User talk:Revirvlkodlaku/Archive N

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku. 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)

Lauren Southern consistently does not use the serial comma, yet you are attempting to add it. Why are you making this change, which is essentially a shift in English variety? —C.Fred (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello C.Fred, the reason I have added the serial comma to Lauren Southern's article, as I do to any article I read, is that I believe it adds clarity to a sentence. If you would like to see a comparison of a sentence with and one without the serial comma, and the difference it makes in the definition of the sentence, I will be happy to point you to one or several freely available online. werewolf (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Walter Görlitz:, you recently reverted several edits I made on the Three Days Grace page, and even though they were not all of the same nature, the only explanation you provided was "We're repeating the band's name too often. Use prepositions instead." Can you please provide justification for reverts not involving the use of the band's name, as well as explaining how you determined that the band's name had been used excessively? I have tried to alternate the terms "Three Days Grace", "the band", and "they" on the page in order to provide variety, and I found the use of "the band" repetitive, especially in close succession, this is why I changed it to "Three Days Grace" in several places. I am open to reverts if they are reasonable, and I am certainly not set on my edits remaining if they are inappropriate. Additionally, and please believe that I do not mention this out of spite or vindictiveness, but neither "the band" nor "they" are prepositions or preposition phrases, so your reason for reverting my edits doesn't make grammatical sense. Your confusion on this point should be taken into consideration both by yourself and any other editor who will review this issue should it devolve into a disagreement. werewolf (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I only reverted one of your sessions. Can you please provide justification for any of your changes as they were all unexplained? And this discussion should probably be on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I can see that you reverted one of my sessions, but you haven't justified doing so. Your only explanation was grammatically flawed, which potentially disqualifies it. I am happy to move this discussion to the article's talk page, but I'm curious to know, do you intend to justify your revert in any coherent manner? werewolf (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Blog sites are not acceptable reliable sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:HAEVN and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
  may be deleted
  .
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TryKid was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at

HAEVN

instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

@Revirvlkodlaku: went ahead and created the article. Draft isn't needed anymore. I would suggest deleting this draft.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:HAEVN and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
  may be deleted
  .
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TryKid (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I saw your response to my revert. I also saw that you cited your sources, which is a good thing, however, the guardian is pretty much a tabloid and not reliable (not arguing, just saying ! ). If you | look at the Oxford dictionary it shows both actor and actress as being in common usage with actress being used to define a female actor, also note that | cnbc also uses actor and actress to indicate gender.

Both are reliable sources. Then there's Mos:genderid (which believe it or not I disagree with, but it's a guideline so it has to be followed - oh well, it just goes to show that sometime's Wikipedia has it's collective head in it's ass! :) ) which says

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") (emphasis is mine) that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification.

.

This tells me that female actors need to be referred to as actress(es) not actors.

I notice you didn't revert, and that's fine, we can talk it out, that's ok too! 12.41.123.251 (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. I didn't revert because that usually just leads to a revert war, which is ridiculous. I wasn't aware that The Guardian had become a tabloid, but I don't think this necessarily suggests that stories published in it are less valid. The important thing to do is to read the content and focus on its merits rather than the vehicle which published it. Regardless of what the Oxford dictionary states, and notwithstanding the guideline you cite regarding genderid, the fact remains that gendered job titles are going by the wayside, as I would hope you have noticed, and actor/actress is one of the last gendered profession titles in the English language that I can even think of. If you speak with people within the acting profession, you will notice that most of them have switched to referring to women as actors. This, to me, is a strong indicator of the trend with which the appellation is changing, and this is the reason I made the edit. As I said before, it won't be long before someone else makes the same edit and you will find yourself fighting against the tide if you continue to revert this. Out of curiosity, why is this issue important to you? werewolf (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually tablod mean not reliable. The Oxford dictionary is reliable and Wikipedia uses reliable sources only, and yes, there are exceptions, like when quoting someone's thoughts on a subject  :). Funny you should mention actors - I am one. (stage actor to be fair ). It's mixed, some people say "actors" regardless of actor but the majority say "actor" for a male and "actress" for a female. It's not demeaning in any way, you either do the part or you don't get the job. 12.41.123.251 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This is, in fact, incorrect - if you look at the discussion at Talk:Actress (disambiguation) you will see a number of sources supporting the assertion that "actor" is used interchangeably with "actress" for female performers; the OED does not make any kind of claim that "actress" is preferred for females, only that both terms are used, and corpus based dictionaries (which are based on actual language usage) state that "actor" is more common and more neutral. And where did you get the idea that The Guardian is a tabloid source? It is published in a tabloid format, but that doesn't mean that it uses tabloid journalism - two very different things! "Actress" is a marked term, and while it is not obsolete nor offensive it is (by definition) less neutral, and there is no reason to change "actor" to "actress" for female performers unless the individual has stated a preference for that term. In the case of a French speaker, it is unlikely that she would have expressed such a preference concerning a foreign language. It's also natural that editors with French as their native language should see "actress" as neutral and unmarked, as that is how French works - but it's not true about English. (I'm not saying that the IP is French, but the editor who is being belligerent at the article in question is.) --bonadea contributions talk 11:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Bonadea, I appreciate the input, finally someone who doesn't think I'm an extremist or grammatical ignoramus on this topic! werewolf (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You are neither of those things! I would not personally think it worthwhile to systematically change "actress" to "actor" in Wikipedia articles - if nothing else, some individuals have a personal preference, and in e.g. Indian English the gender-marked noun is just as common, perhaps more so, than the neutral one - but it's anything but "extremist" to do so. Language is so closely connected to identity that it is frightening to some people that it changes, and that things that are obvious to ourselves can actually be proven to be incorrect. I think that's what causes the strong reactions - some kind of subconscious fear of change. But I am a linguist, not a psychologist (or even a psycholinguist) so this is just my amateurish guess. --bonadea contributions talk 12:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with you on English usage, and I suspect your theory on why the change sets certain individuals off may be correct. In the case of the French editor it may be a case of conservative/liberal conflict, or perhaps it is due to the more strongly gendered language that is native to them leading to bafflement at the changes I made. In either case, after the attacks made against me yesterday I felt I was being bullied, and your supportive actions have been a huge relief, so thank you again! werewolf (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You are obviously a far-left extremist vandalizing articles to push a radical political agenda. Your bizarre edits corrupting the English language will promptly be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tharploki1 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Bonadea for your support on this issue. I notice that you have blocked this user, which I appreciate as I felt mistreated by them. werewolf (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not block them - I'm not an administrator so I wouldn't have been able to do that - but I reverted their

pointy edits and gave them a warning. An admin came by just after and blocked them, though that's nothing to do with me. I would happily have reported them, but there was no need for that! --bonadea contributions talk

12:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No, the ones making disruptive, "pointy" edits are you. The articles were already fine they way they were. Females who act are called actresses. You are making unnecessary and highly divisive changes that violate English grammar; therefore, you are the ones being disruptive. Further proving that you don't understand basic English grammar, you repeatedly referred to me in the plural. Obviously, I am only one person. If you are so illiterate that you cannot even follow the fundamental rules of English, then you should not be editing the English-language Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.248.82.123 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

{{subst:error1|Iva Bittová}}

You are welcome

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely kitten, @Fylindfotberserk:, that is so kind of you! ❤️ werewolf (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, articles for deletion nomination is explained at

Hi Jimmy, I'll check into it and then I'll get back to you, thanks a lot for your help! werewolf (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Atlantic306:, I've gone ahead and nominated the article for deletion, would you mind checking it over to see if I did it right?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 27#Core-and-pod Much appreciated! werewolf (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• • Hi, have checked the AFD and it is fine except the creator wasn't informed so I left them a talkpage message. Regarding the rationale, being an orphan and a stub are not grounds for deletion, (there are more than 500,000 stubs and many orphans) but the other reasons are good. I won't be taking part in the discussion as I don't know much about the topic, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)19:44

Thank you again for your input, Jimmy, it is much appreciated :) werewolf (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I know you're busy, sorry to bother. Can you take the time to copy editing for this article? I really need your help. Thanks you very much. Xecvws (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xecvws: Hello, I have looked at the Akane Yamaguchi talk page after receiving your request, and I notice that several other people have been contacted, seemingly out of the blue, with similar requests. Can you please explain why these requests are being sent out to different editors in regards to the Yamaguchi page, and what is your interest in having this page edited? Thank you werewolf (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. I think this site has a lot of errors, which is why I'm afraid to edit this page. Can you help me, if you can fix it. Xecvws (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xecvws: You haven't entirely answered my question. I'm suspicious of the fact that so many other editors have received random requests to edit that particular page. This all seems like some kind of spam attack. Can you please explain? werewolf (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Black Mirror: Bandersnatch does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Bilorv:, thank you for the reminder. I generally do add edit summaries but sometimes I forget. As for the short description of the film Bandersnatch, the first time you reverted my edit you said the description needed to be under 40 characters, so I shortened it. Why did you revert it this time? werewolf (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

One other thing I should mention is that when adding or editing the short description of an article, either on the desktop site (through Wikidata) or on the mobile app, I'm not aware of the option to add an edit summary (I doubt it exists, but I'm willing to be proven wrong), so I don't think your feedback is pertinent in this case. werewolf (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The description you added was still 48 characters long, but Wikipedia:Short description says The short description should be as brief as possible, so even if we shortened it to under 40 then I would still prefer the current description. The fact that the film is related to Black Mirror is self-evident from its title. I wouldn't object you adding that it's from 2018 to the description though.

When editing on mobile generally, you can edit the page directly and use an edit summary. Any edit that you make using a tool is still an edit you are responsible for; it is not appropriate to make a contentious edit without an edit summary, so your options are to make the edit manually with an edit summary, to leave a talk page message somewhere explaining the edit, or to not make the edit. — Bilorv (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the short description I wrote for the page is more relevant than the existing one, especially the fact that the film is part of the Black Mirror franchise. In my opinion, the fact that "Black Mirror" appears in the title doesn't make that self-evident, it could simply be a non-related film with the same generic name. The fact that it's on Netflix doesn't seem as important to me, however. It does seems like this is subjective, or contentious, as you say. You appear to be guarding the page quite closely so I'm going to leave it, I get the impression it's more important to you than it is to me.

