User talk:Beorhtwulf

Hello Mr. Beorhtwulf (talk),

welcome to Wikipedia.

I would like to thank you for your recent edits where you tried "not to patronize international readers":

1. Radioisotope thermoelectric generator
2. Michio Kaku;

contributors like you are precious on wikipedia.

I hope you will keep having fun anyway.

Actually this is also my purpose.

Yours faithfully.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the welcome Maurice! Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a

A dead link is a useless and possibly falsified link. Someone very might as well have made the whole thing up! Print is a different medium, and you're welcome to try and track down every print link if you like, but the nature of hyperlinks are that they work immediately. It may be damaging to the sort of stale and unverifiable article you prefer, but I will continue to contribute in the way I see most constructive. I can't understand (and don't need to, and frankly don't care) why you thought it was sensible decision to be such a pedant and insist the rest of us think the way you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAscender (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beorhtwulf. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beorhtwulf. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've been adding IPA to some articles. Is there anything available, or planned, that might turn these into spoken examples? Either automatically, or as a project to speak and record them. I don't read IPA, certainly not enough to pronounce them as described. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People are always welcome to record spoken examples and upload these to Commons, and the IPA templates allow these to be linked quite nicely from articles. See for example Vajiralongkorn: while I am very glad the IPA is there, since the full name is such an intimidating jumble and I have no familiarity with Thai it was great to be able to just click for some audio! Where audio does not exist the IPA templates link to Help:IPA/English (and similar for other languages) which provides a helpful key to the symbols giving examples of words where each sound is found, which should allow readers to decipher them. The main template {{IPAc-en}} makes this even easier by displaying the relevant bit of the key when the mouse pointer is hovered over the symbols.

The reason Wikipedia has gone with IPA over the years is that it's the 'industry standard' for linguists and anyone interested in reliably and unambiguously representing pronunciation. There are all sorts of ambiguities and limitations with trying to spell things out like "pro-nun-see-ay-shun", although because of concerns about lack of reader familiarity with IPA we do have a standardised pronunciation respelling key (standardised within Wikipedia, since various dictionaries use different incompatible conventions), though this is only for use with English words, whereas IPA aims to represent all sounds found in all languages.

If there are any articles you've spotted me editing where you feel like I have made things more confusing by adding IPA, e.g. because I replaced a respelling that looked clear enough with a jumble of symbols, let me know and I will have a go at adding respelling. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...is short for the banned user Vote (X) for change. One of his posts today was reverted by someone else for that reason,[1] so I took it on faith that the user know what they were doing. Banned users are not allowed to edit, regardless of any alleged quality of their edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

Hi. At {{Monarchs of Japan}}, you reverted the pipelinking of Akihito as Kinjō with a comment about it being vandalism. While I agree with the reversion, it doesn't appear to have been vandalism, according to Akihito and Reigning Emperor, both of which mention Kinjō as part of Reigning Emperor (Japanese: 今上天皇, Hepburn: Kinjō Tennō), a valid way of referring to the current emperor. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes more sense now! I couldn't find the word anywhere, I think because I had read it as Kenjō rather than Kinjō, and assumed it was just someone's name or a joke or something. I still think it should say Akihito and see that you agree so let's let the reversion stand. Thank you for enlightening me. Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to apologize for my revert and just drop this. I still think it trivial but I can see how others might not. Sorry for the timesink, and thanks for providing good references for your changes. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. Happy editing and thanks for keeping an eye on high school articles, which often attract questionable edits. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beorhtwulf. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Hello Beortwulf, i wish you good luck on coining a horse-name from al-buraq, as lighting flash its really fitting for a steed. I answered your question on Buraq , that there wont be a fatwah like against the teddy bear, so give your name at ease!. Al-buraq is one of the made up words in the Quran ,due to grammar and historic studies not being a prio, that have lost its orignal meaning, confused with "bariqa" (pale ,white,flash,light) and this confusion becomes stupid when people read this in the Quran (oh lighting flash, are you not ashamed that you never been alighted before,but your now going to light away?) (mounted is its meaning ) but also gives the cool reading "oh muhammed, flash away on lighting strike".

Is there anything else please do write, i am mostly reading on languages on arabic/farsi/swedish if there are more words you wonder, new to wikipedia and trying to learn how to edit, seems there is so much dishonesty on wiki though i am kinda shocked.Bennanak88 (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

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.

