User talk:Revirvlkodlaku

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hudba Praha moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Hudba Praha, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Emilis Vėlyvis notability

Dear David Revirvlkodlaku,

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for almost 16 years. Recently I wrote Emilis Vėlyvis article. An American, New York-born editor onel5969 has questioned Emilis' notability. In response, I have added content referenced by three independent, reliable non-English media sources, delfi.lt, Lithuanian TV3 and Lietuvos rytas. In addition, a new section "Selected awards and nominations" has been introduced.

I therefore deem the Velyvis' notability criteria has been satisfied.

I have informed onel5969 on his talk page and have requested to remove the "notability" tag. onel5969 is not eager to follow through. I myself can not remove the notability tag due to possible conflict of interest because I have started the article about Emilis.

Can you please remove the notability tag?

Thank you for your help and attention, Tomas Ttk371 (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tomas, I can look into the matter, but first, I have two questions to ask you:

1. Why is it important to you that the notability tag be removed?
2. Why come to me about this?

Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

David, thank you for your prompt reply.

1. To answer your first question, I admit confusion (smile). Editor Onel5969 originally might have had good reasons to request to improve the article, so I did improve. I do not attend to editing Wikipedia on very frequent basis. The notability tag may lead to article deletion in my absence. I hope this thus answers your question, even if partially.

2. I have asked you because a) your page welcomes those seeking help b) you have written or contributed to articles about European cinematography c) you have kindly thanked me for a minor edit of The Good Plumber.

Verily yours,

Tomas Ttk371 (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

David,

I further ask you to help. I have asked editor Onel5969 Can you please outline a roadmap to facilitate the notability of Emilis Vėlyvis solved?. Onel5969 has requested to stop posting to my talk page. How to close the matter of Emilis Vėlyvis notability now?

It feels like a stalemate. Please advise, is there an appeal process in Wikipedia - if it's time to consider an appeal?

Thank you for your help and attention,

Verily yours, Tomas Ttk371 (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You fail to mention that I asked you to stop posting on my talk page due to your incivility. I've let you know that you need at least 3 in-depth sources from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show notability. I've let you know that foreign language sources are perfectly fine. I've let you know that interviews, as primary sources, do not go towards notability. That's the road map. And my apologies to Revirvlkodlaku that you got dragged into this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully ask David to make his own judgement on civility of my communication. I consider my communication polite and respectful.

Verily yours, Tomas Ttk371 (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969, it's possible that you and I have a different idea about what constitutes civility, but after reading the exchange you've had with Ttk371 on your talk page, my conclusion is that there is no lack of civility on their part. Ttk371 approached you with the utmost degree of courtesy, as they have demonstrated on my own talk page, and your response was rather curt, even dismissive. Yes, you have outlined the steps this user should take in order to meet your criteria, but you made no effort to be nice about it (not that you are obligated to do so).

@Ttk371, I'm not going to remove the notability tag from the Emilis Vėlyvis page, as I don't want to get embroiled in another dispute, but I would advise you to follow the steps outlined by Onel5969 on their talk page. This should hopefully resolve the issue. If not, my next step, in your place, would be to seek a third opinion through the appropriate 3O channel. Hope this helps :)

Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, David! I completely understand and support your decision to not remove the notability tag.

1. Can you please guide me into 3O ("third opinion") process? What page to start it on?

2. Do you happen to know if an instrument similar to "change of venue" in the United States courts of law, or "removal of judge" in Lithuanian courts of law exists whereby an editor is removed from deciding on tagging a page like Emilis Velyvis and another rather neutral editor is assigned instead?

I feel indebted.

Verily yours,

Tomas (or Tom in English-speaking countries; he/him) Ttk371 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tom, here is a link to the 3O process: WP:Dispute resolution requests/Third opinion. I don't know the answer to your second question, unfortunately, as I've never looked into that myself. Sorry to disappoint. By the way, we also use Tomas, or Thomas, in English-speaking countries ;) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Good morning David, may I please invite you to share your insight in Talk:Emilis_Vėlyvis#Silver_Crane_award_effect_on_notability?

This discussion may solve the notability question not for Emilis Velyvis alone, but for many or all awardees of this prestigious Lithuanian filmmaking industry award. A discussion on the subject article talk page is also a precursor for initiating the third opinion request.

Thank you kindly, Tom (I prefer Tom solely because Tomas is often mispronounced in Spanish-culture-rich United States. My full name is rather pronounced as Thomas (smile) ) (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tom, I've piped up on the Emilis Velyvis page, although I admit that I haven't done any proper research into the criteria for WP notability. I'll keep an eye on the discussion for the time being though. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Mockrát děkuji David! Coincidental to your interest in Czech culture I am proud to remember interviewing Vaclav Havel on August 9, 1989 at his summer home near Mlade Buky where he was deported by police - that's three months before the Velvet Revolution. I was a very young journalism student at the time. Tom Ttk371 (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ttk371 Nemáš zač! Wow, that's quite the claim to fame! I was only nine years old in 1989, probably shortly before moving from Montreal to Prague. Was Havel a pleasant man to speak to? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd be glad to share the experience of that day but Wikipedia is not the best place to do so :) You can also find me on FB forward slash tchadaravicius :)

We (Havel, my photographer and myself) were at a picnic table outside. I was asking questions in English, Havel was answering in Czech. There was a bottle of vodka on the table. He offered us a shot and had some himself. All lasted about one hour.

