User talk:Novem Linguae/Archive 1

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

List of languages by number of native speakers

yep there was a mistake about turkish language all people who live in turkey r speakin turkish there z no other offical language so u cannot say 58 million thatz wrong it must be 71 million...c wut i mean? it z a fuckin damn conspiracy...made by some kurdish bastards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.120.254 (talk • contribs) 15:15, February 9, 2009

Koko

Good luck with that, I wish I could help you more with the Koko (Gorilla) article, but I've too much on my plate at the moment. I want to tell you what you are up against. What everyone believes about Koko, that she can use language, is actually false, a fact knowable by you. All you have to do is Google around and find any quotation by Koko that says anything which to a reasonable person constitutes clearly meaningful language. How is it possible that, after all these years of language use, you won't be able to find even one quote from her, even "Me banana want" or anything less, even, that will satisfy you that she can use language? Everything Koko does is explicable by her having learned that Penny will feed her if she makes sign-like motions, isn't it? Don't take this from me, research it for yourself. If Patterson had any proof, why doesn't she make it public? You can find a video of her answering a question, "Why don't you answer your critics?" Penny says that she doesn't feel obligated to deal with such negative people who refuse to believe things without proof! This is a scientist?

The problem is, how to write the section on Patterson's claims? I recommend just gathering the facts on the animal's biography, and stating the facts about how she got famous and what Patterson did claim, without ever giving the impression that it is knowably true, and therefore at least possibly false. Otherwise, the masses of people who believe Patterson's claims will demand proof that it's not true, and you'll have to cite something definative.Chrisrus (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

DREAM Act

Thanks for the reminder -- I recall the issue and had meant to return to the article to look at it in further depth but in the end forgot to do so. I haven't gone back to the page, but my recollection is that the editor was trying to highlight the fact(?) that the provisions of the legislation applied to legal immigrants and undocumented or "illegal" aliens alike, so the article shouldn't focus exclusively on those in the country illegally. I think the editor was asked to provide a source for the claim, but, if I recall, the source offered was simply the executive summary of the legislation and didn't specifically refer to the issue that was the source of the controversy.

I have a feeling, perhaps unfounded, that there is possibly

edit summary

in which you briefly explain the rationale for your changes and direct editors to the article talk page for a fuller explanation.

Your comment on the user's page is a good starting point. However, this editor appears to be a new user and may not be familiar with the use of a user talk page and so may not respond. --Rrburke^(talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN:

2010 cargo plane bomb plot

2010 cargo plane bomb plot, which you created and recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu

Nice job!--Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It was viewed 9,900 times yesterday. Which is stellar.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey -- tx much for the star. I look forward to working with you as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Novem Linguae. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Novem Linguae. 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)

Hello, Novem Linguae. 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)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scrum (software development), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Katie^talk 16:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Peter Hitchens, did not appear constructive and instead you misused sources to push a narrative that is not supported by the sources that you quote. Therefor you directly misused the wikipedia and spit on it's mission. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you still consider misusing the wikipedia to push your personal agenda consider a different medium for your personal opinions, since the sources you quote are not supporting the narrative you are pushing, and thus wikipedia is not the place for your politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1084:BFE0:95F8:FED6:E188:8D6 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@

neutral point of view

. You can't say things like "X person failed to deconstruct Y things", especially when he wrote an entire book trying to do that.

However, I did take a second look at the article just now. And the wording you were trying to change (the original wording) isn't very neutral either. It uses the POV word "fable". I have gone back and changed that sentence to something more neutral. [1]

Nothing personal, sir. Just doing my job. Which is to review edits on high vandalism pages, and revert anything that does not clearly improve the page. I hope you find the new wording satisfactory. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The news sources used to describe Ben Garrison are negatively biased toward him. He describes himself as a Conservative libertarian not an "alt-right" extremist. Please refrain from using strongly politically biased sites like the Guardian or Daily Beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.8.21 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello sir. I reverted your edit because you did a search and replace of "Trump" for "Kim Jong-Un" article wide, damaging 7 areas of the article. [2] If you make just your "far right" to "conservative libertarian" edit, I'd probably be fine with that one. Feel free to edit it right now if you want. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Both The Guardian and the Daily Beast are on our

reliable sources list. I think this is more a word choice problem than a source problem. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 20:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do most of the Wikipedia have an anti-liberatarian and anti-conservative bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.8.21 (talk)

You did it again, sir. You replaced Trump with Kim Jong-Un on this talk page. If this is not intentional, you should check your computer and browser for viruses. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What are you saying ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.8.21 (talk)

Hi,

For the past month some unknown user is continuously trying to vandalize kalaripayattu. Please go through the edit history, you can see how that unknown anonymous user is in edit war and vandalising the article.

