Latest comment: 14 days ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there! Just letting you know that the new stage will be available shortly. I have evaluated most answers and hope you would benefit from them, as well as the relevant feedback. I will also review your contributions and see whether you reverted pages accurately or not, and give relevant advice on them. I saw that you were given a WikiLove message, and also your DYK nom failed... Keep it up! ToadetteEdit!16:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Onthis talk page, you warned an ip with {{uw-vand4}} even though a 4 (and even 4im) level warning is already present and on the same day. RedWarn should notify you that after it detects 4 or 4im you should be advised to take the ip to wp:AIV. Twinkle also says that after detection. You should be aware of the talk page first and decide whether you should give them a warning or in case of a 4 or 4im report them to AIV. ToadetteEdit!16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The next stage is available now. Find 20 instances of vandalism or other disruptive edit and recorded in the provided table there. ToadetteEdit!10:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATHSLOPU11:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion
What do you mean by "And I need 6 sources there and 2 sources in the other place because one for each time. If you can find one of all 6 or 2, please add it instead"?
Why do you need six source for a very simple statement "Two attempts have been made to recover an Electron booster by helicopter."? A single source is sufficient. Ergzay (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are 2 statement.
Statement 1:2 attempts have been made to recover an Electron booster by helicopter. The two sources are each of the times. If you can find 1 source for both times, please do.
Statement 2:In addition, six attempts have been made at soft water recovery. The last 5 sources were needed, each verifying 1 recovery attempt. The first source actually didn't verify it. I have replaced it.
You don't need a source for every single attempt. You only need the most recent source as it'll say something like "this is the second time this has been attempted". Ergzay (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I actually can't see the some of the bloomberg article since its subscribers only. I also don't see the 6th source saying that either. Does Bloomberg in fact say that? I would be happy to do it in one source if we can though@ErgzayMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
"In a previous mission, Rocket Lab caught a booster after a return from space, but the helicopter pilot chose to drop the rocket immediately for technical reasons." Ergzay (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Latest comment: 3 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I didn't want to further derail the RM by responding to this directly there, but I would like to share that I'm concerned with how your remark that given that this section alone has nearly 400 comments...I'm not reading through all that reflects your approach to this discussion. Wikipedia is not a battleground, discussions are not votes, and the point of discussions such as requested moves is to reach consensus. I started participating in the discussion only a bit before you did, but I did, in fact, read the entire thing. I didn't even consider adding anything myself until I had read enough that I felt like I was familiar with the state of the discussion. If you're going to participate in a discussion like this, it's important to read what's already been said so that you can actually constructively contribute to moving it towards a resolution, instead of rehashing points that have already been made. Whoever eventually closes the discussion will have to read the whole thing, so it's only respectful to be willing to do what you're making someone else have to do here by adding your comments. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs)19:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I know that "Wikipedia is not a battleground, discussions are not votes, and the point of discussions such as requested moves is to reach consensus" already. I didn't completely ignore the above comments (how do you think I knew about Option 4), I just didn't methodically read in detail through every single of hundreds of comments. Mostly because a lot of it is threaded discussion, including one reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to a comment. There's more than 7 times more comments that participants. This is mostly people saying whether or not similar thing X is similar enough and whether policy X applies or not (in response to a vote) or something in that vain. Unless I plan to respond to that particular vote, do I need to read the massive threaded discussion? I understand that whoever closes it will have to read it. I am not adding 400 comments, I'm adding a few. @KinsioMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Relatively speaking you are adding a lot, to the point where WP:BLUDGEON is becoming an issue, in particular when you make comments based on no sources. I understand you are a new(ish) editor, but this is a CT and you should tread more carefully. Selfstudier (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, will do. But bludgeon would be if I systemically replied to every comment disagreeing with me, not if I had 1 vote and a few reply (and then the threaded discussion of that). @SelfstudierMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Regarding this comment, which I feel is emblematic of the issue:
What people think is important for commonname
Not "people", as such. If you'd actually readWP:COMMONNAME, you would see that it says that what's "common" is determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. I've been trying to be as nice as I can and AGF but it's really starting to feel like you just refuse to do the reading necessary to engage meaningfully in this discussion. I haven't just been linking things because I like the way my text looks when it turns blue, you know. I keep feeling like you just don't understand the fundamentals of the relevant policies and guidelines here, so I've gone to some trouble to find pages that may help clarify to link for you (and re-skimmed them a bit myself to make sure I understand correctly as well), but you continue to show no signs of having read any of them. This is honestly firmly into the territory of disruptive at this point. With all due respect, if you're not willing to take some time to actually do the reading necessary to understand what's under discussion here before commenting, please stop derailing those of us who are trying to have a constructive discussion and reach a consensus on this article rename. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs)01:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 hours ago19 comments4 people in discussion
Given Wikipedia generally doesn't delete user talk pages at all, I was surprised to see your G1, not applicable to user talk pages. What made you think this page needed urgent deletion? Is there disruption which I've ignored? BusterD (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
G1 stands for General 1 which would imply that it applies everywhere. Anyways, I just thought (correctly) that it was nonsense. Not any more urgent than usual for SD. @BusterDMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker), Me Da Wikipedia, a couple of thoughts/comments if you don't mind. First, realize that Bbb23 has been on Wikipedia for some two decades, and been an admin for long enough they've probably had to replace the mop head at least five times. (that last is a joke). They are generally regarded as a patient admin. So with that being said, take a look at Wikipedia:User pages, where it calls out user pages, user talk pages and sub-pages all as falling into the broad category of user pages. Yes, from a name-space perspective user and user talk are different, but look at it from a broader viewpoint.