Finding his hut in the spruce-covered hills was another adventurous story. I spoke German with local farmers who had guided us to Havel's home.

Tomaš :) Ttk371 (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ttk371 Holy, what an adventure! I always assumed Havel could speak fluent English, for some reason, though I'm not sure why. I've sent you a fb request, thanks for being so friendly! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

He said, he could speak English, but "we are in Czechia, I will be responding in Czech." Ttk371 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Today, Sunday, December 4th I have posted a question, Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Does_winning_a_national_industry_filmmaking_award_satisfy_notability_criteria? on the Wikipedia:Notability project page.

Yours, Tom Ttk371 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I have initiated a 3O (third opinion) request at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Such request requires notification of discussion participants.

Thank you, Tom Ttk371 (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Miso Film, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Here and elsewhere, you are actively making articles worse for no good reason at all. Please stop. Fram (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Please explain why the edit was not constructive. I reverted the addition of unreferenced content. This is standard practice. Stop hounding me, you appear to be engaged in a personal vendetta, and this will not be tolerated. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The previous content wasn't sourced either, all you did was WP:BITEing an editor and removing actually sourceable content. It is very unclear why you opposed the addition of a review from a professional magazine as an external link to Ane Brun, your edit summary was rather cryptic. Fram (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the previous content wasn't sourced either isn't relevant and shouldn't prevent me from removing further unreferenced content. Your line of reasoning suggests that if a page contains one line of unreferenced content, I should be free to add an entire paragraph of unreferenced content, or even more, which is absurd.

As for the Ane Brun article, I pointed out that as per WP:External links#Minimize_the_number_of_links, the link was unnecessary. Once again, please keep your activity and criticism constructive; at the moment, you appear to be on a personal vendetta. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No, you didn't point that out: if you had, I could have corrected you immediately. That section is about official links (official websites, twitter accounts, instagram, ...), and has nothing to do with other, independent external links as in this case. Fram (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:External links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided please read carefully, and then stop bothering me. This unfriendly conversation is not a good use of my time (and hopefully, yours either). Unless you have something constructive to add, I will no longer be engaging. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Tense of Guertel-case

Hi, I notice you did a lot of grammar editing on Gürtel_case. But the elephant in the room is that the entire article is in the present tense. Isn't this a long-since finished case, a case that should now be in the past tense? I'd have changed it, but I didn't want to tread on your toes, and thought you might know more about it than I do. Elemimele (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Elemimele, thanks for pointing this out, as I hadn't thought of it. Thank you also for being considerate of my toes :) There is a tag at the top of the page, suggesting that it should be updated. Would you be willing to do this? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I could do the tense; I don't know anything about the subject (I was just looking at recent changes when I found it the first time), but tense is just language. I'll have a look, it might be tomorrow before I get to it. Best wishes! Elemimele (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

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 discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hotel Alcron

Hi, I see you reverted my edit on the page for the Alcron Hotel Prague. You changed "Pre-WWII guests included" back to "Pre-WWII guests have included." That is grammatically incorrect in English, that's why I changed it. In English, you would only say "guests have included" if something is still ongoing. Because we're talking about a period that has ended - the Pre-WWII period - the correct English wording is "guests included." Jamesluckard (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jamesluckard, you are corrected, that was my mistake. I didn't notice the "Pre-WWII" part. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jamesluckard, I'm surprised to note that you haven't seen fit to acknowledge my retreat and admission of error on this topic in any manner. If you with to maintain good relations with other editors, and in order to encourage good behaviour, it's important that you reinforce it when it occurs, and the best way to do that is not to ignore when someone has made a concession to you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, but I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a format to post recognition for something like this. I promise, it wasn't an intentional oversight, but I've been editing pages here for many years and haven't heard of this before. Happy to do so if you can explain how I should though. No offense intended. :) Jamesluckard (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jamesluckard, it isn't as complicated as you make it sound. If you've been editing Wikipedia for years, surely you must be aware of the "thank" feature. You also had the option to respond to my last comment, using the words of your choice. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "thank" feature on Wikipedia, I promise you. Nobody has ever mentioned it to me and I've never seen it. However, if you would explain to me how it works, I'd be more than happy to do that. None of this has been meant as a slight to you, I promise. I am genuinely grateful that you acknowledged that my grammatical fix was correct. I would have stated that earlier, but in all honesty, I've just never been asked before to say anything like that in all my years here, so I didn't imagine there was a need to. But I do, indeed, gratefully acknowledge that you retreated and admitted your error, as you stated. Jamesluckard (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I just realized you mean the thing where you get notifications that people "thanked" you for an edit. I don't know how I would do that for a comment you made in "talk" though. In all honesty, I've never paid much attention to those "thanks." If that's a mistake, I apologize. Jamesluckard (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

When I go to your user page, I see a "heart" icon, with some options, but none of those options include "thanks." How do I do that? Jamesluckard (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I found a page explaining "thanks." It looks like it's a special program that needs to be downloaded. I've never done so, which is why I don't have an icon for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Notifications/Thanks The process to install the "thanks" program seems a bit complicated. Is this the only way to do it? I truly didn't mean to make you feel slighted, but I'm being honest when I say nobody has ever mentioned this to me before. Jamesluckard (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I read the page explaining how to download and install "Thanks" and I genuinely can't follow it. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Thanks I apologize. I'm being honest. I'm just not a computer whiz and it seems very complicated. Is there a simple way to install it? Jamesluckard (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jamesluckard, I'm baffled by what you're telling me. In fact, I'm struggling not to think that you're trolling me. It appears that you've been editing Wikipedia for just as long as I have, and you've never once noticed that there is an option to thank an editor for every single edit they make? I just looked up the Thanks page, and it doesn't seem like it's anything you have to install—it's a default part of the English Wikipedia. I also don't know what you mean by "heart icon" on my user page.