As for edit summaries for short descriptions, the option doesn't exist on the Android app as far as I can tell, perhaps we are talking about two different things?

Lastly, I love that you have a "Numberwang" userbox 😃 werewolf (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added "2018" to the description. If you look at the style of how these short descriptions are displayed, immediately below the title, I think it's visually redundant to repeat "Black Mirror". The description can't explain the topic fully, only give you the gist of the category it's in (i.e. interactive film). As for the edit summaries, what I mean is that you can open a browser, load up the page, click edit, change the text in the short description template and leave an edit summary. I have no idea how the app you're using works but I know that on your device, there is still a way you can edit a short description and leave an edit summary in a case where it is important for you to do so. And finally, thanks—it should generate a new random number every time you purge the page, and take you to a different number article every time you click it. Feel free to use it yourself if you're interested. :) — Bilorv (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! werewolf (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Revirvlkodlaku, I read the Washington Post article before editing your contributions to Michael's page the first time and nowhere does the WP make the false claim that Enright tired to "sneak" into the United States illegally. And that is what your paragraph suggested even if you didn't mean to suggest that. That can cause Michael serious problems. What is the point of making people think he attempted to "sneak" in the country illegally when it is not true? He attempted to enter the United States legally with his passport, and that is why he was stopped. This is why I changed the article. I hope that's okay with you. He nearly died many times fighting ISIS and certainly doesn't deserve this. Komicie (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Komicie, thank you for explaining your reasoning. I have reread the WAPO article and it seems the truth is somewhere in the middle. You are likely right, using the word "sneak" may not be the best choice as it does suggest that Enright tried to get across the border illegally, in the way that many Mexicans sneak across the border illegally, for example. However, if you read this paragraph, it makes it clear that Enright knew he would have a difficult time getting back to the US due to his multiple overstays and so he attempted to take advantage of how busy the crossing was in order to go unnoticed: "His epic tourist visa overstays, 30 years of living in the United States without legal permission, were going to make things hard for him — to say the least. He developed a plan: attempt to cross from Mexico into California through the San Ysidro border crossing south of San Diego, the busiest in the United States. Maybe he’d blend in with the hordes and get across, he thought." People who are not legally restricted from crossing a border do not need to devise plans to do so, this clearly shows a man who knew he would be very lucky to get across at all. Regardless, I will gladly remove the word "sneak" from the Wiki page, but I notice that rather than merely changing that word, you insist on deleting an entire paragraph which essentially recapitulates Enright's attempt to cross the border, something which can be verified in the WAPO article. Why do you do this? werewolf (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Revirvlkodlaku: Thanks for your response. I got your message on my talk page, and I'd like to explain my revisions. The Washington Post article talks about how Enright fought and risked his life. By just claiming he did sentry duty without giving him credit for fighting, you take that away from him, and it's unintentionally misleading to the Wikipedia readers. And every edit I made is true and can be found in the Washington Post article. Where in the Washington Post article does it say Enright did sentry duty? It talks about how he risked his life fighting ISIS. There's a section where he almost got killed at a building behind the Islamic State front. I think our contributions have been important to the page. By the way, I think you did an excellent job on Enright's filmography.Komicie (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Komicie (I'm David, by the way), thanks for explaining, and I appreciate the calm tone you have kept throughout our conversation. I reread the WAPO article twice and it appears you are right, it doesn't say anywhere that Enright did sentry duty; I suspect that bit is from the Daily Mail article, but besides the fact that DM is a deprecated source on Wikipedia, I think your point about minimizing Enright's contribution to the combat effort is valid, so I'm happy not to include it.

You have once again changed the part about the way Enright attempted to enter the US, and I'm not sure why since it is documented in detail in the WAPO article. I suggest leaving it as I wrote it since it doesn't misrepresent the truth in any way, but rather it gives a better picture of the circumstances than the version you wrote. Lastly, the paragraph about his second tour of duty with the YPG was fine the way I wrote it, I'm not sure why you changed that. You present the idea that he "helped liberate Raqqa", which is somewhat speculative and I don't think it is explicitly stated that way anywhere, including the WAPO article. I do get a sense that your perspective on Enright and his contribution to the YPG effort is subjective, and though I can sympathize with it, it is important to make sure the account printed on Wikipedia remains as impartial as possible. werewolf (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Revirvlkodlaku David, you wrote me "@Komicie, I see that you reverted my edit yet again, this time without any explanation. This is simply not how things are done on Wikipedia, and it is beginning to be tedious and silly. Nothing that I have written and which you undid is non-factual or unsupported, you simply don't like it because it doesn't fit your personal feelings towards Enright. This is not a mature way of editing. I am going to take this up for a third opinion."

David, first, I was following up on you changing my edits without an explanation. You completely reverted by edits and then claimed it was a minor change, which it was not, without leaving an explanation. Since you did that first, why are you criticizing me for not leaving an explanation? I'm new to this, so I'm following your lead. Also, I'm not sure how you did it, but your changes did not show up on the Web site, but only in the the phone app. I wouldn't have even noticed your major changes if I didn't check the phone app because the Web site still had my edit on it.

You say the fact that Enright "helped liberate Raqqa" is subjective. How do you figure that? He fought and risked his life in the battle that liberated Raqqa, which objectively means he helped liberate Raqqa. This is not subjective at all. And though you may not mean it, every time you edited Enright's page, it leaves readers with the impression that he tried to "sneak" into the United States illegally as you originally had it. You claim he was "captured" when he tried to reenter the country. I've never heard that term used before to describe someone who had his or her passport flagged when he or she tried to enter the country legally. You keep saying that your edits are factual, and should not be changed, but I find them negative and misleading, and I doubt that's your intention. For example, maybe it did say in the Mirror article that Enright did sentry duty, but it clearly states in the Washington Post article that Enright fought in combat. You read both articles, yet chose to only put he did sentry duty. Why? That misleads readers into believing he only did sentry duty. In addition, I believe the Washington Post is considered a more credible source than the Mirror. The Washington Post article was such a positive article, but your edits on Enright's page based on the Post article have been extremely negative, and they imply that he tried to sneak into the country illegally. And why do you claim that his motivation for fighting a second time was driven by his fear of being labeled a terrorist? It is clear in the Washington Post article that he went back to get information on ISIS to help him get back into the United States, and that he wanted to help free Raqqa. All my edits can be found in the Washington Post article. They are all factual. Why do you want to change them?Komicie (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Komicie (might I know your name?), you are absolutely right, I am being hypocritical without realizing it. I didn't want to undo your edit as that seems tiresome by this point, but I also didn't want to leave it as it was, so I made changes without explaining them. My apologies for setting such a poor editorial example. I have been approaching this discussion with some amount of entitlement and an even greater amount of irritation, neither of which is appropriate. Perhaps we can take a step back and look at our points of disagreement once more, this time before actually doing any edits on the page:

• I'm fine with the liberation of Raqqa bit. I do think it's subjective, his contribution to that large-scale event is likely very minor, but whatever, I don't need to argue that.
• I do get a very clear impression that Enright attempted to cross the Mexico-US border illegally. Someone who doesn't have a valid US visa and multiple overstays on their record must surely know that there is no way they will get across legally. Thus, even though the WAPO article doesn't explicitly state "he tried to enter illegally" or "he tried to sneak across", it is clear to me that he attempted to go unnoticed, and there is a mention of him trying to blend into the crowd of border crossers. What does this suggest to you?
• "Captured" is the same as "arrested", is it not? Enright was arrested by border officers while trying to cross to the US, according to the WAPO article. Can we not let that stand?
• I'm over the sentry duty bit, as I mentioned to you earlier. I just checked, and that bit was there before my first edit on the page, so whoever included the Daily Mail article likely put that in there.
• The WAPO article states that Enright didn't wish to return to the UK for fear of being labelled a terrorist or terrorist collaborator. You don't see that in there?
• I think it's important to include the part about his current residence and situation in Belize. Why do you keep removing that? werewolf (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Komicie, I just wanted to check in with you to make sure the conversation is still open. I would like to be able to resolve our differences on this topic in a fair manner. werewolf (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

On my talk page, you said: "you just reverted a whole bunch of work I did on the Paul Stamets page without even any attempt at explaining why. This borders on vandalism, and it is highly unprofessional. If you have a valid reason to change what I did, please state it, but don't undo all the effort I put into good-quality, properly-referenced material just on a whim."

All of the new content you added is resume or promotional information, which is discouraged under

WP:PEACOCK. If you want to discuss and gain consensus for any additional factual, encyclopedic information, the talk page is the place for it. --Zefr (talk

) 01:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

For perspective, read the descriptions from a few of his supplement products here, then review what the WP medical community uses for sources at

WP:NPOV. Your edit promotes him with "passion" and various other exaggerations and attributes mentioned under Career and Recognition, a section that - to a neutral rigorous scientist - reveals him as more of a lunatic charlatan than a credible mycologist. --Zefr (talk

) 02:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr, some of your criticism of my edits may have merit, something which is worth having a debate about separately, but this in no way entitles you to undo my edit wholesale. Apart from adding information in the Career section and creating a Recognition section, in my edit I also corrected minor grammatical errors, I added a website, and I updated his bibliography, which was incomplete. You don't seem to have bothered to actually look at my edit in detail, instead you scrubbed it in one go. I find this to be not only egregious on your part, certainly as someone who has the distinction of being a senior editor, but it completely disregards the work I put into editing the page; additionally it sets a bad example for other editors, suggesting that "senior editors" have the power and authority to scrub anything which they find not to their liking. My edits didn't contravene any rules or guidelines per se, and your personal views on the merits of Paul Stamets's research and scientific credentials are beside the point here as he is clearly a respected voice in the mycological community, so it is in fact your own perspective that is non-objective. This type of large-scale bully-like behaviour is a huge deterrent to new and perhaps more timid editors and I think you should reconsider such action in the future. If you did not have time to properly assess the merits of my edit, you should have waited until you could sit down and perhaps parse out the good from the bad, not simply hit "undo", a casual and lazy action in this case. I really hope you reconsider your actions and decide to act with greater moderation on this issue, as I am convinced your attitude is rather tyrannical, and certainly inappropriate. Please let me know how you wish to proceed, hopefully we can resolve this matter in a civil manner. Please remember that you do not have any ownership over the Paul Stamets article and only non-factual information should be removed immediately, all other changes should be discussed on the talk page. werewolf (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