Just something to be aware of when editing and discussing topics such as Elliot Page. Let me know if you have any questions! — Bilorv (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blood irradiation misleading screenshot.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. "I don't think it makes sense" is not a valid reason to consistently remove an RS ref. And even without that, consistently adding content without a ref is also disruptive. Kingsif (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Whatever your view of my edits, they are very obviously not vandalism. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been here 10 years, you know the unconstructive, disruption, and vandalism templates are all the same. Kingsif (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in the spirit of assuming good faith to put a message on someone's talk page saying their edits appear to constitute vandalism, and threatening the loss of editing privileges, as if they were a bored schoolkid defacing articles with profanity, just because you have a disagreement with me about whether certain information should be included in the article. Particularly when they information you are trying to include is obviously in error! Are we trying to write an encyclopedia here or not? Do we want to convey accurate information to our readers or not? Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored warning 1. So I used a template for warning 2, what's not AGF about that! Sorry, did I upset you so you want to threaten me about AGF? Note that we're now on warning 3 since you just made the same edit. Even though you asked for good faith and seemingly tried to start discussion - so, yes, it's getting more like vandalism when you seem to acknowledge there's an issue but keep trying to force your unsourced edit. Do we want to convey accurate information to our readers or not - you clearly haven't read

WP:V, then. "Verifiable, not true," is the actual rule. We have a source that says X. You have OR that says Y. So Wikipedia must say X. There is no debate to be had. Kingsif (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I am at a loss here. You are being needlessly belligerent about the pointless cause of maintaining a piece of information in an article that is obviously not true. I haven't threatened you or ignored any warning templates. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can everyone please calm down here? As stated previously, UK TV presenters are mandated to wear black. This isn't just a BBC thing and this isn't optional. It's standard mourning protocol on all British television. There's a source for that. Can we all please just accept that Beorhtwulf made a mistake asserting false information and just get on with it? Beorhtwulf, please, if you have a source for your claim, provide it. It could even be a clip from the news. We just need a source for it. --Aknell4 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to make these obviously erroneous claims about a rule that doesn't exist, and visibly hasn't been adhered to, all because a sloppy journalist misunderstood or made something up. The discussion is becoming fruitless at this point. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, provide a source --Aknell4 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, it is not reasonable to expect someone to prove a negative in reference to an obvious error by a journalist. If a journalist somewhere put up a web page that said the sky in the UK turned black when Prince Philip died it would not be reasonable to expect anyone to produce a source explicitly stating that this didn't happen. We need to use some degree of common sense and familiarity with the subject matter when selecting sources. Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just provide a source for your claim that some British TV presenters aren't wearing black. This isn't an "obvious" case. The burden of proof is on you to dispel a source from a credible news organization. --Aknell4 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

good faith, the previous edits made were better representative of the reality of the situation. Hope you understand. While I do believe your edits weren't correct, I also believe Kingsif's response to this was unnecessarily aggressive. So, Beorhtwulf, please recognise the mistake you made on the article, and Kingsif, please don't go into situations like this with the unnecessary kind of aggression you displayed here. --Aknell4 (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

But the whole point is that it was not mandated. It's a protocol voluntarily adopted by the BBC and some others, not universally adhered to. The source Kingsif is insisting on, written by some journalist evidently doing sloppy work, claims that an unspecified rule requires all newsreaders and TV presenters in the UK to wear black during the mourning period. But no such rule exists. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was protocol for Operation Forth Bridge and is widely accepted. All news casts in Britain adhered to this, so it's fairly safe to say it was mandatory. Hope this clears things up. --Aknell4 (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly now. The adherence of some broadcasters to a voluntary protocol does not make it safe to say it was mandatory. Who is mandating it? Can you point me to the law? And all news casts in Britain certainly did not adhere to it, particularly after the first day or so. This insistence on something patently false is becoming bizarre. I feel as though I am in a Kafka novel. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aknell4: Now how is warning someone for insisting on adding content without a source aggressive? Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: While warning someone in and of itself isn't aggressive, the way you went about it was agressive. You could have used lighter language and made it completely evident to Beorhtwulf why it was necessary to revert their edits, rather than simply reverting his edits with a few words of explanation that didn't help constructive dialogue, and gone about this whole situation in a more collected fashion. While I do believe you had the best of intentions going into this, please go about this in a calmer way in the future. Wikipedia isn't a place to have heated arguments. --Aknell4 (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aknell4: I did explain, politely, the first two times. Then warning. Then blanket reversions. I don't think I should have to explain the acceleration steps of making sure policy is followed when someone clearly knows but wants to break it. Kingsif (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some time later... The above pointless argument was about removing a minor but obvious error from an article: apparently an impossible task since it was sourced to a sloppy journalistic piece, thereby granting it the status of gospel truth. Returning today from a well-deserved wikibreak I've checked the article in question and the erroneous claim no longer appears. Evidently a sensible approach prevailed in the end, but this was a good illustration of why people get fed up trying to edit here. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]