Either way, no harm, no foul. I do have a question for you though: why is your user name redlinked instead of being clickable, like other users? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I promise you, I'm not trolling you. I use my real name as my username here. I have absolutely nothing to hide. I think my username is red because I've never bothered to create a biography page for myself here. I just like to read articles and make edits. Did you check the links I posted above? "Thanks" appears to be an app you have to add onto Wikpiedia. It doesn't appear to be there automatically. I'm on a PC, maybe it's different on a Mac. This page: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Thanks describes "Thanks" as an extension that must be download, and includes a Download section. That's the part that I'm totally confused by. It doesn't look like a normal program that you just download and open. I do see now on "History" for each page that there's an option to "Thank" a user for an edit. I've never noticed that before and never done it. However I still am not sure how I would have "thanked" you for the comment you left here. I only see "reply" as an potion next to each of our comments. I don't see "Thanks" as an option. Or did you mean you had hoped I would have pressed "Thanks" next to your incorrect reversion of my original edit? I can go do that now. I'm sorry I didn't realize that was a thing people expected. As I said, nobody has ever mentioned it to me before. Jamesluckard (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I just hit "thanks" next to the last edit you made on the Alcron Hotel page, the one we discussed and I undid. I hope that's helpful. Sorry, I've just never been through anything like this before. As I said, I use my real name as my username here. You're more than welcome to friend me on Facebook or something, so you can see I'm not an anoymous troll. Jamesluckard (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and the heart icon is along the top. The options are READ, EDIT, VIEW HISTORY, then a picture of a heart, then a star, then MORE, then SEARCH WIKIPEDIA. I've never used the heart. I'm not sure what it does. Jamesluckard (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Not the very top line, sorry, the line below it. The very top line has your username, then a bell, a box, and a bunch of other options. I meant the one below it. Jamesluckard (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I like to edit pages on hotels and movies. How about you? Looking at your history, your interests seem to range pretty widely, which is cool! Jamesluckard (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jamesluckard, I see the source of confusion now (and I no longer think you are a troll). While there may be an extension with a separate "thank-you" function, what I'm talking about is built into the enwiki software, and as you've yourself discovered, it's there to be found on each page's history. That's actually the key here, and perhaps why you didn't notice it before—you didn't see the "thank" feature on the talk page, because you have to go to the page's history to see it. I didn't think of that earlier, because I'm always looking at edit histories (for pages on my watchlist), so I see the feature all the time. No, I didn't mean you should thank me for my incorrect reversion :) I see a James Luckard in Los Angeles who likes Love Actually. Is that you? As for the heart and star you mention, I don't see those, likely because you and I are looking at Wikipedia using a different skin. Did you download the latest skin update? I'm still using the old one, so I don't see the heart or star icons. Well, I edit articles on a range of topics, mainly because, like you, I'll read something and if it contains errors, I just can't leave them there. My main interest is music though, so most of the new articles I've created are on that topic. It's nice to meet you, by the way, James; I'm David Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that's me! And yep, that's why I hadn't noticed the "thank" feature before, I rarely visit the "History" page for articles and hadn't looked at the layout closely. I had noticed a few times that people had "Thanked" me, it showed up on the bell icon next to my name, and I wondered how they did it, but I never got curious enough to investigate. At least now I know. :) What are skins? I'm not familiar with that. Is that like different layouts you can choose? I've seen that on some chat forums I visit. I would assume I'm just using whatever the "default" skin is here, I don't remember ever changing any settings. I've always been fascinated by hotels, and I started noticing a few years back how woefully incomplete many pages on famous/historic hotels were. They would have dates that I knew were incorrect for their opening, or they would neglect to mention multiple name changes. One hotel's page misleadingly seemed to suggest that the structure was the original historic structure, when it was, in fact, a modern replica. I started correcting these and then I started creating pages for hotels I liked that felt noteworthy and had no pages. I just looked at my own contribution history and discovered I've been here for 18 years! Yikes! I had no idea it had been that long, time sure does fly! When I started, sources were not required at all, it's been interesting to see how things have evolved. I work hard to find as many sources as possible now. Luckily, with the number of newspapers and books that have been digitized, that's usually pretty easy. It's nice to meet you too! I'm glad we got everything cleared up. I totally understand why you thought I was a troll at first. It's sad that there are so many people out there who have nothing better to do with their time but cause trouble, but I'm just here to update pages on hotels and movies, mostly. :) Jamesluckard (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

How did you come to be following the page for the Alcron Hotel? I hope to see it someday. I missed seeing it the one time I was in Prague, in 2001. I actually created the page here for it, a number of years ago. Jamesluckard (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jamesluckard, it's as you said, a "skin" is a page layout/interface. Wikipedia periodically updates the default skin, and I know a new one was just released a day or two ago, although if I'm not mistaken, it has been available for some time now, as many non-English wikis use a different skin from the one I'm still on.