No edit is final, and a large change like you made and the revert of mine can undergo consideration and partial restoration through agreement by us and meanwhile serve as an alert to other editors about disputed content. In this case where your edit contained excessive resume fawning/puffery material, it would be fine to reinstate factual grammar, infobox and book details, and let the larger segments sit until more input (or none) occurs. I did a mass undo because a) > 95% of your edit was peacock resume content that violated

WP:BLP content over recent months. Regarding the puffery information you added, I ask you to apply a skeptical objective attitude, as there really is no evidence of professional (academic, USDA or internationally established) mycologists accepting Stamets as a valid peer. Giving any credibility to most of his puffed-up story creates validation and marketing opportunity for his charlatan business of selling junk ideas and products to unsuspecting Wikipedia users and business customers. If you want to persist with the peacock content, the place to present and defend it is on the talk page. However, I recommend you abandon that position. --Zefr (talk

) 17:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stamets; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

@Ronz this is a nonsense accusation. I have not engaged in an edit war, I reverted once after my work was undone wholesale with an unsatisfactory explanation by a bully senior editor, and then I did a separate, non-controversial set of edits. How is this edit warring?werewolf (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP

requires you find consensus before restoring clearly disputed material. I'm sorry that you're going through this, but working on biographical information is difficult. Far more so when working on biographical information where there are general editing sanctions.

If you'll look, I went through your most recent edit piece by piece, retaining much of it. You didn't provide a reference for the birthplace, so I asked on the talk page for someone to identify one. --

talk

) 00:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Stamets' birthplace is mentioned in the section Personal Life, that's where my correction stems from, and that seems to be referenced, no? Also, you didn't keep the publications I added to his bibliography, though those seem just as well supported as all the ones already included in the article. His bibliography is currently incomplete. werewolf (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the birthplace reference. I've updated it in the article.

If there are any noteworthy entries you think should be added to the bibliography, entries mentioned by independent sources especially, please point them out. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to serve as a host for resumes or the like. --

talk

) 17:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz, does listing all an author's published books constitute a form of resume hosting? Why then have a bibliography section at all and only list select titles?werewolf (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, including all publications is treating the article like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. We want noteworthy entries, not his life's work. Does that address your questions? --

talk

) 16:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This has definitely not been my impression while reading and editing Wikipedia articles, as they either list a complete author bibliography or they will state clearly that the bibliography is partial. Could you show me where this concept is articulated? werewolf (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 01:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all thanks for your valuable edits and fixes on the page Awadhi language. However, in one recent edit that you have removed a large section of cited information from "folk" sub-section of "Popular culture" section of the article. The reason you gave i.e it was highly "interpretive" and "redundant". I think I can make it less interpretive. Also, giving a verse translation of a folk song (which is by the way taken from the source itself) can be really helpful to readers. Will you be okay if I go ahead with the edit? I want to make sure that we are not in an edit conflict. Have a good day! Sattvic7 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Sattvic7, thank you for being so considerate and even polite about this issue, I have never encountered such an approach on Wikipedia before, and I must say that it's refreshing and gratifying as well. You are right, I removed a significant chunk of the section on folk uses of the Awadhi language based on my own discretion of what is and isn't relevant to the article, but I also understand that I know very little about the topic itself, whereas you appear to be in a better position to speak on it. Please do go ahead and edit the article as you see fit, I am mainly concerned about the grammar being correct, so if you don't mind, I'll just review it for grammatical accuracy after you are done, ok? Cheers! werewolf (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I have removed your filing at

Hi DonIago, thanks for that. I did have a discussion on this topic with another user but it was on their personal talk page rather than the article talk page, so the mistake I made was not linking that user's talk page on the 3O request. I will do so now :) werewolf (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good! Werewolf? :) DonIago (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! ~riley (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi ~riley, thanks for notifying me. I decided not to work on the draft shortly after creating it, but then I forgot to delete it, so I'm fine with its deletion. werewolf (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Short_description#Content - "The short description should be as brief as possible". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts, while what you say is true, the description should be as brief as possible, this should not be at the expense of an actual useful explanatory description. "2019 film" barely says anything about the article, and adding an extra few words to the description, as I did, in no way makes it overly long. I think my description should stay. If you have an issue with it, please bring it up for discussion on the talk page. werewolf (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

When you translate text from a foreign language Wikipedia you should provide attribution to the original authors in your edit summary, which you have done in the case of Sogegross, and also by adding a translation tag to the talk page, which I have done in this instance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Cwmhiraeth: What's a translation tag? werewolf (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at the Sogegross talk page and you will see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I did that, I was hoping you would be able to explain it to me. What is the purpose of that category? werewolf (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you still there, @Cwmhiraeth:? I was hoping you would help me better understand the translation tags. Thanks. werewolf (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add the category "Pages translated from Italian Wikipedia", I added the tag on the right that says "This article contains a translation of Sogegross from it.wikipedia." This is added for copyright reasons, so that the originators of the Italian text can be identified. You will see that everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is covered by the statement at the foot of the editing page before you save which says "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Hope that explanation helps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's great, thanks for explaining :) werewolf (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi – have seen your PROD on this article and I don't disagree with it, but just for information, it was in fact a TV special (you're right, the article as it stands doesn't make this clear at all)... here's a review of it from the Los Angeles Times [2]. There are probably other reviews of the program, but as the TV critic notes, it was basically a promotional item for the Duets albums, and really not notable enough on its own for an article in my opinion... I suspect it can be mentioned in a line or two in the album articles. Richard3120 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Richard3120: I appreciate you bringing this to my attention (and not deprodding the article instead). I'll look for a few reviews and add that to the Duets articles. werewolf (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2020 (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) 12:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed you are replacing the WikiData default Short Descriptions on a bunch of articles with ... the identical texts. This achieves what to me is the following remarkable combination of effects:

1) any future change to the WikiData default value will be ignored in the article, so #

1a) any well-meant attempt to update globally will fail;

2) the current value remains as the old value from WikiData, so it's to say the least non-obvious that any mechanism has been broken;

3) the actual text available to readers is not improved in any way.

So my question is, why on earth would anyone want to achieve that combination of effects over a whole bunch of articles? Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Chiswick Chap:, I'm not entirely sure I understand all the points you have made, and I am detecting some frustration in :the tone of your words. I will try to answer you as best I can:

It is my understanding, according to the explanation of what constitutes the purpose of short descriptions and how they are applied, that :switching from using Wikidata descriptions to adding a short description template to each article is desirable. Please see lede in

Wikipedia:Short description.

1) Short descriptions can be updated as needed in the article itself. Not sure what you mean by 1a)

2) +3) Not necessarily. I haven't simply been transferring Wikidata descriptions into short descriptions. Many of them yes, when they seem :adequate, but others I have updated based on my evaluation of their appropriateness. werewolf (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I don't see the point of adding text when the short description does not change at all: in each case, as your edit comments make clear, the text you are adding is IDENTICAL to the WikiData short text, i.e. you are making null data changes. Struck me as very curious so I wondered why you might be doing it. Or perhaps you are just using a boilerplate edit comment which doesn't correctly describe what you are doing? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm mainly switching the short description into the article itself from Wikidata, as I am under the impression that this is the desired goal of the project. I'm not sure what boilerplate edit comment I would be using...am I missing something? werewolf (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Chiswick Chap:, I didn't hear back from you. My question to you was a genuine one, and I'm sure your concern was equally genuine, so let's get to the bottom of this :) werewolf (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Well one question is easily answered. The boilerplate edit comment is "Adding local short description: '[name of article]', overriding Wikidata description '[text of Wikidata shortdesc]' ". I can't for the life of me see why overriding a default text which makes itself automatically available is a good thing when you're not even changing it. When you do change it, obvs. that could be beneficial; it was the unchanged case that I observed repeatedly that got me wondering what you could possibly be trying to achieve as the result certainly looked like being nothing. Your explanation, if such it was, leaves me none the wiser, so I think I'll sign off here, and hope not to see it happening again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Your attitude, from the start, was unfavourable to dialogue, even borderline rude. Still, I wanted to understand your concern, so I engaged you in an open conversation, explaining my reasoning as best I could. I supported my reasoning with a wikipedia link, which itself explains what I am trying to do. This was not satisfactory to you, however, but instead of continuing the dialogue, you simply signed off without bothering to respond, and you continue to insist that what I have been doing is silly. You may have a point, I'm not sure, but unless you are willing to discuss it in a civil and respectful manner, you won't be successful in getting it across. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, meaning we should all be pulling on the same end of the rope. Your arrogance and rudeness goes directly counter to this endeavour. I suggest you think on this before accosting other editors with your misplaced sense of superiority. werewolf (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, nothing like that intended. I just can't see what the edits were for, that's all, as they don't seem to achieve anything. You do not seem to be a gnomish micro-editor of spaces and linefeed characters, and there have been many such on Wikipedia; but I still don't know what the edits were for, and I've now several times asked the question in different forms and in great detail, enumerated above. If you want me to know, go right ahead, I'll read your answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Chiswick Chap:, thanks for acknowledging. I've tried to explain to you that what I'm doing is transferring short descriptions from Wikidata to the articles themselves. My understanding from the article on Short Descriptions was that this is desirable, so where is the problem? I've even run this by another editor after receiving your response, who agreed with me. I'm struggling to understand why this is a problem for you...werewolf (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, David and I were talking off-wiki and this came up (I'm not sure if I'm the "other editor" mentioned above). Personally, I find the realm of short description best practices a bit confusing, and I vaguely recall some recent disagreement elsewhere on-wiki regarding its implementation. I'm reading

