This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
On2 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Donald McGuire (Jesuit), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Mother Teresa defended Jesuit priest and child molester Donald McGuire against sexual abuse allegations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Donald McGuire (Jesuit). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Donald McGuire (Jesuit)), 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.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 14,414 views (608.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021—nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Your edit on Joseph Kallarangatt was reverted. Ezhuth (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Sir, This always happens from SUN EYE 1 whenever accuracy is made on the date, place and publications in the page Joseph Kallarangatt. I have copy pasted the comments from my talk page.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Joseph Kallarangatt has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. - SUN EYE 1 15:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I like the rhythmical usage of the words "inadequate, inaccurate, inappropriate". What i did is explained in the edit summary. I think you are not aware of all doctoral degrees granted by foreign universities. For eg. STD (Sacrae Theologiae Doctor) Take some time to tour in wikipedia itself. Don't feel that i have misspelled the word in STD. In fact, it is Latin. It is good to have an open mind to knowledge/reason rather than keeping a prejudiced mind to intimidate with words like blocking.Ezhuth (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
You express your ignorance when you demand reliable source for books. In fact you would have to ask for the ISBN number. I have the ISBN of the list of books i have collected. Since i don't see ISBN number in similar pages of renowned writers i just skipped it. When it comes to your interventions it seems all funny.Ezhuth (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
Hello,
I saw that you reverted my minor change to Covfefe as "not an mprovement [sic]". In my mind it is an improvement to use the template parameters as intended instead of manually including the file in the name parameter (kind of the whole point of templates) so that any future changes in the template are reflected. Is there a policy this edit was breaching that you could point me to? Forgive me if so, I'm primarily a Wikidata and Commons editor. If there isn't, would you mind undoing your reversion?
Many thanks --SilentSpike (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
For your consideration, seeing your involvement in the latest clash with TP. I pinged you there already, but you may be interested in directly knowing from myself that I've brought this issue to ANI. I saw your first intervention in reverting and addressing TP privately and I wished to wait until seeing whether TP's reply acknowledged the TBAN and gave a reasonable explanation on his behaviour, but after seeing this awkward situation I felt like I had little choice. Impru20talk 16:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the unecessary edit made by User:BakedGoods357. Frankly I see no reason to alter the introduction as everything it states is factually correct. --Thebighomie123 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi DeCausa, firstly happy holidays to you and yours! I wanted to followup on the account that reported yesterday, as I found some interesting edits from them.
In addition to mostly adding unsourced info in Ali Kemal, with giant violations of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:UNDUE, they used a well known denialist source in another article. Here for example, they edit-warred and added Justin McCarthy as a source, a well-known Armenian genocide denier with extreme bias and COI to Turkish negationist positions. I don't know whether there are WP:RS supporting McCarthy's view in that particular article (I doubt), just wanted to show the kind of author/source user added in other articles. I didn't want to mention this in the edit-warring noticeboard as to not clutter it with info, but I thought you might be interested. Best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2021 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#DeCausa. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsynylmztr (talk • contribs) 23:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
All JR stats from Gloucester City and Chesterfield are listed on Soccerway website, including FA Trophy.
Just need to scroll back and all results are listed.
Soccerway is a reliable source. Immersive01 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems the ' Pen y bryn' edit was reverted, please give a decent reference to prove this, because the references in the article prove this is the site of the Royal palace. Cltjames (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not replying at WP:ANI, since action seems moot. Anyway, the insult of "Sun worshiper" applied to monotheists is like publicly telling someone they have an IQ below 68, instead of calling them "moron". tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
solarian religionatWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#New_moon_+1_Gender_balance,_+1_Global_perspective,_+1_Non-solarian_religions,_+1_scientific_anti-scientism.
lunacythey do not mean "madness", but "Moon-based calendar". Cults often redefine usual words to mean something altogether different. "Moderate madness" makes no sense in that context, but "Moderate Moon-based calendar" means a lunisolar calendar. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I’m at a loss. User talk:IagoHughes is just not listening, despite having been reverted across a range of Welsh history articles by at least four editors, and having three notices pinned on their Talkpage. I think we have an inexperienced editor on a crusade to right great wrongs, and I think they are unlikely to stop without intervention. KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plantagenet Alliance 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.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Let us talk this out. Quit reverting my changes. I erased settler but kept colonial this time. That is a fair compromise. I can give you my email address if you want to talk to me further but please talk to me first before you revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I referred this matter to the Administrator's Board and I referred the Board your name. Let us just talk this out and mediate it. You do not get to block our bully me because you do not want read what I wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
So this isn't outing. [redacting anyway]. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
In the topic of Islamic Calender, there is an image used as a depiction of Prophet Muhammad. I would respectfully request Wikipedia to remove it due to following reasons: 1. The depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in any visual art, as per Islamic beliefs, is neither allowed nor encouraged. 2. Any painting or image is historically incorrect for the person whom the artists have not witnessed themselves. 3. As a Muslim, I honestly feel very uncomfortable by such content. 4. The presence of the image is unnecessary and have no impact or illustration to understand the Topic. 5. I do appreciate and respect the Wikipedia for its contribution. So that every human being regardless of his/her background should benefit, support and contribute such platform of knowledge, I would suggest Wikipedia should remain neutral on these issues. 6. It would be farsightedness of Wikipedia to remove such content so that it would be a collective platform of knowledge for comming generation.