I had no idea that references were ever not required on Wikipedia! Those must have been the Wild West days 😅😅😅

I'm actually half Czech, and I lived in Prague for three years as a child. I was recently in a Czech restaurant here in Edmonton, where I reside, and they had an item on the menu with the name Alcron, so I had to find out what that was all about. As it turns out, they make their chicken in the "Alcron" style, as I think there's an eponymous restaurant in the hotel, right?

I sent you a fb friend request, by the way; I'm David Tonner Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Pertaining to changes made by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

Hi Revirvlkodlaku, saw you reverted changes by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, do you happened to know where could this issues be raised on? As ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ didn't just made those changes to Extraordinary Attorney Woo and Glitch but to more than thousands other articles as well, and now those unreverted ones has misleading subheader in their Infobox where other params (like Developed by, Director, Writers, Starring, etc) not under Infobox Korean name is displayed as if it's grouped under Korean name which is incorrect and misleading. I had tried to reverted their edits as much as possible but looks to be an impossible task. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Paper9oll, I didn't realize the scope of this issue, and thousands of similarly misedited articles is certainly a big deal. What I would do first is try to communicate with the editor, by leaving a message on their talk page. If this fails, I would likely turn to one of the noticeboards, such as WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I don't have time to do anything about it now, but do keep me updated, and I'll be happy to assist you if you still need help in a few hours. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku I had just raise the issue at their talk page (for your reference), however also noting that another editor had previously raise the same issues previously on 11 January 2023 on their talk page also, their response is to be me personally rather fierce and seemingly uncooperative with intention to push ahead regardless. Also posted on here on WP:Templates for discussion/Holding cell to see if there would be other editors that would help out or not. Thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This change has been done in far more pages by multiple users slowly over the years. A few may have disliked the changes, others have sent me thank notifications for them, they aren't "misedited". Rest assured I have no intention of pushing ahead, I have better things to spend my time on. Thanks. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, I'm perplexed by your attitude on this subject. User:Paper9oll politely explained the issue your edits were causing, and asked you to pause until it was resolved. You chose to take a combative stance and dig in your heels, as if the fact that your edits were creating a problem with the visual presentation of thousands of infoboxes was irrelevant. I admit that I'm not familiar with the topic being discussed, and which has, supposedly, swallowed countless hours of yours and many other editors' time, but that seems somewhat beside the point if your actions are actually creating a problem on Wikipedia. I can understand how this whole situation would be frustrating for you, but please keep in mind that any pushback you get on the subject has nothing to do with you, so please don't take it personally. Additionally, I think it would be correct on your part to undo the edits until the issue can be resolved, rather than leaving a trail of broken infoboxes behind. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I have received multiple thanks for the same edits you are calling broken, clearly some people think they are an improvement. What you are calling an issue, some others consider it as a feature. I have got objections and I have stopped. I am not going to revert them only for those who like it to re-revert it back. Anyway I withdraw all of my edits pertaining to Infobox name module, feel free revert anything you are comfortable taking responsibility for (it appears Paper9oll has already done that), I don't care at this point. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The nation of Québec

Hi there, hope everything is going ok for you

If I were to prove you that Québec is, actually, a nation, something as strong and as binding as a constitution amendment explicitely stating so, black on white, added according to legislation in place, and whom the lack of acknowledgement would be a clear unneutral stance as strong as denying a distinct nation's existence, would you let me put back my edit? Many thanks.

Important post-scriptum : a country/state and a nation are not the same thing, they're different concepts and words for a reason, even if many people do the easy mistake of not realizing it, which I don't blame you for, I did the same mistake years ago. The two however, when combined, form the nation-state, which is were the confusion come from. I mean, just reading the definition of nation, Québécois already fit and you should let me do that in accordance with Wikipedia neutrality, as denying a recognized nation's existence and having them written as another is clearly not neutral or innocent, but I'm willing to go a step further with what I proposed, what do you say? 166.62.226.25 (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, the first thing I'll need you to do is to tell me what article you're referring to. I make large and small edits to dozens of pages every single day, so if you don't mention the page you're referring to, how am I supposed to remember?