I think Airplaneman has it. Basically, if WikiData already holds a value, why do we need humans to add that value anywhere, the job having been automated? Perhaps Wikimedia Foundation is just short of a bit of programming, automation, to make proper use of that value. I don't know but find it "kinda weird"; as I said, it seems a null operation, take value already available and, hey, make it available. But many odd things in life are like that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise is called for, then: instead of importing all short descriptions from Wikidata, only doing so with those needing improvement? werewolf (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Lapablo (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I have deleted this as A7, because there is no claim of notability. Deb (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not routinely remove references because they have gone dead as you did in [Childbirth in Uzbekistan]]. The refs remain the source of the information despite going dead, and someone may be able to repair them in the future – see

Spinningspark thank you for the correction. I had assumed that if a link was dead, it was better to remove it. The article is terrible and provides no credible information, nothing that can be verified, so I am still convinced that it should be deleted. There is no need to assume disingenuousness when mere ignorance will do. werewolf (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I made an unwarranted suggestion. I'm seeing quite a few google and gbook results for "beshik tui" (note the spelling is variant from our article) and some of the other terms also have results. Whether or not all of the page is verifiable is a different question, but the whatever the problems, I don't think they are severe enough to warrant deletion. SpinningSpark 15:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough 👍 werewolf (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Buridda (social centre) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Buridda (social centre), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I disagree with your slashing of this article. The material may not be all referenced inline but it is mainly contained in the general references, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic306 The article is terrible, both in the way it's written and the fact that most of the claims in it are not actually supported in the references. I cleaned it up, and yes, I removed the bulk of it, but you haven't in any way improved it by reverting it to its previous state. I invite you to improve the article by fixing the egregious scope of grammatical errors contained within it as well as removing any subjective descriptions of Uzbek dance which are not supported in the linked articles. werewolf (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic306 The article has sat untouched for a week so I have gone ahead and edited it again. I believe that the material which I have slashed from the previous version is poorly written, subjective to a great degree, and even redundant, considering that much of it is copied from some of the provided references. The version which I have edited was not written in a useful manner to an English reader and it certainly didn't meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. If you are unhappy with my edits, I encourage you to improve the article in the best way you can, but please do not simply revert my good faith edit as you did last time, erasing the effort I put into it without attempting to put any work into the page yourself. werewolf (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well, there was nothing wrong with the grammar in the previous version but I agree that the unreferenced parts should have been removed. I've checked the references and there is a great amount of detail that could be added so I suggest you do so as you seem to have taken ownership of the article and are likely to remove any additions that I make, regards Atlantic306 (talk)

You are being unnecessarily combative with me. I haven't taken ownership of the article at all, I made an attempt to improve it. You cancelled out my work last time, with an unsatisfying explanation, seemingly ignoring the fact that the page is grammatically challenged (are we not reading the same article?!). When I invited you to improve it instead, you ignored me. I have restored what I felt were appropriate edits on my part. There should be no reason for you to think that I will remove any additions you make unless you simply restore the article to the way it was, which is no improvement at all. werewolf (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, This is DueMue, I am inviting to please edit in 12th Mirchi Music Awards which I have recently been created.

Aftermath please give your valuable feedback on my talk page.

Thanks

DueMue (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

music in many languages

Thank you for quality articles around music, beginning with Citizen of Glass, then Kreyson, Fête du Citron and Wanastowi Vjecy, for translating articles from Czech and Slovak, for proofreading, fixing grammar and expanding, - David, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

Hi Gerda Arendt, this is the first prize(?) I've ever received on Wikipedia, thank you so much, it means a lot to me that someone appreciates the work that I do ❤️ werewolf (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my English but in case you wanted to translate [[Oromo] try facebook by posting and then see in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maammee (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maammee, I don't quite know what you mean about using Facebook as a translation tool. Are you able to find an English version of the story? werewolf (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand these edits. Why have character description being deleted? They aren't unnecessary rather your edit was unethical. Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Abhishek Kasaudhan 123, I'm assuming you are referring to the article Ek Duje Ke Vaaste 2? I don't see how my removal of character descriptions is unethical, perhaps you meant to use a different word. As I mentioned in my revert, the character descriptions are included in the Summary section, there is no need to repeat them in the Cast and Characters section. This isn't convention on Wikipedia, perhaps you could look at some other articles as an example. Please don't engage in an edit war but rather discuss this on the article talk page or seek a third opinion if you are unhappy with my edits. werewolf (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I don't see that unethical is a wrong word. Please familiarise yourself with

Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 I didn't respond to your comment here before editing the article once more because it is apparent to me that your command of English isn't up to par, so this discussion is likely futile. The fact that you consider an edit I made "unethical" clearly demonstrates that you don't understand the word's meaning. Additionally, the character descriptions you insist on inserting into the article are grammatically unsound, so again, evidence that trying to have a discussion with you may not be the best use of my time. At this stage, you are merely repeating the description of the two lead characters on the show, and this is already included in the plot summary. Why? werewolf (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I understand the word's meaning and I told that your edits are unethical because they are. Again the question which you are asking that why is the description of lead characters are mentioned in both Plot and Cast section truly signifies that you are not familiar with WP:TVCAST. Again, I repeat the same, familiarise yourself with

While I do understand why Revirvlkodlaku is opting not to repeat the information, the unintended consequence of these deletions, is that we have yet another Indian TV article with a cast list hyper-fixated on family trees and interpersonal relationships instead of proper, quality, character descriptions like most other non-Indian TV articles have. (See List of Millennium characters) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--— Diannaa (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for shortening the description - you'll see from this edit that the description was incorrect when added by (presumably) an American who was inexperienced in the local governance, and I sought to add guidance and prevent the same thing happening again.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. It's funny because I actually didn't realize the Isle of Man was not part of the UK until I saw the page and made the edit! werewolf (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit on Sri Lankan Malays. I have explained my edit in the edit summary. If you still disagree with me, we can discuss at the talk page to come to an agreement regarding the information. I also think it'll be good if we bring sources to back up our claims if we do decide to discuss at the talk page. Thanks. (2001:8003:5C28:6700:601E:9EA4:8213:1460 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC))

Hi 2001:8003:5C28:6700:601E:9EA4:8213:1460, I think your explanation of the edit is perfectly sound. I had previously reverted it because no good explanation was provided, but as I know nothing about Sri Lankan Malays or whether or not they speak Javanese, I'm happy to let it stand. Thank you for taking the time to explain it in detail and also to leave me a note on my talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi David, you're welcome. Thanks for letting me know that you're okay with my edit. Hope you have a good day. :) (2001:8003:5C28:6700:601E:9EA4:8213:1460 (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC))

2001:8003:5C28:6700:601E:9EA4:8213:1460, out of curiosity, why don't you become a registered user on Wikipedia? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, that's a good question. I like editing Wikipedia as an IP user as I've been editing Wikipedia like this for many years now. My IP address often changes but more recently it's often stayed the same. I may create an account in the future though because I know it's easier to keep track of edits. (2001:8003:5C28:6700:601E:9EA4:8213:1460 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC))

Well, you seem to know what you're doing and it appears that you are acting in good faith, so I think you are a valuable addition to the platform and the community :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much David, I really appreciate your kind words. I definitely enjoy being a part of the Wikipedia community. :) (2001:8003:5C28:6700:A529:8477:7830:BF4A (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC))

Note: Hey Revirvlkodlaku, these IP ranges are just Sapah3 editing out to mislead you. He's always had an account. Just hoping to let you know so that you're more aware of it in the future. He's been blocked for 2 weeks (initially indefinite). Machine O' Mans (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Machine O' Mans, thanks for the heads up. What is he blocked for? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone reverted your reversion on this article and I can't seem to undo it easily (I get an error about intermediate edits). I'm mostly a very minor typo editor so I may be missing access to a tool, or simply knowledge. Just wanted to let you know in case it's easy for you to fix; if it's manual let me know and I can just do it! Trickycrayon (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Trickycrayon, thank you for the heads-up. I have restored the last good version of the article. There seem to be a number of single-issue-users who wish to embellish Inosanto's page with poorly written content, none of which is referenced. If this persists, I will request the article be locked. Thank you again for informing me. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Please look at the article before I reverted it. That is how you left the article, with random formatting characters and her website link removed. The problems there are evident, and I reverted your edit because it was so poor and careless. Don't make it out to be about spaces within templates, it isn't. --Monxton (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Monxton, if you had checked the page history (and the condition in which I left it after undoing your revert), you would see that I fixed my formatting errors and replaced Hayes' website. My edits were done in good faith, as I'm sure were yours. There is no need to be combative about this, let's be sure to collaboratively improve the article rather than bickering. What I would ask of you, however, is that rather than reverting my edits wholesale, as you did prior, you fix individual errors, as that is far more productive. By reverting my entire edit session, you inadvertently reintroduced errors that were present in the article and that I had attempted to fix. I'm sure this was not your intention, but sometimes editing requires finesse rather than brute force. Good day. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Medice, cura te ipsum? Yes, I have indeed made editing errors in my time. Had I had deleted useful and correct information about the subject and left an article looking like that, my first response would be to apologise, not to go into the attack. --Monxton (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

But I'm not the one attacking, you are. Just read your messages to me up to now. I've admitted my errors and did my best to fix them. If you can't get over this issue without continuing to bicker with me, then I'll ask you to stop posting on my page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Your explanation for the revert: "The formatting which you insist on maintaining on this page is not correct. For example, there are no spaces before and after pipes in a flatlist, so why reassert such errors?" is a claim that my reversion was based on some imagined personal objection to trivial formatting differences which are apparent only to the editor and do not affect the reader's view at all. That was untrue, and is an accusation of bad faith. You did not acknowledge the state in which the page had been left, which could reasonably be seen as vandalised.

