User talk:Lembit Staan/Archive 5

This page 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.

Hi, concerning the passages you took out from the article alien language (in particular the "linguistics" section)I would need some explanation on why you consider this to be original research. Please go to the Talk page of "Alien language", where I added a section on this isssue. Linguist2017 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

On 21 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that a newly described moth species, Neopalpa donaldtrumpi (pictured), was so named because its yellowish head scales reminded a scientist of Donald Trump's hairdo? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 00:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that you redirected "Entity". Unfortunately, that leaves a number of links to disambiguation pages. Could you fix the links in Template:Metaphysics, Template:Philosophy of language and Template:Philosophy-of-language-key-terms? Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 10:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey,

I'm enjoying the discussion but I need to get to bed now; and I expect to be working night shift. Will continue over weekend :)

Cheers, Anothersignalman (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doxycycline. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Management consulting page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

The lead must conform to

biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation

. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. (my emphasis)

I've restored the citation needed twice and opened a section on the talk page. You've removed the maintenance template three times and only now have provided an edit summary "The refs are in the article bpdy. PLease read our guidelines about refs in the lede", which clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of the very policy you directed me to. It's clear from LEADCITE that your removal of a good-faith request for an in-line citation is disruptive, and your edit-warring compounds that.

Now, either revert yourself or provide the citation that I've requested both with the maintenance template and on the talk page. I'm ready to prepare an ANI report on your edit-warring and disruptive editing. --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 00:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a BLP, as you know. Nevertheless,

WP:V is clear that "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" – and that applies to all articles. Yes, it has multiple refs, but it's by no means obvious what sources support what statements, because of the scarcity of inline citations. Thank you for your understanding; I've gone into more detail on what I'm looking for on the talk page. --RexxS (talk

) 00:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I see you really enjoy reverting my edits! However you might want slow down, as in this edit you reverted something that did not need to be reverted. See the previous sentence. The city I was unlinking is linked in the previous sentence, and in two other places in the article. Apology accepted.104.163.141.185 (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you are deleting the Discog. on the Artist Publishing Group page when it is a publishing group first and foremost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab34hj788 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Ab34hj788 (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no relation with the company, I just saw that there was no page made under the link on Mike Caren's Wikipedia page. I am doing my best to adhere to the rules, again, I don't mean harm, I simply want to create a page without all of this harmful and harsh discussion. I am abiding by the rules and taking all necessary precautions this round. Please do not continue to purposely flag and bully.Ab34hj788 (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with Virgin, and am not trying to promote them, I was just referencing a conversation with Branson using paraphrasing, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneaterman (talk • contribs) 15:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Field-programmable gate array. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As a long-term admin, I know that example text and explanations do not require sourcing: these need citation no more than do explanatory comments anywhere else, because anyone fluent in the English language understands them. If you continue removing this text, it will be

@

talk

) 23:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

See

WP:BLUE, which notes that demanding citations for such matters is disruptive. Nyttend (talk

) 00:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

i tagged it for speedy deletion because there is only one notable/actual article that starts with it. why have i been in error?68.151.25.115 (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• @
  talk
  ) 16:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

but the entries are not blue links. only one entry has one blue link.68.151.25.115 (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You didn't read my reply carefully. I wrote "discussed in articles which are blue links in disambig page items". E.g., "

talk

) 17:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

ok, so are the articles

havent been written on.68.151.25.115 (talk

) 21:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• @
  talk
  ) 22:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

well, maybe they should be red links. either way, I disagree that a disambiguation should exist for Bravura.68.151.25.115 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 17:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(moved to

Please move this discussion back to its original location. Per

WP:RTP, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." -- IsaacSt (talk

) 23:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not refactor anything. I moved the whole piece "as is". Besides, this is my user talk page, and here I can do pretty much anything I want. Not to say that WP:RTP is not a policy/guideline. In wikipedia, things are done to the benefit of wikipedia. I explained you my move: article content must be discussed in article talk pages, where other editors may chip in. If you explain me how my move is detrimental, to wikipedia, then we can talk. Otherwise I would strongly recommend you to avoid wikilawyering.