Second, as far as I know, Quebec is a province of Canada. I'm not sure what definition of "nation" you're using, and I'm curious to find out, but I can't guarantee that I will revert myself based on that. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi there again. The article in question is Gilles Vigneault first and foremost. Sorry for not having it pointed out earlier. Secondly, I was talking about the one of the very wikipedia page of nation I linked. Does it satisfy your requirements for the basis of such a revert or do I need another one? A nation can also at the same time be a state (where it becomes a nation-state, a nation and a state, I say Québec is also the former even if it is not explicitely named "the nation of Québec"), a province or any other form of governance or absence thereof, hence the stateless nations (Québécois are right there on this page with an academic source to back it up), while still being a nation. A nation is not a nationality but a more inclusive form of ethnicity, based on a shared sense of identity, culture, language and institutions/distinct legal status on a specific territory. 166.62.226.25 (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, and yes, the distinction makes sense, but I still don't see why nation should supersede country in a short description. As far as I know, not only is it conventional to mention a person's country of origin in the s.d., but as most people are not aware of/don't care about the distinction between nation and country that we are discussing here, and additionally, as many people are not aware of what Quebec is, for the purposes of the s.d., I think describing Vigneault as Canadian (which he is, in fact) is preferable. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Nation absolutely should supersede country because the very purpose of that adjective in the short description is to give the viewer an accurate cultural context that could help understand the person involved as well as giving proper credit to the nation responsible for the creation or to which the person belong to. Right now, it is giving credit to another nation, the canadian one, and it's unfair but also present the inaccurate view that the cultural context is the same as in Winnipeg, which is deceiptful to say the least. Also, it is violating Wikipedia's neutrality by saying to Québécois "You are not allowed to exist and be recognized as such even if the canadian constitution recognize you as distinct from Canadians" and taking an explicitely federalist position when Wikipedia should not take positions (existing is neutral, Québécois of all political stances call themselves as such, telling you don't exist and are in fact another nation is not). Canada is the nation-state of Canadians, with their own language, culture and sense of identity, yet there are other minority nations within it such as the First Nations and Québec, which, despite being constitutionally recognized as nations, are absorbed into another even if it is questionnable due to history and is just unfair. You say people don't care or don't know, yet why is it this way to begin with when other Wikipedias recognize it? Could it be because it is just not shown to begin with that people are not aware of this distinction, creating a self-fullfulling prophecy? Is it fair, socioculturally-accurate, neutral and not offensive or taking position if I where to say Sitting Bull is American? That Tibetans are Chinese? That Gandhi is British? That Ukrainians are Russians? If Wikipedia existed in the 30s, would it be fair, neutral, socioculturally accurate to say Koreans are Japanese because technically it would be "true"?

And not only that, but on the national poet of the Québécois on top of that! One who fought all his life for Québécois to exist, thrive and be recognized as not Canadians but a distinct nation, just being called against all his own views "Canadian", is that neutral and not taking a position for you? I really fail to see why so much opposition. Why not have it supersede. The convention says that Adam Smith is Scottish, why can't Gilles Vigneault be Québécois? Just like sub-categories, sub-nations are there for a reason, it's the same logic. I'm not stating anything that is false and is, in fact more accurate and neutral that was was before in my edit, I can even give a source explicitely describing him like that if it's what it takes. Minority nations care. I'm not asking for much, just for the right to exist, for the national poet of an entire distinct nation to finally be credited to the right people. They don't know what Québec is? Let them hover the short description and they'll find out. 166.62.226.25 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@166.62.226.25 I think you are reading far more into this than is required, and in addition, I suspect you are personally invested in this topic to such a degree that your perspective is not neutral. It has not been my experience on Wikipedia that a nation would supersede country when speaking of a person's origin. There is no deceit intended here; again, I think you are choosing to ascribe much more to my motives than is warranted.

Your use of Adam Smith for comparison is inaccurate, since Scotland is actually a separate country within the British union; this is not the way federalism in Canada works.

Anyway, I have a feeling that no matter what I say, you will continue to insist on the correctness of your position, which is totally fair. I, on the other hand, am not convinced by your arguments, at least with respect to an article's short description, so if you feel so strongly about it, I suggest you seek a third opinion. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Can I at least give you this :

90Q.1.Quebecers form a nation.

2. 90Q.2.French shall be the only official language of Quebec. It is also the common language of the Quebec nation.

Added by article 45 of the 1982 Constitution Act to the constitution of Canada. Québec is not just another province anymore. Would that mean that if Scotland suddenly became a "province", we'd have to change all their articles to be "british"?? Where's the logic here? All I see are double-standards based on the way they are named, not the way they are, and it's not fair. I don't give intention on you or anything, it's not about you, don't worry, but the implications of the way articles are phrased right now that I think people fail to realize the very questionable consequences of what they imply toward minority nations and how it is anything but neutral and thus anything but in accordance to the very values that Wikipedia is supposed to follow, it has absolutely nothing to do with how I think. Deceiptful for the viewer reading these. Asking for equality in the representation of all minority nations recognized as such by the highest of legal instances, country or no country (what is a country supposed to be now anyway), suddenly isn't neutral now? Nations do supersede countries in other wikipedias, like the one in french for instance. So it's the proof that there's something there and, more importantly, that conventions do change, I was hoping it'd be the first step in it being the case in english as well. Here it feels anyone I talk to just want to preserve the sacrosanct status quo at all costs regardless without fully tackling my arguments or refuse to talk to me to begin with. I can't help but feel a bit disappointed, you revert my edit stating "Quebec is not a nation", I proved it to you, you recognized it, yet nothing changes in the end. Anyway, if I red you correctly, if I were to convince someone else the truth that Québec is a recognized nation, black on white, would I be able to have my edit back? Also, André Quitich.

Take care in all cases. 166.62.226.25 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@166.62.226.25 this seems to be a largely political question, as relates to Quebec's status within Canada, and I really don't think that's the most relevant point when it comes to the short description. As Quebec is still an integral part of Canada, Vigneault is a Canadian citizen, and therefore, I see no reason why it shouldn't state that he is Canadian in the short description. If he wasn't Canadian, on the other hand, then I would agree with you.

I don't think it's the case that other editors want to preserve a sacrosanct status quo–I think you judge too harshly, as you are focused on an issue that others simply don't consider extremely relevant in this context.

When I wrote that Quebec is not a nation, I was using the words "nation" and "country" interchangeably, so not in the definition you are using.