Your opening sentence here "If you had checked the page history..." implies that I had not. You have no basis for that, it's just needlessly confrontational. I had checked it, and found that I had to edit the page again to restore the remaining information that your edits removed. Bye. --Monxton (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I made the mistake of conflating a revert you made with one made by another editor, that's why I said you insisted on maintaining the formatting. My apologies for that. However, me pointing out that it didn't seem like you had checked the page history isn't needlessly confrontational. Had you in fact checked it, you would have seen that after undoing your revert, I did in fact fix my formatting error and I replaced Hayes' website. It seems you are fixated on some perceived slight on my part. Let me assure you that I had no intention of hurting your feelings. I was miffed at the two subsequent reverts of my work but as it turns out, they were done by two separate editors so again, my apologies for that. It would be much more desirable if we parted as friends than enemies seeing as we are both pulling on the same rope, wouldn't you agree? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I only just noticed this. Thank you. --Monxton (talk)

Elizium23 I did provide an edit summary. I provided you with two sources demonstrating that the award wasn't granted in 1958. How is this a failed verification? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, yet you left the article in a state which baldly contradicts what you claim the sources say. Either the sources are right or the article is right: which is it??? Elizium23 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 No need to be aggressive, you've made the edit, that's good enough. The maintenance template was unnecessary so I removed it. You removed the mention of Marilyn Monroe. This is what collaboration is all about. Have a nice day :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. You just reverted this edit with a description of "no reason provided for deleting external link". But there was a reason in the edit, the reason was "Remove copyright violation. May be on Archive.org but wasn't legitimately released open source." This book is not open source, has never been released open source. It's a commercial publication. It may be on Archive.org but that doesn't make it copyright free or legitimate. In fact if you check you'll notice that it was added to Archive.org the very same day it was added to Wikipedia by a user with a large selection of copyright warnings on their user talk page. Seems quite likely that the same editor performed both actions. Since this is a link to obviously copyrighted material it should be deleted, and in fact should be revdeled. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Canterbury Tail, I apologize, I had overlooked the reason you provided for your edit, must have been distracted. You are right, the link should be deleted. I have corrected my error :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what we get for editing late at night :) I've actually reached out to Diannaa, our resident copyright expert, for her insight. Seems the editor in question has a habit of uploading copyrighted material to Archive.org and then adding links to them. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha, yup, late-night edits, I'm quite familiar with those 😣 Oh wow, this individual sounds rather devious... Revirvlkodlaku (talk)

Yeah. The user on Archive.org that uploaded those seems to have directly uploaded a lot of books to the Archive. I may go through the Wikipedia user's edits and see if there's any more such links around. Canterbury Tail talk 17:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku,

Any time you tag a page for deletion (PROD, CSD, AFD), please include an edit summary describing what you've done. Also, you should post a notice on the page creator's talk page informing them that you tagged one of pages they've created. If you use

Hi Liz, I do have Twinkle enabled, where in my preferences can I set up notifications to the creator of a page I've PRODded? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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 the

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.

El_C 15:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.— Idanbarasher (talk

) 08:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Mr. Roboto Project, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!—KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions, to which nobody would object. If someone does object, they remove the prod. Sometimes they leave an additional message, but it is not reqThe correct way to contest a Prod, is to remove the tag. As the note above mine says, if you object, the procedure is to list it at AfD. Alternatively, try to improve the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I messed up the revert: Template:Infobox_album#cite_note-flatlist-2. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Walter Görlitz, thanks for correcting the template link. What it says is not that commas are preferred to lists, but rather that they are acceptable, so it does come down to preference. Why do you insist on imposing your preference? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not insisting on my preference. I am insisting on maintaining the existing formatting. Why do you insist on imposing your preference and changing the existing formatting, all while supplying a misleading edit summary? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Walter, the article is a mess, I'm sure you can see that. What's the point of maintaining an irrelevant aspect of formatting when the rest of the article needs a total overhaul? Perhaps you can spend more time fixing the aspects of the page that really matter and not worry about whether the infobox has commas or a list. Also, don't accuse me of writing a misleading edit summary. What's misleading about it? The fact that I only mentioned fixing grammar isn't misleading, it merely doesn't provide a full list of things I changed. Would "general fixes" suit you better? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. How about you spend more time fixing the aspects of the page that really matter and not worry about whether the infobox has commas or a list? All I did was restore the formatting. I did not revert your edit. Feel free to clean up while maintaining existing formatting.

If the misleading edit summary fits, wear it. Yes, general fixes would have been better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

And for the record, I'm not watching this page, nor will I, I came here to add another comment, but I see you don't want to discuss. Ping me if you do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What gives you the impression I don't want to discuss? I'm here, what would you like to talk about? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz Oops, I posted this yesterday and forgot to tag you. I'm open to discussion :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No need really. Two other editors and I have addressed many of the problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand you don't know Persian nor are you from Afghanistan so why do you keep on editing his page to say he was a Pashtun? We have an actual historical document by Mohammad Sediq Farhang in Persian stating his father to be a Tajik as well as video testimony in Persian from Ahmad Zahirs closest friend stating he was a Tajik. I provided both sources in the article yet you deleted it. Are you requiring me to post the sources in English or translate them for you because I'd be willing to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFGFactChecker (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

AFGFactChecker You are right, I do not know Persian, but that is not the problem here. The main problem is that you are not a registered user, and you don't seem to be familiar with the way things are done on Wikipedia. For example, you are engaged in an edit war with me without apparently realizing that this is not permitted. After I first edited the Ahmad Zahir page, I noticed that various unregistered users were making edits to it, mostly changing Zahir's ethnicity and spoken language. It is not sufficient to make this kind of edit and expect it to remain on the page. You must provide a credible reference for each edit you make. Using a page written in a language that is unintelligible to English speakers presents a conundrum since we are not able to determine what it says, let alone ascertain its credibility. Additionally, you have admitted to having a close connection with the subject of the article, which creates a conflict of interest and for this reason you should stop editing the page. I am warning you that if you persist in reverting my edits, you risk losing your editing privileges. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Then you should at least please remove the reference to him being Pashtun, there's absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. You can verify it with literally anybody that speaks or can read Persian that the sources Im posting are authentic. Please find me the rule book where it states that everything in Wikipedia must be posted in English. Just because I'm from Afghanistan doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest, what kind of reasoning is that? Are you saying that I shouldn't contribute anything at all regarding information about my country because that would be incredibly bigoted of you? I'm just trying to prevent Ahmad Zahir from being claimed as a Pashtun when he was clearly not. I even edited Aryana Saeds page to include her being half Pashtun even though some user had claimed her as Tajik as well as editing Farhad Daryas page to include him being Pashtun so you can't accuse me of bias AFGFactChecker (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

How exactly does it "makes reading and editing the backend easier", and why would that be more important than the article not looking distracting for regular readers?

Hello

*Treker, you are a decorated Wikipedia user, and you've twice received the civility barnstar, and yet you are not displaying that same civility towards me. Why not? Perhaps you've had a bad day? Listen, I make a point of leaving/adding a line break between hatnotes/maintenance templates and article text because as an editor, I find that it is easier to navigate the backend of a page when non-text inserts, such as images, are neatly separated. Maybe it's just me, but I doubt it. Is that so hard to fathom? Now, what noticeable difference does it make to the front end of the article that you would consider it distracting? At most, it adds an extra line break, which, if we are to be honest, probably nobody notices. I must ask, then, why is this such a big deal to you? Revirvlkodlaku (talk

) 02:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad I did not intend to be uncivil.

talk

) 03:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I hope you see my point about the line break :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of edit warring when I wasn't even the one that started it. Please stop your baseless accusations and actually read the reasoning for my edits, I'm trying to compromise with you and other editors but using your chain of logic your clear ideological aversion to Persian sources makes it impossible. I suggest you take a step back and realize that you need to keep your personal beliefs and biases separate from your duty of impartiality to Wikipedia readership.AFGFactChecker (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Poetic Edda was not written by Snorri Sturluson.--Berig (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Berig, are you mentioning this with reference to a particular page or edit that I made? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you made edits like these[3], [4], [5], but you appear to have corrected it now. Thanks!--Berig (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, I figured that's what you were referring to, I was just curious why you didn't go ahead and correct them yourself after leaving me your initial message... Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to tell you about it, in case you would continue doing the same thing with other articles. I was also distracted by things IRL.--Berig (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. Either way, I appreciate it :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem! It is a very easy mistake to make :-)--Berig (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello David,

Is there any way you could lock the page for Ahmad Zahir? Looks like another user(s) (no username, just 2 IP addresses) is up to no good again and picking up right where AFGFactChecker left off. I actually work in cybersecurity and I did a reverse lookup of those IPs and they are both from the same region in Italy which leads me to believe with a high level of confidence that they are in fact the same person. They keep undoing the edits that have 8 sources backing them up in 3 different languages from multiple well established journalism and broadcasting organizations.

You can clearly tell they have an agenda because one of the edits they keep making is removing Pashto from the line that has Ahmad Zahir's name.

1. What it says: Ahmad Zahir (Pashto/Dari: احمد ظاهر)

1. What they keep changing it to: Ahmad Zahir (Persian: احمد ظاهر)

The official languages of the state, per Article 16 of the Constitution of Afghanistan, are Pashto and Dari. It only makes sense to include both languages in the line for his name. Having both eliminates any kind of bias or preference towards one ethnic group/language over the other. These editors do not even have a basic understanding of the country to know that Persian is not even the recognized name of one of the languages spoken in Afghanistan. These editors cannot stand to even have Pashto written next to his name, so that tells you all you need to know about their intentions. They have ZERO interest in editing this page in a factual or encyclopedic manner.

If you cannot lock it, please let me know here on your talk page and I will try myself to be as vigilant as possible in reverting and undoing their ignorant edits.

WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi WikiEditUsername7 I'm totally on board with what you're saying, I think it's spot on. As you've likely realized, this is an ongoing issue with this article, and likely many others of a similar nature. It's interesting that, as you say, the disruptive editing is coming from Italy; that seems like an odd source, considering that the editor's area of concern is ethnolinguistic relations in Afghanistan and the region. Unfortunately, as I'm not an administrator, I don't have the ability to lock the page. It has already been semi-protected on a couple of occasions, so I suppose the next step would be to have it permanently protected. Let's see if this persists for the next couple of days and then I'll look around and try to figure out how to get this done, ok? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Thanks for the prompt reply! That sounds good to me. Sorry I mistook you for an editor. I'm not very familiar with all things editing on Wikipedia.