Thank you for consideration 2.50.122.24 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
With respect to this. I think it's pretty clear what's going on. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Any reason ? Aziz bm (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, last thing, saudi-iran relations, How did you concluded that Saudi is still conservative ? Aziz bm (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Aziz bm (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
That’s why I’m starting to use talk page recently [1], I don’t want to get blocked again for the same reason Aziz bm (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Once again User:Neplota is unnecessarily editing the Jesus article when the topic has been discussed extensively at Talk:Jesus/Archive 134. Once again thank you for your help in reverting but I am just letting you know that I expect this to continue as I have even warned the user yet they continue to edit without consensus. Thank you. Thebighomie123 (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for all your thoughtful and helpful advice about the AN stuff, much appreciated, and I really mean that. But I also have a request, just a request, not a requirement. Please consider deleting "Step away, indeed." The comment works fine without it, and I expect that that last sentence will be used against me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you mean "List of rulers in Wales"? Peter Ormond 💬 21:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Good Morning @DeCausa
someone recently made edits on both Saudi Arabia and Flag of Saudi Arabia, placing the main flag as variant while the other as main, I request your kind consideration to revert the edits as the flag is currently on a dispute situation and there's ongoing discussion over this issue on Wikimedia talk page which means any edits may affect the process.
Kind Regards 91.25.189.139 (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I have no intention to enter any infobox discussion, but keep watching. What I saw in 2021 was Ian Fleming and Stanley Kubrick, with the closure of Fleming much to my liking. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Howdy. I don't like having "Head of the Commonwealth" at the top of Charles III's infobox, anymore then you do. But that was the RFC result of George VI & Elizabeth II. PS - If you want to open another RFC on that topic, I wouldn't object. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
AfD with pleasure, but please finish the job. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that correction, it took some deep diving on the net to find that created is appropriate for the situation. Tebrennan (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I am thinking Wikipedia needs to create a system where there is a built in periodic review of topicbans, to consider if they are still needed, if their limits are reasonable, etc., that is either pre-established or at least does not require the person they are posed against to actively petition for their change. Because the current system is clearly not working as has been seen with what happened. The amount people insisted I could not even discuss anywhere even if a very borderline case was maybe within the scope of the ban, made it so I did not even feel I could turn to another editor for advice on the matter. Plus, the last time I turned to another editor for advice they told me it was best I not participate in the Arbcom discussion against me, and later on in the Arbcom discussion people justified their very harsh penalties in part because I had not participated, so it is very hard to figure out what editors may give good advice, especially when you live in mortal fear of asking, because asking amiss is a reason for people to attack for issues that go way back. I think at one ANI against me someone once brought up an issue that had occurred 8 years before that. I think I was unwise in the wording I used, but the biggest problem I have here is that no matter how simple the problem is I not only cannot fix it but not even in any way make any indication to others there might be something that needs to be fixed, and on long articles it is not enough to read the intro, and go through the categories and determine that none of them have anything to do with religion, but I have to read every single paragraph, even if the edit is something that is an obvious discrepancy between the lead and a paragraph. Looking back I should not have made this request at all, and I should have only focused on something very narrow, but punishing me with an indefinate block (that in theory can be appealed after a year) for bad judgement on how to ask for a change in a topic ban makes no sense. I say the appeal can be appealed after a year "in theory", because no one has explained at all what would change in a year to cause people to even consider lifting a ban. In fact, those who argue "this is good for his mental health to stop him from doing something he really enjoys", show no evidence they would ever vote to overturn. Ever. No matter what happens.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2022 (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.
Re: "badgering", the principles I try to follow are (i) not to repeat myself in replies to multiple !votes, (ii) not to repeat what another editor has said in response to a !vote, (iii) never to add multiple comments at the same level of a discussion, and (iv) when replied to, never to reply at greater length than the reply I received. While I'm sure I sometimes fail at each of these, I'm trying to follow the principles involved in BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
emotive cardrather than a logical comparator?
making the same argument over and over, to different people- the key point of BLUDGEON. Indeed, I have tried to develop my thinking progressively and to avoid repetition as much as I can. Newimpartial (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Reductio ad HitlerumI have no real idea, and I'm not sure I want to know. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
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.
stop this. You've been told multiple times
You wrote this. This is not true. Please provide diffs of your claim.