If you seek out a third opinion on Wikipedia, and whoever pitches in sides with you, then yes, you can certainly have your version back. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Sachiin J. Joshi

The film's Telugu title is Veedevadu and the Tamil title is Yaar Ivan?. Since V is before Y, Telugu should be listed first. DareshMohan (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @DareshMohan, I encourage you to start conversations with a greeting—this puts people at ease, makes you seem less combative, and is conducive to a friendly discussion.

I'm not sure your point is valid. Is there a rule somewhere on Wikipedia that supports your reasoning? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I just remember that if two films are released on the same date, the one that comes first alphabetically is listed first. DareshMohan (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you show me where you saw that? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Can't seem to find it -- it should be at WP:ACTOR#Filmography tables. Where can I ask this question -- if two films are released on the same date what is the protocol? DareshMohan (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@DareshMohan, have you tried asking at the Teahouse? WP:Teahouse/About

Emanuela Orlandi

Please explain why you removed a completely accurate and fully cited contribution I made, claiming it was poorly sourced. (description of how the family tried to report the disappearance to the police and spent the night looking for Emanuela). Family members of the missing girl have made exactly the same comments several times on Italian TV. This is a widespread problem with Wikipedia, I know eminent scientists who have had Wikipedia contributions removed by "editors" who knew very little about the subject. DH987 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@DH987 First things first, I'll let you know that I don't appreciate the tone with which you've approached me. The very least that I expect of another editor is a basic greeting. Second, by using quotation marks, you call into question my credibility as an editor. I haven't harmed you in any way, so you have no reason to be disrespectful and combative towards me.

Your anecdote about eminent scientists is not relevant here if your intention is to demonstrate that I was mistaken in reverting your edit.

I checked the revert you are referring to, and it is possible I overlooked the second reference you used. The first one appears to be a book, but there is no way for a reader to reference the claim you make, that is why I called it poorly sourced. You are welcome to replace the second one, as long as it accurately supports your edit. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if I seemed too direct. The point is that I feel people should limit their editorial work to subjects with which they are familiar. I would also regard it as impolite to remove other people's work when it adds to the story. I could also add the recent Netflix documentary as another source which describes the events of that day.. DH987 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@DH987 Thank you for acknowledging. Unfortunately, given that Wikipedia editors are volunteers who come from all walks of life, if everyone limited their editorial work to subjects they are familiar with, I suspect the encyclopedia would be in far worse shape than it is now. As things stand, mistakes are made occasionally, but usually, they are easy to fix; all it takes is dialogue.

The point is not that your work was removed despite adding to the story; it was removed because it wasn't deemed credible.

I don't think a documentary film is considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. Wikipedia would be in a much better shape if people only edited areas they knew about and didn't treat the website as a hobby. You say my contribution was removed because it was not "deemed credible". "Deemed credible" by whom? By you? Anyone who has followed this story (a large part of the population of Italy) would know that what I wrote was true. The documentary film has interviews with the brother, sister and cousin of Emanuela who describe what happened on the day of her disappearance. In what way is your opinion more credible than theirs? Is anyone's account more credible than theirs? I myself have seen accurate, but poorly referenced work on Wikipedia and instead of deleting it found a citation to add to it. I would not delete something if I didn't know whether it was true or not. If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template {{fact}} ({{cn}} will also work) after the statement, which will add [citation needed]. This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information. Documentary films are regarded as acceptable references by Wikipedia if (as in this case) they include accounts given by reliable witnesses (the family members).

Re the comment I made before about scientists. This is the real weakness of Wikipedia - To give a real example; an eminent scientist with important research, numerous publications etc. makes a contribution on his area of expertise in order to improve Wikipedia - an editor (with only basic knowledge of the subject matter) removes it - This happens repeatedly. The scientist thinks "Is it worth the bother?" and stops contributing to Wikipedia. I won't repeat the term he used to refer to over zealous editors, but I hope you get the drift.

My reference to the book was also correct, but incomplete (no page number) - the page could however easily be found by anyone who has the book, DH987 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@DH987 People with real expertise are statistically rare, so if only that rare group of people ever contributed to Wikipedia, there wouldn't be much content on the platform. Sure, it isn't perfect, but it's still the best encyclopedia that has ever existed, despite the occasional glitch, such as what we are currently experiencing.

Wikipedia has standards according to which a documentary film is not deemed to be a reliable source of information, as far as I know. You don't have to agree with this (I do) but that standard was established over countless hours of discussion, so it must stand for something. Besides, I'm sure you realize that documentaries are seldom entirely truthful or reliable.

As for adding a citation instead of deleting content, you are a better editor than I am for doing that. No editor is under the obligation of sourcing references for unsourced or improperly sourced content, and that's generally the approach I take. It's not the way I wish to invest my time, but again, if that's what you wish to do, more power to you.

I'm aware of the cn tag, I use it quite frequently, but I would argue that reverting or deleting someone's improperly added content is just as much encouragement to do better next time.