The anonymous user 2409:4073:380:22F7:B8BC:C04E:4492:B679 has some pending edits on the same page now.

Please either block him or make the page protected only for extended confirmed users.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.76.60 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• It seems more like an edit war than vandalism to me. I think it would be helpful for everyone involved to discuss things on the talk page.
• Also it would be helpful if editors would log in instead of using IP's, so we can start learning who all the editors are. It seems like that article has a lot of regular IP editors.
• If you do see clear, uncontroversial vandalism, feel free to revert. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Yes, you're right. @1.39.76.60: Please create an account and start discussing on talk page. Let's resolve it there. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 15:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you accepted several revisions at

@Silikonz: I just figured he changed teams. Sorry about that. Pretty subtle vandalism. I'll be more careful on that article in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad you noticed. Thanks. And do be more careful when reverting/accepting pending revisions.

💬│🖋

) 21:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Silikonz-alt, I took another look at this (because there is another pending change in the queue right now trying to make the same edit). Looks like he got traded after all. A quick google search turns up sources.[3] With that in mind, are we comfortable accepting the edit now? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ehh, yes. Reliable sources are OK. ESPN seems fine. The anon user should've put sources when making the edit, though. This would've saved a lot of trouble. Good catch! Silikonz (💬│🖋) 23:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lidya (company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lidya (company) 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. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

In response to

WP:CSD" processes. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk

) 10:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please also see "Draft:Lidya (fintech)". Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You may want to read through immune system which we recently prepped to run Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 30, 2020; extra eyes are alway appreciated. Graham is well versed in writing for laypeople (see Introduction to viruses), but his time is limited since he has had to go back to work on the pandemic. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia. Sure, I'll take a look. Great choice of featured articles to work on. Did you and Graham team up to get that one to FA? How'd the FA process go? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Immune system was

FA standard so it could be re-run TFA to tie in with the launch of a vaccine (it was the closest relevant FA we had, and we were given the only open slot left, on 30 Dec). My general thoughts on the FA process are at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. Well, at least those are my thoughts that are fit to print :) SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 15:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Technology platform. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Technology platform until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Novem Linguae,

you put me in a good mood. I am a programmer (Python + Sqlite, wxPython, RegExp, etc.) but also a natural-born philosopher. Unfortunately I have no friends. Why? Maybe because I like breaking stereotypes, though most people love them and experience cognitive dissonance when talking with me. But I would like to be your friend because we have something in common e.g. RegExp ;-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, let's be friends :) Yeah, I like programming too. I have a

WP:PING each other (send each other notifications) to help keep track of new messages. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 15:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was very busy, struggling with a transition from Python 2.7 to 3.8, which took me 3 days! But I still remember that you are my friend. Seriously, although I am married, my wife has nothing to do with programming and philosophy, and my former friends either have extreme political views or are very religious. As for breaking stereotypes, I will soon write, but now I need to get some sleep. Happy Christmas :-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why that triggered the edit filter @Novem Linguae:, but that sounds great! Personally my experience with python has mostly just been using 3.x.x, i remember a while ago i was trying to port a friends program to python 3.something. Alas i didnt really know enough python then. Nithin^talk 20:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nithin: You reverted my edit and joined the topic here, instead of discussing "white hat"? I started a discussion there, about your revert - please join. Of course we can talk about your experience with Python, but not necessarily here :-) This page is neither mine, nor yours. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Lmao this has nothing to do with that earlier reversion (which i did reply to just now). I just saw this on huggle and thought that was and intresting discussion I would like to participate in (albeit my response sounded extremely forced and wierd), sorry! Happy new year! Nithin^talk 20:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nithin: Wow, thank you! I wish you the same :-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too. See you around. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Do not worry about your style of programming. Every decade or so, a new fashion in programming comes. But artificial intelligence will soon eliminate human programmers, and, over time, maybe even physically... The progress is very fast, and accelerates. The Google success in quantum computing fades away because Chinese achieved much more. What their quantum computer calculates in 20 seconds, would require 600 million years for a classical supercomputer. But so far, while programing I am in the state of flow, which means happiness. Do you feel like this? 85.193.228.103 (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose. I guess immersion occurs, and time feels like it's passing quickly. I think any intellectual hobby can provide that. Editing Wikipedia has a similar feel. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

In your recent edits to the list, the number of list entries dropped from 13 to 6. I don't think it was intentional. It happened in this diff. Can you take a look and restore? -- GreenC 21:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