talk

) 00:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

You sure this is notable and not

Tough. On one level it is an unreferenced OR. On another, it is a potentially useful list of red-links to create. I'd tentatively say 'weak keep' unless you can show some of those names are bogus/clearly non-notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I know it's tiresome, which is why my recommendation is to let it be. It's unlikely to be a spam/hoax, and it more likely to be a useful redlist of notable topics. PS. I checked few red links at random, all have entries on pl wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you man exactly with "sloppy language"? Do you think a sentence such as "... one of the main reasons Lem decided..." is well-articulated? Where is the conjunction between reasons and Lem? You should also give a glance to format rules: decades must be written entirely as "1940s", not "'40s". Further, novel titles must be in italics": the edits you reverted now leave the with many novels formatted as short stories, i.e. "Fiasko". Please be less arrogant next time. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh? What format rules have to do with my edits? [2] . [3]

talk

) 16:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You reverted all mine: I refer to your contro-edit of 20:59, 8 May 2017! Without noticing that now half novels mentioned are formatted wrongly, for example... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 19:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

So since you are not the person who undid my revisions, I restored all format tweaks. Thanks and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what else needs verification. Would it be ok with you if I removed the tag? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 00:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 17:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Wow, you're right! Thanks for putting in the hard work! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		For frequently detecting and removing spam and undue-weight promotion from articles. — PaleoNeonate — 05:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Re, [4], see [5]. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Staszek Lem. I noticed the back-and-forth at Lina Medina. Thanks for your edits there. I had never seen Template:BLP living dead before today. I can imagine its being used on a talk page, but I think it should never be placed in article space. Do you have any experience with template documentation? I don't. It occurs to me that the template page should have instructions warning against applying it to an article, but I'm not sure if that needs to be discussed first on the template talk page and, if so, what notifications are proper. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see much problem with the template itself. In this particular case it was fault both me and OP. My fault is that seeing edit summary "(Undid revision 786461864 by Staszek Lem (talk) dead according to the Russia wiki)" I assumed the OP inserted the date of death circulated in lazy media. OP's fault is that it did not look into the talk page where the issue of death was reasonably discussed.

talk

) 16:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Detailed traffic statistics

Staszek Lem, while investigating something I discovered that in this edit you seem to have copied information from this or a similar version of another article. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Also, one of the sources you copied is a predatory journal, the International Journal of Business and Social Science, published by the "Center for Promoting Ideas". Please see Jeffrey Beall's list. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I know. This source is verified and adequate for described topic (symbolics). --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 21:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Staszek. I agree the guy you reported to

Hi, I'm Robert McClenon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Old soldiers never die, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 01:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mistake. The disambiguation page hadn't originally been there. I think it's okay now. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please not revert my edits? Specifically, International Sakharov Environmental Institute was formed in 2017 from International Sakharov Environmental University which can be referenced at [6] --

Dzień dobry kontaktuje sie w sprawie mojego artykuły ktory bym orzez Pana sprawdzany. Bie wiem co powinno być zmienione/dodane i w jaki sposób to zrobić proszę o pomoc zależy mi na publikacji. Dziękuje :) Talented musicians (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

is in the process of being deleted WIKI-PT [7]. 189.123.246.16 (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Talented musicians (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sylwia Majka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I need a help with my article I dont understand why it is declined, pleae advise me what to change. i am a new user. Thnak You

I think this article should be deleted and have suggested it on the article. Galaktico (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Page has already been deleted in Portuguese [8]. 179.154.60.96 (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		This is a Special Barnstar for you, Staszek, as we don't yet have a Barnstar for Exceptional Reasonableness, and I don't have the graphic skills to create one. You deserve it because I can't remember any other editor on Wikipedia going out of their way to meet halfway an editor whom they had reverted and whom they didn't have to try to meet halfway because the other editor had already thrown in the towel. Thanks. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What the hell? These articles have been disrupted by advocates and you are now following directly in their footsteps.

Your recent editing history at pfSense shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded

I moved this section to the book: Europe: A History. I think it belongs there, not in his bio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I had to undo your edits because you added them to a version of the article I consider problematic. Feel free to add your edits to the current version, or better, we could use a third party comments on the issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

To editor

talk

) 21:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's about time for one of us to ask for an uninvolved admin to rule on whether your proposal (Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Proposal) has consensus, though you might perhaps first want to add your own vote as nominator to make it 4 to 1 in favour instead of 3 to 1 (I don't know enough about such things to know whether it makes a difference or not). Regards, and Merry Christmas. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you're not sure whom to ask, I thought Kudpung made a fair assessment a few days ago (here), and I also usually trust DrMies when I need advice. But I don't know whether we're supposed to ask for our own admin, so it may be a matter of asking for their advice on who to ask and how to go about it, always assuming, probably wrongly, that, like me, you don't already know what to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Having now read the rules

Or perhaps we should just ask at the proposal, which I think I will now do. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Done.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)