Remember that WP:NOTBURO strives to keep bureaucracy to a minimum, so sometimes you won't see something detailed to the nth degree. It's not consistent, true, as some pages do have every possible name-space where that term might apply listed but that's because of past disruption (ie, does a topic ban mean just the article page, the article and talk page, everywhere?). G1 does call out user namespace and not user talk namespace, but this is where that vast experience and background knowledge of Bbb23 and other can be helpful and good chance to simple say "Ahh. Sorry for that, when the G1 text didn't list user talk explicitly, I thought it would be okay. Thanks for letting me know." And then think about posting on WT:CSD "Hey, how about adding user talk to the namespaces where G1 doesn't apply as I read the existing text and thought it was okay to use there as the current text only calls out the user namespace."
You've been here a few months and have picked up a lot, but there's always new stuff. I've had my hand smacked this year in places when I thought I had it right and it's just a learning opportunity. There is so much policy / guidelines / essays that nobody knows everything. Even when you think you're right, Wikipedia works best if you take a moment and try to see things from the other person(s) viewpoint and sometimes go "Ah, gotcha. Hmmm, this wasn't clear to me and I went down the wrong path." Just a thought. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ravensfire, thank you. In response to BusterD's question, I just explained my reasoning. Bbb23 then gave me a quote, and yeah I pointed out the obvious. I never said that I was right, and frankly I essentially said "You're right but that's confusing can we add it to the page." Anyways, in the future, I'll just skip the middle part. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Something important has been missed in this attempt to parse CSD criteria's fine hairs. Like User:Bbb23, I've been around a while myself. Note there's no CSD criteria for user talk. Why is that? Outside of MfD process (and Oversight) we don't generally delete user talk EVER, much less self- or speedy requests. We often courtesy blank as an AtD. We might anonymize. It's quite rare a requested talk page deletion is discussed at any major talk board. In my understanding, we keep generally talk space intact so we may preserve the talk history for attribution. Users are generally speaking allowed to manage their own talk space as they wish. My question is this: Why was this even on your radar, Me Da Wikipedian? Why did you feel the new user's talk space gave you any reason for concern? Did you have a policy or guideline which is applicable? BusterD (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I just happened to find it looking through new pages, and it was pretty clearly nonsense so I tagged it. I didn't really think much more about it until it became a whole thing here. The policy/guideline which I thought was applicable was CSD G1. @BusterDMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not applicable for exactly the reason this discussion (and that guideline) has made clear. You and I and (especially) new users are allowed to say stupid things on their talk pages. I see you're doing reviewing work and have occasional interaction with speedy deleting user pages for various reasons. You're expected to make mistakes and nobody is chiding you for this one. Would you mind NOT policing user talkspace in the future? It's a form of WP:BITING. BusterD (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
(and strictly as a matter of style, it's not necessary to ping experienced editors already in active discussion with you) BusterD (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd be happy to not police User Talkspace (except for like obvious vandalism/personal attacks) for a while. "it's not necessary to ping experienced editors already in active discussion with you" - Why? Particularly if a discussion takes more than 2 seconds, why isn't it helpful to get pinged when someone actually responds to you. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Repeated unneeded pinging may be annoying to the receiver. You may choose to accept our suggestions as you wish. A responsible wikipedian usually pays attention to active discussions in which they've taken part. I assume good faith others will do likewise. That's why I rarely ping to a thread more than once. I also respond to reasonable feedback, like that offered by Bbb23 (who I'll deign not to link here, knowing they'll read this unprompted). BusterD (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hey! I saw your comment on my user talk page.
If it's about the IPA transcription, its from the Catalan Government's Official Gazetteer of Major Toponymy of Catalonia (Catalan: Nomenclàtor oficial de toponímia major de Catalunya).
Hello! Your submission of Lineage (anthropology) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rjjiii (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