GreenC, definitely not intentional. Should be all fixed now. Sorry about that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

On 13 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at 5,593 pages, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 is the longest bill ever passed by the U.S. Congress? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I started a draft about Michael Weirsky. Can you please make it a full article that is a good article or featured article, please? I would prefer it to be featured article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Weirsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey there. Yeah he seems to be at it again, sigh. Although he is at least adding more sources this time, but frankly I think all the articles he's creating should be put up for deletion. His English is pretty poor as well which doesn't help as a lot of the articles are in broken English and poorly worded. The references as well appear to be broken in a lot of his articles. If you want to report him to an admin go ahead, I think he'll likely get banned soon anyway as one of his latest articles appears to have attracted admin attention. Inexpiable (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I noticed you asked about the AfD counter that Scottywong built. I was looking for it too. The updated AfD counter is listed here along with other tools. It's directly available here. Hope you're doing well! - tucoxn\^talk 16:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Is an external link to a google earth page "unacceptable"? I made such a link, and had my entire update to the page subsequently "reverted". The Google earth link was totally relevant to the media link, so the question is, in this era of open source resources, is there a "legal' way to link a Wikipedia page to a Google Earth page? If not, then why? As long as the links are made with total respect to the originally posted material, why should an "external" link to Google Earth, be interpreted as 'Vandalism" or "Malicious"? A "novice" editor reverted my updates, and after hours of cross communication, un-reverted them. I am only trying to be a responsible wiki updater, and have no idea as to "Why" my edit was reverted, and subsequently, restored. Thanks for any relevant input. Shihad x (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional question, what, if any, is the "legal" way to make an association between a Wikpedia page and a Google Earth page? Shihad x (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shihad x. Thanks for your comment. Yes, in general we should avoid external links in the body of articles. This is per the guideline located at Wikipedia:External links, which says links should not normally be placed in the body of an article.

While your original edits are not vandalism (vandalism has bad intent, you are acting in good faith), they are against the guideline I quoted above. I see you got very upset with the editor that originally reverted your edit. Couple of things though. 1) He is not a novice. He is an experienced editor with 3,000 edits. 2) He did not once use the word "vandalism" that I can see. Honestly, I find no fault with his behavior.

The correct way to include locations in Wikipedia is to place the GPS coordinates in an infobox (a box with info at the top right of an article), and let the infobox take care of generating a link for you. It will generate a link to our custom map website rather than Google. Here's an example where you can see the word "coordinates" and a set of coordinates beneath the map.

In the case of your edit, while I appreciate that you are acting in good faith and trying to improve the encyclopedia, I do not think that a link to Google Earth nor GPS coordinates should be included. Nor should an infobox for this be included. For the record, this is the version of your edits that I prefer. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain why you reverted on Kyle Kulinski to put back unsourced controversial content in a BLP? Schazjmd (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ack, never mind - I see you caught it. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, Hello friend. Someone before you put a pov sentence in, so I restored an old version, then put your edit back at 23:08. You posted on my talk page at 23:11. So I think this was a misunderstanding. Hopefully all good now. Thanks for the message. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I need to remember to refresh my watch page more frequently! I appreciate you restoring the edit, definitely all good. Schazjmd (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Frobozz1 has ignored multiple warnings from several editors on Impeachment, has continued to force edits into the article in spite of being asked to discuss them on the talk page, will respond to virtually none of the detailed concerns about accurancy and neutrality that have been raised, and indeed has specifically said "I am in no hurry to try to gain consensus with things like court rulings and dictionary definitions unless I have cited them incorrectly ...". The editor is constructing a personal narrative based on primary sources that clearly attempts to minimise the gravity of the current Trump proceedings, that paints them as being merely party-political, and which attempts to throws doubt on their applicability to a former president. These actions are I believe very clearly in breach of the discretionary sanctions that you notified the editor about on their talk page yesterday. I'm unsure what action should be taken at this point. Should I file a formal report somewhere? MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I have responded to all comprehensible objections to my edits, the aggrieved party has not used any tool yet to express what apparent "wrongs" I have done in my edits. The article has a very clear need for citations and verifications. I took up the task, as nearly all content lacked credibility or citations. MichaelMags appears intent on owning the article by holding up edits in talk, while refusing to either engage in conversation or give any detail whatsoever as to what can be done to improve my edits. The editor has a singular response to all things which attempt to add verifiable citations: delete them, and leave you guessing what policy I may have offended. Not one single inline tag has been attempted. Never once has he left {{opinion}} or any other suggestion to improve the content. The article has been hijacked, and the editor must simply be ignored until they can engage in constructive editing.