On the other hand, you reverted without talk page discussion. Please do not do this. It is wrong and hostile. CandyStalnak (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
I am new to wikipedia and I didn't know how to put a source properly in wikipedia. But I do remember putting the source at the end of the page. It is a very small yet interesting niche party in America. NO ONE literally talks about this. You may argue its relevancy but this is the only monarchist party currently alive in the United States of America so I think this should at least be mentioned in the Monarchism in the United States page. I hope you understand and thank you for reading this. Heneral Gregorio Del Pilar (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
We haven't discussed the newly-cited source from the official Saudi embassy website which describes Majlis Ash-Shura as a legislative body. Descriptions of the system of governance should be stated as to what governments do. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
On19 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tomb of Casimir IV Jagiellon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that of 12 experts who opened the tomb of a medieval Polish king in 1973, 10 died prematurely? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Casimir IV Jagiellon. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tomb of Casimir IV Jagiellon), 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.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 22,343 views (931.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, if you are interested, if you could spare just five minutes, please join this discussion Talk:Joseph Kallarangatt#Promoting conspiracy theories. Your thoughts are much appreciated. Thank you. 117.230.88.250 (talk) 06:20, 28 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
I have just noticed that you have deleted an entire accurately sourced Wikipedia page that I published for the Kingdom of Wales, which was a historical kingdom on the island of Great Britain from 1055-1063, you did this on the basis that there is already a “King of Wales” page, despite the fact that the “kingdom of Wales” page was about the kingdom itself, not the title of its ruler, they are two different topics. The page should be reinstated. IagoHughes (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello my friend, you may or may not remember me. Once again the Jesus article is being edited unnecessarily without consensus when the topic has been discussed extensively at Talk:Jesus/Archive 134. I suspect this may continue and I may need your help once again. The user that made the initial edit was User:Ebasti so just be aware of them. Many thanks for your continued help Thebighomie123 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
any fan would be more interested to know the snackbar was in Leicester Sq than "the West End". Short of getting a letter from Mr Gadd, how am I supposed to prove it? Geekpie (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
See contributions and my warnings. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I was discussing protection level with on the Jesus page and have a question about a tip you gave to me. What do you mean by indent my posts? MayoForSam2023 (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
There might very well be good reasons to have a case but I think you misread this? The article says there's no differences for the most part between the three different Wikipedias, that the main thing about all three version is that they all try to be "academic and scientific". Volunteer Marek 23:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC) BTW, that article is from 2016 so I'm not sure if it's particularly relevant to the present case. Volunteer Marek 23:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
On20 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wolfgang von Polheim, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on his wedding night, Maximilian of Habsburg had a childhood friend, wearing a suit of armour, stand in for him in bed with his new wife? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wolfgang von Polheim. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wolfgang von Polheim), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Valereee (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 15,644 views (651.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2023 – nice work! |
GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Just in case you missed it, there's a task force up at WP:CIII which you may be interested in. There is, of course, no obligation to participate, but if you do, it is very much appreciated.
Best wishes, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello DeCausa,
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/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
...but I still heard your jaw hit the floor.-- Ponyobons mots 21:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I suddenly became very paranoid that this comment might have been misinterpreted as snidely pointing out the typo. I'm sure you're a normal person and didn't think this at all, but I'm not normal and get paranoid and worry about this sort of thing! I actually didn't even notice the typo. Am I worrying about absolutely nothing? Probably. Have a lovely Sunday! — Czello (music) 09:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
In case anyone comes here because of what I wrote in this edit summary. I messed up - I meant NI's talk page not mine. But because it's an edit summary I can't change it so putting this here instead. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Concerning this comment - I wanted to offer a clarification, since my proposal for WT:MOSBIO isn't based on what I really want
to be able to do - if that were my animus, I would be asking for a carve-out for reverting vandalism to BLPs even in GENSEX cases, since I feel that invoking BANEX 1 provisions to do so could be perceived as GAMING the restriction, and that form of editing is what I feel the most urgency about within the topic area.
Rather, I am being straightforward and transparent in saying that I feel - as a number of editors acknowledged on "both sides" of the ANI discussion resulting in my ban - that I have institutional knowledge and P&G knowhow that would be helpful on WT:MOSBIO this yearI'll- and that, unlike vandalism patrolling of GENSEX BLPs, is a scarce resource on-wiki. I have already been deploying my P&G familiarity in the recent nationalities discussions there, just as I have discussed P&G constructively on other pages (such as a current discussion about FRINGE at RSN and the discussions and RfC that resulted in the current text of the WP:SNG section, a couple years ago). I am simply offering to contribute to a specific corner of P&G development concerning GENDERID as well - policy development being an area where my contributions have never (to my knowledge) been perceived as disruptive whether or not GENSEX matters were involved. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances. I won't be making any other comment either here or at the thread. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)