User talk:StellarNerd

Vigilantia automata (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are aware of the scope of this subject.

You have to read the discussion at

The scope is restricted for this page to cover only major incidents, this had been once again clarified by the long term editor of this page, Vanamonde93 in the words "I don't think minor incidents ought to be mentioned in list form at all (on this page, or any similar overarching page about violence). Of course, that tends to be a pointless argument; every page has its POV pushers demanding the inclusion of every last incident."[1]

Do you have consensus to expand the scope? If you don't have one, then you must self-revert yourself here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You made many changes in that one huge edit, and I don't see wide ranging user agreement in that discussion. You have one user agreeing with you about different content in February. Back then you were discussing this removal of 1452 letters. Now you are removing eight times that, 12,543 letters, in your edit. I agree with Vanamonde93 that minor things shouldn't be there, but you aren't only removing minor things. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion didn't just involve removing 1452 letters but reverting back to the "last stable version". I have already described how I reverted to the last stable version. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was 70,958 letters at 05:44, 27 December 2020‎ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_against_Muslims_in_India&oldid=996541012 and 72,875 letters on 17:27, 14 November 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_against_Muslims_in_India&oldid=1055229464 . You took it down to 60,903 letters with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_against_Muslims_in_India&diff=1090750469&oldid=1090750352 . The last time this article was so small, was in the beginning of 2020: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Violence_against_Muslims_in_India#year-counts . You aren't taking it to the stable version at all. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody talked about including minor incidents. To understand how this version was longstanding can be understood by comparing this version March 2016 version with September 2020 version. You will find no difference when it comes to "Major incidents" other than the addition of 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots and 2020 Delhi riots, to which I don't object. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Last person who posted one of these blue things here got blocked like twenty minutes later. Good luck. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madness of Crowds

Concerning this edit,

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY would be better served if the Eagleton discussion (and quote) were included in the body as well, without removing the mention in the lead. Bht without my typos, I hope. :) Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Newimpartial, is this better? --StellarNerd (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is, though I don't think "mostly positive" necessarily belongs... I was working with an imperfect version. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point there. Certainly a varied response. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Mules

You more or less dismissed an edit I was suggesting without thoughtfully looking at what I suggested. I would like to AGF and ask that you please review my comments in response to you there in the talk page. Misunderstandings happen. 205.168.105.204 (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, apologies I was confused by your use of "add" when you were suggesting to modify an existing paragraph. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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.

Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union

Hi, I am the translator of

Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union, which is now under deletion review due to User:折毛

's hoax. Although the English version differed from the Chinese version created by 折毛 from the very beginning, it contained English translation of the Chinese content created by 折毛. To eliminate the impact of her content, I have validated the sources and removed all sources if they are unverifiable. Also, I have added new content backed by new reliable sources. I am thankful for your participation in the previous discussion of the deletion review, but now that the deletion review is not being relisted, I am not sure whether you might want to take a look at the new, mostly re-written, and validated version of the article and express your opinion in the deletion review. I will be most grateful to your further comment regarding any potential improvement of the article and regarding your decision in the deletion review.

---HNlander (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IIHF's view

The IIHF calls the country Czechia & that's where I limited the page moves. However, you're free to open up an RFC on the matter, in the appropriate place. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IIHF doesn't rule on country names in Wikipedia or in English, it just copies what the country asks. If you want to make it, please launch a proper request moved and have an uninvolved editor close it, preferably a sysop. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the country, it's about the hockey teams. Recommend

WP:HOCKEY, as the place for an RFC on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It is about the country, as the team belongs to the country. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not gonna bring it up at WP:HOCKEY? Then I will. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was against your point of view, but you decided to act and revert anyway.

In that case you should backtrace all GoodDay's changes and revert them all. Chrz (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are all of GoodDay's changes ? I am only aware of the Czech Republic team. --StellarNerd (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent moves to

Czechia women's national under-18 ice hockey team. FromCzech (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Lavender oil

User:StellarNerd Please undo your revert. The RfC below is *not* to determine if the current source should stay in, it's to determine if *more* source should be added. Consensus was already reached on the current source that Zefr keeps removing. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus to add this content. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]