The single time I made an edit including the name "Donald trump" seemed to spark the ire of GreenFrogeGoRibbit, I reached out and asked for help improving it on the talk page. The comment for a rollback which removed over 8,000 characters was, "extremely partisan and poorly worded legal arguments involving the previous American president." Not in any sense useful toward the goals of this site, and can only serve to discourage editors who intend to improve content. It is bullying at best.

Should the offenders decide to contribute positively I remain watching this page for anything constructive, and in disregard of anything thuggish. In all cases, the Wikipedia policy guides my edits; reasonable editors annotating my content are respected and engaged, and timely responses to discussion are patiently attended. Partisan opinions can never achieve consensus and thus the 'World View' principle prevails in my edits, at the full expense of the 'breaking news view' of popular opinion.

Frobozz1 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Yes, thank you, I appreciate that. I've not often come across this type of aggressive party-political editing, as my interests tend more to constitutional law than to American party-political matters. The

WP:SEALION article is interesting, and I see most of those behaviours exhibited by this editor. It's hard dealing effectively with a single-purpose 'new' username who is able to devote so much time to the task, and who always presents as being 'oh-so-reasonable' when challenged while ignoring any and all concerns. Effective action would require someone with time and interest enough to set out the issues clearly for non-involved editors. I'm reluctant to take the lead myself as I really don't want to spend weeks digging into issues of American politics in which I have almost zero interest. There are subjects I care more about than that, and I'll concentrate on those. Thanks for your support in any event. All the best, MichaelMaggs (talk

) 11:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that you User: Novem Linguae deleted my contribution and the contribution of RandomCanadian on spurious grounds at 01:01, 13 February 2021 :

"(→‎Wuhan lab leak story: trim WP:PROFRINGE)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_misinformation&diff=next&oldid=1006462421

Kindly clarify how can the statement of the Director General contradicting the previous claim be considered WP:PROFRINGE?

So, effectively your and the other user's edits gagged the Director General of The WHO as promoting WP:PROFRINGE, which is patently ridiculous

Previously, RandomCanadian deleted a correctly referenced and pithy quote quote from the Director General which clarified the earlier claim on the page (at 22:05, 12 February 2021): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_misinformation&type=revision&diff=1006512687&oldid=1006437332 What RandomCanadian deleted was this:

"....still open in probe into coronavirus origins|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/who-says-all-hypotheses-still-open-in-probe-into-coronavirus-origins%7Caccess-date=2021-02-13%7Cwebsite=Straits Times|language=en}}</ref> that all hypotheses are still being considered and will be investigated:

“Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded, I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study"

"

RandomCanadian replaced it with this:

"..that all hypotheses were still being considered"

RandomCanadianreason for deleting was:

""all hypotheses" is again vague, but the repetitive quote is not necessary...)"

However, the information was accurate and correctly sourced ,and not a repetitive quotation (where is the other version of teh quote?)

So, please work with me and RandomCanadian to revert your edit as soon as possible, or alternatively improve the deleted text, and then add it again. Billybostickson (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

.

Kindly revert to my edit as soon as possible. Thank you.Billybostickson (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello friend. Thanks for the comment. It's quite strange that the WHO team gave a very strong statement debunking the lab leak idea, then a day or two later their boss released a statement weakly contradicting them. I'm not sure what to think of this yet. Although there's also an argument to be made that the "all hypotheses" comment was cherry picked and given more weight than it deserves. I think I'll wait for others to weigh in. You may want to post a shorter version of this at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. In my opinion, that would be the best place to discuss article content. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

My comment refers to this long discussion which, if you scroll down, does have something about "all hypotheses"; to partially quote my own reply there:

To summarize (since these are all points made elsewhere, either at that discussion or on other talk pages, and we're all frankly bored of repeating it); "all hypotheses" is ridiculously vague; and using it in text unduly promotes the viewpoint that the lab leak conspiracy is equally valid with the scientific consensus (

unacceptable synthesis or a gross misrepresentation of the source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 14:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

User: Novem Linguae I will respond here, as deleted my contribution on the Talk Page as per your suggestion. This seems to be a willfully perverse interpretation of the Director General's opinion on the subject by RandomCanadian. If you wish to "add context", please do so instead of vandalising pages. Why does RandomCanadian or you, say 'so using it to give validity to a FRINGE viewpoint ", when nobody has done anything of the kind apart from factually updating the previous claim with the Director General's comment, which clarifies it. This is clear for all to see. So, on the contrary it seems that deleting it in its entirety is a grossly biased decision, taken without consultation with the wider community. My suggestion is that instead of deleting users' good faith contributions, try to improve them, rather than engaging in unproductive edit warring. Thank you Billybostickson (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop the

WP:VAND and stop the accusations, or we'll go right back to the starting spot. The WHO DG saying "all hypotheses are under investigation" is not a clarification as it is an ambiguous, potentially willfully so, statement; and we have no clue whether it refers specifically to the lab leak hypotheses or to any of the more mundane explanations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 16:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian What exactly is ambiguous about his statement? Here it is:

"Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded."

