User talk:Transcendental

Transcendental is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user is a regular and doesn't mind if you template them .

Hello, I'm MyJunoBaldwin, and I was the person that made the original edit about the face mask controversy on the Lana Del Rey page. Thank you for fixing that issue of the person taking down the story. I'm new to this, so I wanted to give my appreciation. Hope this wasn't a major issue for you going back and forth with the user. Again, thank you, and have a wonderful day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyJunoBaldwin (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And my thanks go out to you for contributing constructively to Wikipedia. Cheers,

talk) 16:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for reverting several unconstructive edits on ballet related articles and warning the perpetrator. I just reported the user for sockpuppetry. There was another new user with very similar editing pattern yesterday. Corachow (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Corachow: You're very welcome. I already reported the user in question to the admins for vandalism. I'll update my report with a link to yours to help speed things along. Best of luck, Transcendental (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note on edit warring. I have tried explaining the situation to the other party in a clear and concise manner, but unfortunately they appear to be unable or unwilling to comprehend what they're doing wrong, so I've had to take the unfortunate step of reporting them for just that. Hopefully the stewards and/or vandalism squad can help in this matter because I'm not quite sure how to get through to someone who won't see reason. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C1:4502:C380:349D:356A:D89C:A4FF (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @

on the article's talk page so that the correct content may be displayed on the article in question. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, Transcendental (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

In this case, I concur that it is probably best to let baby have their bottle. It's certainly not worth any extended conflict. I guess they just feel that the article can only be updated on their schedule, and no one else's. I'll still check in on it though, since ironically, for the past couple of weeks, I've had to fill in the missing data that they've failed to update. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C1:4502:C380:349D:356A:D89C:A4FF (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that conflict is not the answer here. However, let's keep the

Tea House, we are here to help. Best, Transcendental (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You have reverted completely appropriate EL additions, stating "Repeated addition of external links by non-autoconfirmed user." But these are appropriate ELs. Please self-revert. IPs are allowed to add appropriate ELs. --2604:2000:E010:1100:B50C:B066:E244:2AEB (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at

WP:LINKSTOAVOID (#10) and please stop linking social media sites on the EL section. Thanks! Transcendental (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It is perfectly appropriate as an external link when the subject of the article has no regular website. It is only not appropriate where the subject has his own website. Not the case here. Do a search - there are hundreds (thousands?) of such ELs on wikipedia. There is even a template created for them, if one wishes to use it. For ELs. Template:Instagram. --2604:2000:E010:1100:B50C:B066:E244:2AEB (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A case of

"other stuff exists" isn't viable here. They also have their own pages on ESPN, CBS Sports, etc. so clearly they have webpages dedicated to them. What does the article have to gain by having the person's social media on it? Transcendental (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

In addition,

WP:BLP. It's simply not a reliable source. Best, Transcendental (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

And another, see

WP:INSTAGRAM. Only reason to add Instagram is "when the subject of the article has no other Web presence", which is clearly not the case here. Hope this clears things up, Transcendental (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

While the nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist, and while these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.

As to your meta question of "what does an article have to gain," the answer is that the article has the same thing to gain as when - when a subject has their own personal web page - we provide a link to that. The reader who is interested in learning more or seeing more about the subject can do so. That is why we provide ELs to their personal web pages, when those exist.

There is a difference that wp stresses between using an Instagram page as a reliable source - not the case here, and as an EL - the case here.

The "web presence" that is being referred to is a personal web page. If a subject has one, it will link naturally to their instagram and twitter pages, which is why we do not then add those as ELs. Again - not the case here. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B50C:B066:E244:2AEB (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a difference that wp stresses between using an Instagram page as a reliable source - not the case here, and as an EL - the case here." --

WP:INSTAGRAM

also has a section referring to external links that also backs my claim. What part in these WP guidelines state otherwise?

"The "web presence" that is being referred to is a personal web page" -- Where does it say this? A web presence is self explanatory: having a presence on the web. Do the existing ELs on these BLPs not satisfy this? Transcendental (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

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

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

The

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

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]