of a constitution.”
And what was removed from the page: In 2021 Skees, upset with a preliminary injunction to anti-abortion bills, suggested “we need to throw out Montana’s socialist rag of a constitution.” 69.145.41.25 ( talk) 01:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I see you removed "[name] was among 126 House Republicans to sign an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania" for numerous people, on the basis that the provided sources didn't specifically mention [name]. It took me five seconds to find a reference that did mention them in each case. I have restored six of those removals with this source:
"List: The 126 House members, 19 states and 2 imaginary states that backed Texas' challenge to Trump defeat". The Mercury News. Bay Area News Group. December 15, 2020.
but I see there are several more of your removals remaining. Please would you consider restoring the rest with that source? Five seconds to seek a source might have been the preferable approach. Thank you. soibangla ( talk) 15:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
having the name of the subject in a listis perfectly acceptable for this purpose. soibangla ( talk) 17:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi PerpetuityGrat! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hi, I understand I need sources and citations for the Donald Payne artcile. I put the inline citations after every edit. I will do so again though and they are all reliable sources when you click on them. Thank you DonMan7 ( talk) 19:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I noticed your thanks on the fix to Katie Zolnikov (thank you back!) and your discussion on issue with infobox consistency, I couldn't agree more. Your fixes have been very helpful! I've started working on checking Wikidata Items for the US as part of Wikidata:WikiProject_every_politician/United_States_of_America. I've gone through all 50 state current senate persons based on the current lists and checked information against Wikidata.
Building out Wikidata, keeping the data in sync, and linking with External IDs enable tools for finding gaps, errors, or conflicts in positions like California Governor and could highlight maintenance tasks or gaps. I'm not sure what will need to changes would be needed to make this work with the members of a state house of representatives or senators, probably need to have legislative session and district info as part of the position held for a person.
I'm not advocating use of Wikidata in mainspace (though I'm in favor of figuring out how to work with Wikidata as a complement), but I think we can agree, consistency of infobox data may benefit the community and additional tools could help with finding gaps and errors. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? ( talk) 17:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for calling attention to the unnecessary archiving of Talk:Koukourou. However, I have deleted the page where you pasted a copy of the original page, and removed the original page back out of archive. That is the correct way to deal with inappropriate moves, because copy-pasting over the redirect and then deleting the moved page loses the editing history, which must be kept for copyright reasons. JBW ( talk) 15:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you cleaned up my expansions on an article ( Moffie Funk) with a comment about "Fixing lots of errors...". Since I plan on continuing to expand and destub a lot of biographies, including some more local politicians, could you point me towards any templates, guidelines, or good articles to refer to? That would be helpful, especially since Good Articles like Ann Rivers also include vote statistics in the text, so I'm not sure why that addition was removed entirely.
Thanks, originalmess talk 20:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Here to discuss the revert you made on my Liz Truss edit. You said "I'm not sure how this inclusion is necessarily encyclopedic [sic]". How so? The definition of an encyclopaedia is "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically". This definition is very broad and I definitely think this edit can fit within it and is justifiable. Claiming expenses is a key power of MPs, which is her job and one of the main things she is known for. The topic of MPs claiming expenses even has its own Wikipedia page itself relating to the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. Given those facts I think this is more than adequate for inclusion. Helper201 ( talk) 09:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.
Your entire talk page is filled with people warning you for vandalism and abusive behavior. Please stop making biased edits and removing factual information-- especially that with several sources. Based on the timing of you editing the page for Molossia after I edited a blocked user's talk page, I am assuming this is a socketpuppet. You already have multiple accusations of being one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherriGasoline ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I am aware of how the leveling system works. I chose a level 4 based on your previous behavior towards other users, past investigation, and yes- adding false information. There is no verifiable source for Molossia being a comedy project. In order to add that information, you had to erase 4 reliable sources. You included it without even attempting to add a source. You went back and removed factual information again, this time choosing to create major structural and grammatical errors in the article, because of semantics (which if you felt were wrong, would have taken less time to simply change the wording). This 'information' you added has resulted in several users getting muted, you can view the edit history to see how many people have been blocked from editing because they would not stop inserting the same incorrect information you attempted to add. Its simply not true. I have already had a moderate manually review the information and they have confirmed the legitimacy of my sources. At this point, re-adding this information or removing factual details without even attempting to add a citation would be considered hounding. The information is not even debatable. No sources back up your claims. CherriGasoline ( talk) 13:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
hello
my edits are not un sourced, but they are removing sources that have nothing to do with the article
what do azerbaycan refugee conditions have to do with artsakh? they have their own page on internal displaced people in azerbaycan
thank you.
Əfşar Əliyev ( talk) 19:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
You reverted an edit of mine in its entirety, apparently because you disagreed with the removal of one word. Firstly you should read WP:WTW. And secondly, if despite reading the clear guidelines, you still wanted to include the word, you should have just added the word back, and not undone the rest of my edit. To trash what I did entirely as you did can only have been intentionally disruptive. Hiralious ( talk) 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. Take it to the talk page, I was restoring the version that was before your edits. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at TSLAQ, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop attempting a drawn-out edit war on TSLAQ. I opened a Talk page discussion prior to your latest undo and that is where we should discuss the issue. QRep2020 ( talk) 03:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dorothy Moon § "Far-right". ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:27, 10 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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
How do you know that Nerodimë e Poshtme is in violation of WP:COPYPASTE? Do you have the source that the author copied from? I wasn't able to find anything online. Dazzling4 ( talk) 02:28, 13 October 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)