"I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study."

https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-member-states-briefing-on-covid-19---11-february-2021

It is crystal clear that "All Hypotheses" includes "All Hypotheses" including the Lab Leak Hypothesis which was included on a slide shown by the team coordinator, Peter Emberak, during the recent WHO Press Conference.

https://www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Virus_Outbreak_China_WHO_Mission_94779.jpg?w=1080

You seem to be wilfully intent on misinterpreting the very clear statement by Dr. Tedros and accusing him of WP:FRINGE. This will bring WP into disrepute. Regarding "accusations", may I remind you that you accused me of falsely attacking an admin, trying to "fracture discussion" and "harrassing editors" An apology would be in order. also I am not sure why you keep on responding here instead of the appropriate forum, which is the Talk Page, as we agreed. Thank you. Billybostickson (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Re. "what exactly is ambiguous" - I think PR has made that point on the article talk page, so I'm not going to repeat it needlessly; anyway that conversation can indeed continue there, without any of the

WP:PA, or any of the walls of text... I will not comment any further on the restt. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 17:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding constant reverts and threats of blocking by gatekeepers. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story".The discussion is about the topic COVID-19 misinformation.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Billybostickson (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you protect my user page from vandalism and help me add user boxes to my page?

WP:RFPP. Hope that helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 02:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Filmmaker8306, on your userpage, I changed the brackets [[]] to braces {{}}. Brackets are for links, braces are for importing and displaying things. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 03:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to let you know, once you go through the school, don't think that I'm not there if you need any help, or have any questions. Things in NPP can get tricky at times. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, thanks my friend. I appreciate that a lot. I have a feeling the talk page of our NPP school might become a place where I can ask questions without bugging you with pings :-) Since you seem to be very on top of watching that. Much appreciated. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your question at this draft - do you know the Earwig Copyvio Tool we are using?

CommanderWaterford, thanks for the message. Yeap, I ran it through Earwig earlier, it came up completely clean. Very strange though... it has all the red flags of a copy paste. "Fancy" apostrophes, citations in the form of [1][2][3] in the Wikicode, stuff like that. Definitely copy pasted from somewhere. Happy reviewing, my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 14:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 14:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, we'll see. They won't tell if I don't ask ;-) Cheers. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 14:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 14:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	thank you so much for the edits and notes on the page I worked on! Maganolla (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:GNG criteria. Feel free to contact me if you want a re-evaluation. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 01:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the resource has been added and re-requested, so there is no reason for you to undo my edit.--MNL (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

منع الواقع. Hello friend. AFC comments are supposed to stay at the top of an article, so that there is a history of the comments. Please add them back. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done--MNL (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Jeremy Renner was cast in a TV show called The Mayor of Kingston, a miniseries on the incarceration industry in Michigan, according to Deadline, Variety and others and I’m trying to add it to his filmography but I’m having issues.

WP:UNDUE weight and I suspect those changes will get reverted. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 21:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP and that giant red BLP banner you get when editing his page. Wikipedia is not on the cutting edge of gossip, especially when it comes to biographies of living people. You must have a reliable source to add things to BLP's. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 21:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you find the answer to this question? If not, you may be aware of

WP:VPT. Thank you for the head's up. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 22:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Filmmaker8306, I added them to your userpage just now. Enjoy. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Filmmaker8306, done, take a look and see if you like that. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 22:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Filmmaker8306, are you on mobile? Looks pretty similar on mobile, but it's a big improvement on desktop. [5] –Novem Linguae (talk

) 06:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way for the article creation to be delayed until near the race, if you say the article is not relevant until it becomes a current event? Prins van Oranje 15:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:GNG? If there are good sources like newspapers that have several paragraphs talking about this event in detail... if you can find three of those, you might have a case for creating the article early. But you'd have to ask somebody more experienced to be sure. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 15:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for advice! Looking again there are some good things I can add to it. Prins van Oranje 16:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)