Going back to your scientist anecdote, as I said last time, that's all that is—anecdote. I mean no offense to you, but I'm not aware of this being a significant problem. Perhaps if it becomes one, policies will be put in place to stem the exodus of eminent scientists who are discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I see you have been in contact with another (Italian) contributor and, I believe have restored some material you had edited out. If so that is positive. Re the comment that documentaries are not regarded by Wikipedia as reliable, I'm afraid you are in error; please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Let me put a simple direct question to you. If your 15 year old daughter or sister disappeared one day and you never saw her again (heaven forbid!) - don't you think that you yourself and your family members would be reliable sources of information about what happened immediately after you realised she was missing? If you were interviewed for a documentary, wouldn't that documentary become a much more reliable source because they were interviewing you and your family rather than random members of the public? To hear your very words and see the look of sincerity in your eyes is surely more reliable than to read a brief written account in a newspaper. DH987 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@DH987 I don't mean to be contrarian, but as you may or may not be aware, eyewitness testimony is possibly the least reliable kind of testimony, so as compelling as your suggested scenario is, I don't think that Emanuela's family are by definition more reliable sources than an investigative journalist, for example. I'm not saying they're not, either, but my point is that you can't rely on what people tell you based on what they remember. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are not being entirely reasonable The details I gave of what happened that night were basic events which are easily remembered. This is not at all the same as eyewitness reports of an accident or a crime, where it is indeed likely that some details will be inaccurate. This is a different situation. A family who remember what happened on the night their sister/cousin/daughter disappeared may not remember all the details of what happened before they realised she was missing, but they will certainly remember the outline of what they did after they became aware. They are the most reliable sources available for what happened that night, because apart from the presumed kidnappers and accomplices, they were the only people directly involved at that point. The family are more concerned than anybody else to report things accurately, as they really desperately want to know what happened to Emanuela and why. Unlike others they have no sordid ulterior motives (protecting reputations, cruelty, notoriety, money - or whatever has motivated other actors in this story) I will check when I have time and make sure the material I added (or equivalent) is in place with appropriate citations. If it is edited out again I suppose I can either ask an admin to intervene or give up on it. DH987 (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@DH987 I'm happy to continue having this conversation with you, and ideally, to find a compromise, but not if you're going to cast aspersions on me. I try my best to be as reasonable as possible. I'm not perfect, and neither are you. You could have said everything you just said in your last comment without calling me unreasonable. Can you try to avoid doing that in the future? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear Revirvlkodlaku,

I'm the user who in this days added informations to the Disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi article. With all the respect and collaboration, I really do not understand why you deleted many informations accompained by certified sources. I really do not understand which is the criterion. Those are not low-relevance informations. They are key-role informations about the whole Orlandi case.

For the "Cardinal Poletti part" the source is even the Italian Minister of Interior. What do you want more?

For the "Emanuela 's friend testimony about sex scandal theory" we could say that the source is the Netflix serie itself (the first to publish that interview), but I added also a newspaper which reported the new. What's more? You left the Father Amorth part, which is a less reliable source (maybe it's just an Amorth's personal fantasy) and could be a mere Amorth's speculation, but you deleted a certified key testimony of the whole case (Emanuela's best friend)? What is the criterion?

You targeted the informations I added as "low-relevance". Maybe you do not have a whole view of the tragic Orlandi case. The informations I reported are far away from beign low-relevance. They are parts of fundamental elements, without which maybe the case would have been dropped years ago.

I can understand that this is a sensitive subject. The Orlandi case is such complex that in 40 years we had so many other speculations, elements and tracks and we can't add them all. I can understand that. Many of them have been proven false or not reliables. I think I know how Wikipedia works. I have been collaborating with it for a while now. I know we have to be very carefull on what we write. For example, I would never add Marco Accetti's trail (who claimed to be the kidnapper of Emanuela) because he is considered not very reliable (althought he was very very important in the investigations) and now it would be low relevance. But the few informations I added (De Pedis' favor to Cardinal Poletti part, Emanuela's friend testimony and the recent audio published last December) are some of the few elements considered to be very important and credibles. And I accompanied them with reliable sources (major newspapers). Again, I do not understand the criterion of "This one yes, this one no".

The lack of these fundamental informations does not allow to have a clear view of the Orlandi case, which is very very important. Especially now.

Best regards and thank you

Giovanni

Hi Giovanni, I can see why my deletions would be frustrating to you. I'm not very familiar with the topic itself, so my edits on it are not personal, nor is the subject matter sensitive to me. All I've tried to do is to clean up the article and keep it free from unhelpful edits. I'm not entirely sure which of my reverts or deletions you are referring to (it would be helpful if you provided diffs), and as far as I know, I wasn't the first editor to delete the section about the sex scandal theory resurfacing. After it was first removed, under the basis that it was not referenced with reliable sources (I believe citations were from the Sun, which is a tabloid), I merely made sure to keep the same content off the page, as some unregistered user(s) insisted on re-adding it—perhaps that was you? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Yes, it was me all the times (althought I see right now I am not the only one to edit Orlandi's article in these days, the reference is to the user who write before me in this Talk about the same matter). I thought that despite I am not registered on Wikipedia, the "User number" would be still the same and so it was easy to see that it was always the same person. Maybe I was wrong. I am still unregistered on Wikipedia, but I edit on it often. In all these years I have learned to respect and follow the policies as best I can.

Anyway.

Yes, I saw that the first time you deleted my "sex scandal theory resurfacing" was because the reference I added was from a tabloid (so not a very riable source). My mistake. I later re-integrated the paragraph, but this time with a reference that was already present on the article from Newsweek (note [8], What Happened to Emanuela Orlandi?". Newsweek. 21 October 2022. Retrieved 24 October 2022). The others informations you deleted I was referencing to were the one I added in this version [[1]]. Sorry for my rough link. I don't know if there is an ordinary way to insert the link of the revisions. I hope you can find it.