By the way, just to be thorough, I also did a reverse IP lookup on the IP (2.42.120.236) that made the edit on 15:09, 16 May 2021. That IP also came up as Italian (from Verona province). This specific IP added the exact same "sources" that AFGFactChecker was trying to push as valid. The IP added the link to the same TOLO TV "Documentary" and the link to the picture of a page in a book in Dari. So all 3 IPs (2.42.120.236, 37.162.47.89, and 37.160.29.21) are all making the same changes that AFGFactChecker had been trying to make AND all 3 of the IPs are Italian (from Verona province). This is definitely the same person...

While we wait, can you give me a rundown of what that process entails and what steps you are going to take (i.e. regarding the process of getting a page permanently protected)? I want to familiarize myself with how to handle these types of issues. That way, if this ever occurs again in the future, I won't have to drag you into it :) WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@WikiEditUsername7: I am an editor, just not an admin ;)

Based on your findings, it does look like we are dealing with one individual. They have been blocked from editing, and that is likely why they are using different accounts to continue making the same disruptive edits.

I don't actually know what the process for locking a page is. I would likely just search it, there are administrative pages on WP that deal with specific issues of this type, and it would likely be a matter of submitting a request, after which an admin would ideally take care of it. Sorry if that's not helpful, I just normally don't concern myself with the admin aspect of WP, I just do my little bit to write and edit :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Thanks for clarifying. While we are waiting for a couple of days while we make the case for the need for this page to be protected, I'll continue to keep an eye on it. A couple of hours ago a 4th Italian IP address undid the changes again. This time they did it in 4 iterations, so I was unable to undo it automatically. I had to go in there manually and add it all back. Also, this change added that same Facebook link as a source... WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @WikiEditUsername7:, I'll go ahead and make the submission later today. Thanks for staying on top of it in the meantime. Just so you know, you can reverse numerous edits in one go without having to do so manually. The way to do it is by going to the page's history, selecting the last edit/version you wish to restore (by clicking on the timestamp), and selecting "restore this version", which should appear on the top left of the tan box that informs you that you are looking at an older version of the page. Hope that helps :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Thank you! That is very helpful indeed. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Another IP address from Italy made the same changes again... This time C.Fred caught it before me and reverted the changes back. I reached out to C.Fred as well for assistance. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @WikiEditUsername7: has C.Fred suggested what can be done with the page, or should I still go ahead and submit an application for a page lock? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like C.Fred has placed protection on the page (lol, that sounds dirty), so I think we are good (for now). Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Thanks for following up. I see the protection placed by C.Fred on the page now! For future references, can you share the link to the application for a page lock? WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@WikiEditUsername7: Here you go: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pipe Nation, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pipe Nation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon Revirvlkodlaku. I saw your interactions with DMBanks1 at Talk:Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway, and wanted to note that I have encountered very similar issues with them on Spokane and British Columbia Railway. When I was writing that article I added all the sources I could find, but they DMBanks1 has insisted that I have not done well enough based on non-citable personal websites they have found. I removed the MOS tag once after expanding and slightly rewriting, but DMBanks1 readded it with even more passive-aggressive wording and accused me of being too lazy. --Kevmin § 16:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kevmin thank you for your support and for siding with me on this issue. I am still puzzled by the drastic attitude reversal on the part of DMBanks1—I simply do not understand what happened. What do you make of it? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku From what I experienced, the user has a very specific view of what they accept as "appropriate writing" gets defensive and abrupt when challenged on anything. You can see it happening at talk:Spokane and British Columbia Railway when I told them that the two personal websites they insisted I use didn't meet MOSREF qualifications.--Kevmin § 14:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Kevmin I share your frustration with this user. I would say that the best course of action is to avoid them as much as possible, to tread carefully when one needs to interact with them, and to get a third opinion if their edits are unconstructive or worse. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ce serait bien de connaître votre opinion.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, what is wrong with the image ? surely book covers are allowed as per "This image is of book cover(s), and the copyright for it is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover(s) or the publisher of the book(s). It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book coversto illustrate an article discussing the book in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States." GrahamHardy (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi GrahamHardy, I'm not familiar with this rule that you mention, could you point me to a link that defines it? To my knowledge, if an image isn't available on Wikimedia Commons, its attribution is difficult to establish. I don't mind the image being there, as long as you can demonstrate that it's appropriate to include it. Also, it looks like you're a grandmaster editor and yet you reverted my revert. Doesn't that constitute edit warring? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have added thousands of book cover images without any issues, if you take a look at the image concerned it has a Licensing section below it, is that not OK? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess it must be; it looks like you have much more experience in this area than I do :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created,

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello David,

Greetings from 'sunny Salford' (British humour, see The Beautiful South for more on this matter^[1])...

I see your name has come up time and time on the

So do you know anything about alt-pop music or whether there is any decent references about alt-pop out there in books or online. I am currently involved in a discussion with Michael 'Binks' Knowles under the heading "Michael why are you dismissing alt-pop?" on his talk page. I think as because so many people are using the term online these days and because any google search about 'what is alt-pop' takes you to random info about indie rock or out-of-date stuff about indie pop in the 1980s, so I think that a line such as the following needs to be placed in one of the music genre sections (for example the teen pop, pop music, indie pop, art-pop etc)

"In the 21st Century, lots of new acts have been grouped under the 'alt pop' label^[7] with the genre being used for a range of artists in the charts^[8][9] seen to have a broad appeal but seen to be less manufactured and more eclectic or original^[10][11].^[12] Artists^[13] include Tate McRae,^{[14][15][16][17]} Halsey^{[18][19] [20][21]} Chloe Moriondo,^{[22][23][24][25]} Beren Olivia, ^{[26] [27][28][29][30][31]} Jack River,^{[32][33][34][35][36]} and Billie Eilish".^[37][38]

— QUOTE

Now Binks thinks the term shouldn't be mentioned because only dictionaries have decided what the term is, even though sites like AllMusic and Popmatters have used the term frequently when promoting various alt-pop artists (in addition AllMusic's description is a bit out of date and merged with that of alt-rock)...the only other thing I found with google was the following but it couldn't be accessed (and I do not know if it can be used as a source anyway)

The Modern, AltPop Perspective - Impakterhttps://impakter.com › modern-altpop-perspective Altpop should be defined as genre that experiments with popular categories of music of all eras and shows the vision and influences of the specific artist.

— QUOTE

Anyway something has to be done as if you google alt-pop or click on a link here it takes you to the wrong information or out of date information...and I don't think that's one of the core values of Wikipedia.

Regards, BEccles (not only a Goon but a place too!!!)81.152.238.125 (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi BEccles, that's a really long-winded way to make a point/ask for assistance ;) I didn't grow up in Canada so I was exposed to many different artists and genres of music throughout my childhood. I was probably living somewhere in Europe when I discovered Black Box. Anyway, I'm not too familiar with the term alt-pop, although based on the way you've described it, it makes sense to me. Having said that, I don't have much interest in the topic so I probably won't wade into the discussion. I trust that the editor you are debating this with has enough experience to be able to make a reasonable judgment. What I might suggest to you, however, is that you become a registered Wikipedia user rather than editing anonymously. Not only does this simplify things in terms of inter-user communication, but it also makes you seem more legitimate as a person and editor. All the best! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply

Hello David,

That's alright...but the truth is I just wanted to find out what is meant by these new terms blogs keep using over and over again (alt-pop/bedroom pop) rather than becoming registered on Wikipedia (I've got tunes to listen to, programmes to watch, magazines to read etc)...not coming on here to find missing information - its the principle of the thing, as its supposed to be an up-to-date encyclopedia, the first point-of-call when you google something.

By the way, if you were living in Europe when you were younger did you get into people like Gino Latino, Clio, 49ers and Cappella? If you did and if you are fond of the last two acts, then maybe you can do an article about Media Records? There is one for the UK arm of the company which became Nukleuz but nothing about the original Italian record company (another thing missing)...I would guess most of the information about the company would have to be translated these days, as all the dance music magazines they used to have in the 1980s/1990s won't have their archives saved like Billboard (all their features will have been trashed/pulped by now). It could be something that plays to your strengths. (Note: maybe Groove Groove Melody are/is worthy of their/its own entry rather than just being stuck under Black Box too?)

Regards, BEccles81.152.238.125 (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi BEccles, I'm not overly familiar with those terms either, but my sense is that once they've gained enough prominence, they will get their own pages on Wikipedia, that's just how it works. You can certainly say that Wikipedia is supposed to be the most up-to-date encyclopedia, but if no one does the work, it doesn't happen, so if everyone said they have tunes to listen to and programs to watch, who would do the work? ;)

Alas, I am not familiar with any of the artists you mention. I'm also not very motivated to make a page for Media Records. I'm not familiar with the company and it's not really an area that I focus on at the moment. Thanks for the suggestion though :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop edit warring here. Your problematic edits fraught with

I don't think that the aricle has its own notability yet. Even in Russian there are very few sources. It should redirect to Bubble Comics.--Betakiller (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Bubble Studios article? What do you suggest? Revirvlkodlaku (talk

) 14:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Replace it with redirect to Bubble Comics. That's all. --Betakiller (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. Consider it done :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't change anything to do with genres. You are undoing completely legitimate edits and I suspect you're doing so for personal reasons, because we have clashed in the past. If you continue acting like a bully, I will report you for disruptive editing. Unless you have something constructive to say to me, please don't post on my talk page again. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on Poorna Jagannathan, which I have reverted.  Kylo Ren III  (talk ☎️) 04:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Angel of the Lord (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE

that could help support notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt, I'm a little unclear what this is about. Could you please clarify? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Would it get clearer if you follow the link? (I'm trying to get this automated, for a time after me, but see that the first time is hard to understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I hadn't clicked on the icon before, so I was perplexed what your message was about. After following the link, it seems it's some kind of award that I was given? It's still not entirely clear, however. Part of the problem is that I have to scroll a long way to the top of the page to get some sort of understanding of what it's all about. Is there a way to make it more explicit for editors to understand this? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to take a break from the article about the movie and moved to the comic series one. Could you take a look?--Betakiller (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Betakiller, are you referring to this page Major Grom? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this one.--Betakiller (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look at it in the next few days :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I discovered recently your message on my own talk. As you noticed, the previous single behind "We Are Here to Make Some Noise" is "Belter". But what you ignore is that I have the aim to create all the Wikipedia articles for the entire AvB's singles discography. The problem is that, the previous singles, "Belter" and "Suddenly Summer", haven't charted in countries after their releases and, thus, it's impossible for me to create the 2 articles due to the Wikipedia tough restrictions... So, the last article behind "WAHTMSN" is "Orbion". That's the reason why I made this edit.

--Unistra (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Unistra, I'm not entirely clear on what you're telling me. Are you able to provide a secondary-source reference that would demonstrate what you are suggesting? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

I removed the links to Flood Magazine and Nick Flora because those pages were deleted. Putting in an edit summary for every time I remove a link to Flood Magazine from an article just sounded exhausting, so I didn't bother. yawaraey (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

yawaraey I get where you're coming from, but at the same time, if you don't include an edit summary, a reasonable consequence is that your edit gets reverted, since I can either guess that you're an inexperienced editor who doesn't understand the function of redlinks and decides to delete them (I used to be one of those), or that you're performing the task that you've described above. I don't think adding an edit summary is as onerous as you make it sound, and it saves you (and other editors, such as myself) the hassle of this back-and-forth. Just a thought :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have edited thousands of articles, but it has been more than five years since I have edited more than just a couple of articles in a row. I have been on an editing spree lately, so to speak. I came across Flood Magazine and I thought I could make removing the links to that page into a little project and then go back to making bigger edits, generally to music articles. I generally don't make edit summaries unless I think I will get reverted. yawaraey (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

yawaraey, fair enough, I'm not always as diligent with edit summaries as I could be, certainly when they are minor edits. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit? My correction is a more accurate translation. Surely accuracy and concordance is the main purpose of translation, when it's as easily obtainable as in this case. Iskube (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I got this reply from Revirvlkodlaku on my own user page, let's keep the debate in one place shall we?

"Aggressive tactics and communication

Hello Iskube. You have been an editor on Wikipedia for a little over a year and already you've received a warning about your attacks on other editors. Your account is as yet not verified, which leaves one to wonder how serious you are about being part of this collaborative community. I reverted your edit on :Norsemen (TV series), with the explanation that your contribution wasn't an improvement. Whether or not I was correct in doing so is one thing, and the way you responded is quite another, and this is what concerns me. You proceeded to revert again, which constitutes edit warring. This is not permitted on :Wikipedia, in case you didn't know. The protocol is Bold–Revert–Discuss. This means that you were bold to make your edit, I reverted it, and your next move should have been to discuss with me if you disagreed with my revert. Instead, you chose to edit war and then you proceeded to leave me an irate message on my :talk page, without even bothering to sign off on it. This type of attitude is not only unfortunate and undignified, it borders on abuse. I advise you to stop and think about your attitude as well as the manner in which you contribute to this project. Your style of editing and interaction with editors will not :long be tolerated if you persist along the same vein. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)" Iskube (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

As you say I am an unexperienced user so your job should be to help me keep the rules, not scold me for not knowing them. Now let's see if you are able to produce an answer relevant to the issue at hand.Iskube (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Iskube you are mistaken, my job is not to help you keep the rules, that is your job. I'm not a babysitter, I'm a Wikipedia editor. If you continue spamming my page, especially in this aggressive tone, I will report you. Remember that this is the second warning you have received on your talk page about abusive behaviour. You are getting close to being blocked. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You say you want me to debate the issue with you, but when I do you accuse me of being irate, abusive and aggressive. It's kinda weird, ngl. Iskube (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku,

You are a very experienced editor but I need to remind you that any time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/TFD/MFD/etc.), you MUST post a notice on the talk page of the page creator so they are aware what is going on. They have the right to improve an article tagged with a PROD or participate in an AFD discussion about an article they have written. Notification is an important step of the deletion process. Please do this even if it doesn't look like an editor is currently active.

I find it helpful to use

Hi Liz, sorry for the tardy response. I've been thinking about what you wrote in your comment above. You mentioned that I MUST post a notice on the talk page of the creator of a page I've nominated for deletion. My understanding was that this is recommended, not required. I'm curious about this discrepancy. I'm also not clear as to why this is so important. My sense is that if a creator wishes to keep tabs on an article they've created, they would include it on their watchlist, in which case I don't need to notify them. If they do not keep tabs on pages they've created, then why do they have any extra privileges that any other user doesn't have, in this specific case? Additionally, I would point out that the creator of a page has a vested interest to keep it on Wikipedia, simply by virtue of having put the page there in the first place, so why should we go to extra lengths to notify them and risk that they will challenge the deletion process for their own personal reasons? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

With regard to

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello David, did you bother looking at (clicking through) the refs? All of the personality articles do include mention to the theatre. Is it really necessary to insist on the reference? (Given that these are well-known facts.) Thank you for reconsidering this, --Bintzifex ultimus (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bintzifex ultimus, I did not bother clicking through the refs, as you suggest. Let me tell you why: when adding content to a Wikipedia article, the onus is always on the editor making the changes to demonstrate that the content they are adding is in fact verified or referenced. You can do this by adding a new citation or simply providing a link to an existing one. You didn't do so. What you did, instead, is add names to lines that already have "citation needed" tags. Do you see the problem here?

After reading your comment, I did open the two references available in the article. One of them is useless since it brings the reader to the current page of the news website and not the one that was intended when it was originally added. The second one does mention one of the names you added to the article, that of Jiří Šlitr, but no others. Feel free to add his name back, but with a link to the reference that mentions it.

Lastly, I don't know what is well known to you, and you can't know what is well known to others. This is, in fact, irrelevant. Wikipedia does not establish credibility by relying on what is supposedly well known; it does so by providing references that can be verified. I hope this helps. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku,

I was reviewing Amuka, Suzanne Palmer and Kai (band), articles you PROD'd, and noticed that you didn't inform the page creators that you had tagged the page for deletion. It's a very important step in the process of tagging a page for any kind of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.). I see you used Twinkle to tag the page and so you need to set up your Preferences to always "Notify page creator".

Please check your Preferences and make sure any time you tag a page for deletion, the "Notify page creator" box is checked off so the page creator receives a talk page notice. Because you failed to do so, I'm dePROD'ding Kai (band) because, in this case, the page creator is an active editor and should have been notified. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I responded to you the last time you left me a similar message, but you didn't answer my query. Here it is again: You mentioned that I MUST post a notice on the talk page of the creator of a page I've nominated for deletion. My understanding was that this is recommended, not required. I'm curious about this discrepancy. I'm also not clear as to why this is so important. My sense is that if a creator wishes to keep tabs on an article they've created, they would include it on their watchlist, in which case I don't need to notify them. If they do not keep tabs on pages they've created, then why do they have any extra privileges that any other user doesn't have, in this specific case? Additionally, I would point out that the creator of a page has a vested interest to keep it on Wikipedia, simply by virtue of having put the page there in the first place, so why should we go to extra lengths to notify them and risk that they will challenge the deletion process for their own personal reasons? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Praxidicae was:

This submission is not adequately supported by

Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Despite what may seem to be the norm, not every netflix show is notable by virtue of it being on netflix

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:The Chestnut Man
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  Draft:The Chestnut Man, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible trailer was available in Norway, according to Reddit: here. Unfortunately, not a reliable source so I have not added it to the article. The video clip, available on YouTube here, two weeks ago has Norwegian subtitles (I cannot read nor understand). Could you check HBO Max website to see whether this is an official trailer?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shaidar cuebiyar, I don't have an HBO Max subscription, so I'm unable to check. The official trailer should be available on youtube soon though, don't you think? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry about that, I thought you would be able to access it if you're in Norway. I've tried to find external mentions of the second season's start date, but none are reliable. In any case, here in Australia, we'll probably have to wait another year or so.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I should've checked your user page. I mistook your brilliance at Beforeigners for being Norwegian-based, sorry about that misunderstanding.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Lol, no worries. I'm neither brilliant nor Norwegian ;) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