The versions I added and that you deleted in that version were very important elements of the case, and I added them with articles from important newspapers.

If you will not able to see the revert/deletions page with the rude link I sent, I could re-integrated the informations in the article and then you could examine them. Tell me how do you prefer to do.

Thanks again for your disponibility

Giovanni 2.36.99.140 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@2.36.99.140 Giovanni, while it is true that your user number demonstrates consistent authorship, I do encourage you to become a registered user, as this not only makes it easier for others to communicate with you, but in my opinion, gives you more credibility on this platform.

The second and subsequent times the "sex scandal theory resurfacing" content was added, I didn't check if the reference had been improved, so that is on me.

The diff you've provided is good enough, thank you. I think the reason I removed that content was because I didn't consider it sufficiently important and additionally, since I was already biased against an unregistered user who insisted on reinserting content I had removed more than once, my willingness to peruse it more closely was limited. It seems to me that one could write endlessly on this topic and include any number of details, but not all of them will be equally relevant, and surely, not all detail needs to be mentioned on a Wikipedia page, would you agree? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku Well, yes, of course I agree. Especially on topics such as this, we have to carefully choose what to publish and what can be omitted. As I said, the Orlandi case created so many informations,

alleged clues, speculations, false tracks and so on, that moving inside this case is very difficult. I agree with you that sometimes, writing too much in the name of transparency and completeness, can lead to the opposite effect. It can be confusing and thus, not only not helpful, but even harmful. Nevertheless I do believe that the informations I added are very very important. Just consider that two of those elements (Emanuela's friend testimony and the audio) are very probably the reason why Italian and (for the firts time in forty years) Vatican authorities decided to re-open investigations. So, I do believe these information are worth to be added.

So, it's ok for you if in the next hours I'm gonna reinsert these informations (De Pedis'favor to Cardinal Poletti, Emanuela's friend testimony and the audio with the proper sources) in the article? It would be very important. Let me know. If you agree, I will write in the Edit summary "Reinsert by Giovanni", so you will know they will be my modifications and not someone else's. In the next days I will also consider to become a registered user, in order to avoid to repeat this inconvenience again. Thansk for the advice on the matter.

While I'm at it, I would like to ask your opinion on the idea of insert some images in the Emanuela Orlandi's article. I do believe that the proper one would be the missing poster of Emanuela (just search on internet, it's very famous), which since her disappearance has become the symbol of this whole case. In the days after she desappeared, Rome was literally covered with that type of poster. It was everywhere. Maybe it could be added in the infobox. I thought it might be a good idea. Let me know.

Thanks again

Giovanni 2.36.99.140 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@2.36.99.140 Giovanni, it sounds like we are mostly on the same page, which is always gratifying. I'm glad we were able to get to this place through dialogue 🙂

Yes, please go ahead and make the additions; I appreciate the thorough explanation on your part.

As for images, I think that's a great idea. The important thing is to make sure that you have all the necessary permissions to add any image to Wikimedia, but once that is satisfied, I definitely agree that the article could benefit from more visual and familiar aspects of the case. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku I just now reinserted the informations with proper sources, writing "Reinsert by Giovanni" in the Edit summary, so you will see it was me.

Thank you very much for your disposability and collaboration. I appriciate that.

Glad we agree. As I said, I have been in the "Wikipedia world" for a while now, so I perfectly know that often you have to deal with so many people who claims to have the right to write "whatever they want" on anything, ignoring source policies and so on, and then they ask you why but without basic resepct, almost attacking you. For this reason, I say thank you for your editor work (that also takes away time from you personal life). It's a very difficult role. Especially in and Encyclopedia that anyone in the entire World can edit. Your work is fundamental. Thank you for that.

As for images, if I am not wrog, once I am registered on Wikipedia I should be able to add them. Isn't it?

Thanks again for you time

Giovanni 2.36.99.140 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my input on Wikipedia. The work we all put into this monumental endeavour is tireless and seldom goes recognized, and I think it's important, in the very least, that the community be recognizant to its members, and for us to express this to each other once in a while :)

I'm not too sure what is required for adding images, as I haven't tried doing so myself, but I do believe it should be relatively easy for you to do as a registered user. All the best! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hudba Praha has been accepted

Hudba Praha, 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.

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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Edits made by you using script

Hello,

Some changes I made today to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Redekopp&direction=next&oldid=1138509649 were reverted by a script of yours. Presumably these changes were due to number styles, but they don't appear to have made changes to numbers. The changes removed links I had added.

If there is a style problem with the links I added, please help me understand. Thank you. Bartsch Labs (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Bartsch Labs, the links you are referring to were not removed by the script, I removed them manually. When a page has been externally linked once, it need not be linked again in the same article; I removed an excess of links to the same, already-linked pages, as per WP:OVERLINK. Cheers. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Grant Naylor Productions

Thanks for your help copyediting this page. In case you weren't aware, I just wanted to let you know that the term 'series' is preferred for runs of episodes of television shows in Britain (rather than 'season'), and per the MOS should be changed back to series. Thanks, Morwen (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cackleberry Island

The article Cackleberry Island has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Could not find significant coverage to establish notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Cackleberry Island for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cackleberry Island until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 17:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wah! Wah! Wah! WAH! WAH! WAH!

Wah! Wah! Wah! WAH! WAH! WAH! Just grow up! You old already!– Vilnisr ^{T | C} 19:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)