——Serial 17:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Michael Enright (actor), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! ——Serial 17:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I will leave that article alone now rather than edit war with you, but I'd just like to point out that you are the one who undid my work by removing the Barsuk reference. Furthermore, speaking as a professional copy editor, I saw no stylistic problem with the way that sentence stood before you altered it, nor any problem either stylistic or content related with the absence of the phrase "the EP" before the title Karmic (which has its own article and is also described as an EP elsewhere in the NS article). If you really want to do some good for the article, I suggest that you go back and re-integrate the Barsuk info in there in whatever fashion you prefer. I already did it once. Jcejhay (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Jcejhay, as with any interaction on Wikipedia (or anywhere else, for that matter), it is always better, both in the interest of interpersonal relations and for the overall project, to adopt a humble attitude towards others. I will attempt to take this approach here. Removing errors is not the same as reverting someone's edit. In my opinion, the latter constitutes undoing someone's work while the former doesn't. I'm also professional copy editor, so in that regard we are on par. This doesn't change the fact that both of us will likely still make mistakes. While I agree that the reference to Karmic does not require the additional words "the EP", I felt that it clarified the sentence. You are right, however: as the record is referred to previously in the article, the words I added are redundant and I will remove them. Whether or not reinserting the name of the record label does any good to the article is a matter of opinion and as I said earlier, I tend to disagree. If you are unclear as to what errors you reintroduced by reverting my edit, allow me to explain: you reintroduced two instances of double spacing after a period. Additionally, the sentence "a critically acclaimed album...on Barsuk Records that included the successful single..." includes two instances of puffery. This type of flourish is generally discouraged on Wikipedia and I chose to remove at least one. This is a stylistic difference, not an actual error but again, there was no need to reintroduce it. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the issue I have is not with the mention of the record label but with errors being reinserted into the article. Feel free to mention the record label if you feel it is important to do so. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Revirvlkodlaku. While I can agree with most of what you say here, I'd like to put my reversion in context: First, I didn't originate the Barsuk reference (or introduce the elements you describe as puffery); what I did was move the label reference from A Weight Is a Gift to Let Go, because that seemed the logical place for it, and it didn't seem good for the article to possibly imply that LG was not a Barsuk release. Having done that, I felt that your removing it in the course of your edit was gratuitous, and I didn't see why I should be the one to have to put more than the minimal effort into undoing that. Reverting was the simplest way to undo the unfortunate change and let you (if you so chose) redo the parts worth redoing. And, while I admit I sometimes do multiple fixes in one edit myself, let's not forget that if it's important to an editor not to have more than one change thrown out by a reversion targeting one specific change only, that editor can make a practice of doing revisions piecemeal rather than in a batch. Had you done that—not that I'm necessarily saying you should have—I could have just reverted the Barsuk sentence. Jcejhay (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I should add that when I looked at the edit you'd made, it was the Barsuk sentence and the aforementioned Karmic thing that I saw. (Apologies for not noticing the two-space revisions.) Since removing Barsuk seemed unjustified and the Karmic reference seemed to be fine either with or without "the EP," I didn't think I was doing any damage by reverting. (The "puffery" issue might depend on whether the Let Go article gave more details, with citations—which is a separate question and, again, perhaps a reason why breaking your revisions down into several edits might have helped.) Jcejhay (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jcejhay, thank you for the explanation, I appreciate it. I wasn't claiming that you had introduced any of the elements I removed in my original edit, though some of them were likely yours. I don't agree with your logic regarding piecemeal edits. If I were to do a separate edit for each individual content change, that would be onerous. I think that on the contrary, the onus is on the person whose work was reverted to either replace individual items that they feel are justified, or to discuss the matter with the offending editor, but not to revert. Anyway, it sounds like we have reached a workable compromise, so there's no need to rehash the whole process. I should also admit that out of a personal bias, I tend to be less conscientious about undoing the work of unregistered or unverified users. This is something I need to work on, but I would also suggest that you do take the time to get verified. As a professional copy editor, your contributions to this platform have much value, and I think it behooves everyone when you position yourself as an equal member of this community by getting verified :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that. And thanks for taking the time to have this conversation. Jcejhay (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, your knowledge about episode summaries is wrong, most other shows copy it verbatim if it's by the original source like Netflix. If you bothered to check Glória (2021 TV series) official website you would have spotted that. Shexantidote (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The Chestnut Man, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you should add Blind Melon as a Guns and Roses associated acts. Before the band Blind Melon was formed. The lead singer Shannon Hoon meet Axl Rose through his sister's highschool friend. Axl Rose and Shannon Hoon we're both from Lafayette, Indiana. Axl Rose ended up inviting Shannon Hoon to the studio while Guns and Roses were recording Use Your Illusion I and Use Your Illusion 2. Shannon Hoon ended singing back up vocals on many songs on the album and later was in the Don't Cry music video singing with the band. Soon after the band Blind Melon was formed with Shannon Hoon being the lead singer. Blind Melon went on to your with Guns in Roses in 1993 in support of the Use Your Illusion Album. MichaelPaulAguilar (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello MichaelPaulAguilar, you've taken a very unusual approach towards achieving a goal. Firstly, I am not sure why you would ask me to add anything to a Wikipedia article when you can do so yourself. Are you asking because you're unsure how to do it? I'm happy to help, if that's the case. Second, you can't just randomly add content that you believe to be true without properly referencing it. Where are the references to support your claims? Third, the information you mention regarding Blind Melon's association with Guns N' Roses doesn't seem to fit the criteria for what constitutes an associated act. Has the band Blind Melon collaborated with GNR in a manner that would warrant that kind of mention? Lastly, why post this on my talk page and not the article itself? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I Never used Wikipedia before yesterday and was fascinated by the fact that anyone could edit and add information. I noticed the page was blocked and thought for some reason you were the only one allowed to make changes to the page. I realized my mistake three minutes after writing the message to you. I always have a problem of running before learning to walk but will educate myself on the process of how this site functions to avoid future errors. Again much apologies. MichaelPaulAguilar (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi MichaelPaulAguilar, no need to apologize, I think I overreacted. I could have glanced at your account and seen just how new to this you are. A page is usually locked when it experiences a large amount of vandalism within a short time, and this is likely what happened with the GNR page. A block doesn't apply to registered users, that's why I was able to continue editing the page. If you go ahead and register your account, you will also be able to edit locked pages. Most vandalism is caused by unregistered users. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, so don't be embarrassed about trying to run before you can walk :) There is a bit of a learning curve to this, but as I mentioned before, I'm happy to help in whatever way I can. Feel free to ask should you have any more questions. Welcome aboard and happy editing! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hi, I believe that "murdered" is the appropriate verb for Monument to the children in Yad Vashem. The first sentence on Yad Vashem's page about the monument reads: "This unique memorial, hollowed out from an underground cavern, is a tribute to the approximately 1.5 million Jewish children who were murdered during the Holocaust."-Ich (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ich, while I get the point you are making, I don't think the article is in any way ambiguous about the fact that the children in question were murdered rather than died of natural causes. For this reason, I don't think it is necessary to stress the word "murder" every time their death is referenced. I think the term "killed" is preferable in this case, as it is less emotionally loaded yet still conveys the desired point effectively. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I reverted you once how was I edit warring? Anyway if that’s the qualm fair enough but please don’t allege edit warring when it was no where close. Rusted AutoParts 04:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, please avoid leaving aggressive messages on other editors' pages. We are all in the same boat, all of us trying to make Wikipedia the best it can be. Sometimes we will disagree, but this doesn't mean we should be rude to each other. In a real-life setting, you would say hello to me first before stating your grievance. On Wikipedia, the protocol is Bold–Revert–Discuss. You made a bold edit. I reverted it. You were supposed to discuss it but instead, you undid my revert. By doing so, you began an edit war. I didn't make this stuff up, and the allegation I made against you is accurate, since it accords with the protocol. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The aim wasn't to be rude and there certainly wasn’t aggression intended in my comment, just confusion as to how I was edit warring. First line of the policy is “An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions”. I literally reverted you once, as I was not satisfied with your edit summary explanation. You didn’t explain the accessibility angle. Regardless I wasn’t seeking any fights or to brew any bad blood, I apologize if I come/came off as curt. Rusted AutoParts 05:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, thank you for explaining. My understanding is that after an edit is reverted, a subsequent revert constitutes edit warring. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The edits made to the Wikipedia page for Frank Dikotter have remained the same since my first edit back in 2019. The opinions added to the work part of the page, do not contribute to the authors body of work, are misleading and out of context. Kindly let me know how my edits are disruptive in any way. Tentslord (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The content you are removing appears to be reviews of Dikotter's work in a number of publications. Why do you think it is inappropriate for these reviews to remain on the page? Also, why do you insist on removing the image from the infobox? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so first things first. I started a new topic on your talk page. You decided to carry it over to mine. Whatever. Now you've opened three separate new sections on my page. What is your problem?

Second, you are clearly a single-issue editor, which raises major red flags. You have received several warnings, all in relation to this article, since you began editing in 2019. It also appears you may have a conflict of interest. None of these factors speak well in your favour. The edits you insist on making are not justified, in my opinion. I have requested protection of the page so that you and your ilk cannot continue to deface it. If you have disagreements about any of this, please take it up on the Frank Dikotter talk page, and leave my talk page alone. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Tentslord, even after I pointed out to you that it was not appropriate to open separate topics for each message you add to this thread, you have continued to do so. This indicates that you are either ignorant or simply disrespectful. I don't like either option. If you open a new section on my page again, I will cease all communication with you. Where is the matter at this moment? The page in question has been protected from edits so that you and your acolytes (or alternate accounts) cannot remove content that is displeasing to you but otherwise fits the article. I believe you are operating under a conflict of interest, either as someone who knows Dikot

ter directly or otherwise, and you are attempting to influence the tone of the article to be more flattering than it is. This is not acceptable, and unless you are able to provide a better justification than you have done so far, you will not be permitted to continue altering the content of the article. Good day. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I have a problem with your description of Harald Eriksen (Stig R. Amdam) as Chief of police, which is actually portrayed by Ingunn Beate Øyen. I'm not sure of Harald's actual rank except its higher than Wenche/Alfhildr who appear to be lead detectives. You need a better description for Harald's status.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Harald is introduced in a news report (S2 E2 @ 8:52): "Section leader of OPK Harald Eriksen said this about the speculation that..."shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

For an episode short summary, how long is too long? Plot sections are described by guidelines at MOS:TVPLOT. This article has commented out instructions per season to use "no more than 200 words per episode" and "100–200 word plot summary of the episode". You claim my short summary, at 178 words, is "Too much detail, making summary unnecessarily long." Clearly its not a question of word count but content.

My contention is that the content I've added reflects the importance of the search for these three women to the overall plot of this season. Isaac has looked for them since episode 1, he's followed them from London to Oslo and across 130+ years. Both Alex and Henry are concerned that Isaac has learnt about the women. Could you explain why you think this content is unnecessary?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shaidar cuebiyar, the reason I shortened the summary had more to do with how important I considered the content to be than with the actual word count. You make a fair point, however, about the story arc. How does my latest edit seem to you? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Well done. This is entirely acceptable, thanks.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:46, 24 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. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 16:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I have uploaded the following file into Wikipedia, by getting it from IMDB article. I thought its a fair use of the movie poster as it represents the article Red Rain. Please help me understand, what is the issue here? Aadirulez8 (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aadirulez8, I don't know the ins and outs of copyright rules on Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure it's not enough to simply extract an image from another website and use it here. The process isn't overly complicated, but you have to make sure you have the appropriate permissions from the rights holder of the image, and then you have to upload it to Wikimedia. I recommend you read up on it here: [[[WP:Uploading images]]. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Revirvlkodlaku,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, Abishe, that is a very kind thought from you. I wish you the same :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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.