User talk:Lieutenant of Melkor

RULES:

1. If you post here, I will reply here.
2. If I post on your talk page, please reply there. However, if you move the dialogue here, it will continue here.
3. If you make a query, and I do not respond within 24–36 hours, most often I am either busy, or do not care that much for your query and do not know how to refuse it.
4. The following are under no circumstances welcome to post here (or use the "e-mail user" function to communicate with me) and must communicate via an intermediary or else face certain reversion via popups: HiLo48, N-HH, Chipmunkdavis, NULL

July 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Olympia, Washington. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TBrandley (T • C • B) 04:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Default ordering of Template:Weather box

Thanks. Just need to find someone who knows how to fix the template. Plus the few left over conversion errors. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

NYC

Reminiscent of DC does not invalidate source. You could have made the JUL AUG corrections or tagged instead of deleting. I checked source & made some changes per source--JimWae (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Please check your facts before making baseless accusations (Was: 2012 Yunnan earthquakes)

In regards to your recent edit, please learn to check your facts before making baseless accusations of wrong doing. Wikipedia defines vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". If you check the effect of the edit that you question you will see the net result is to change the map displayed in the article's infobox from a close up of a single Chinese province to a map of the entire country. How does using a map that allows most English speaking readers to better understand the location of an event qualify as vandalism under Wikipedia's definition? Do you honestly believe that most visitors to the English language Wikipedia possess detailed knowledge of China's geography? It might also be useful if you determine who added the infobox to the article and see if that person has any problems with the change (hint, the addition occurred 3 minutes prior to the edit you have labelled as vandalism). Finally I would suggest you read essays such as Wikipedia:On assuming good faith, Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal", and Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. The advice contained in these essays, and the other pages these essays link to, would help you avoid inappropriate actions such as the edit which prompted this message. --Allen3 ^talk 19:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

1) The indisputable fact that it is a reduction of precision amounts to unexplained removal of content. 2) Yes, I cannot speak for the ignorance or cognizance of visitors to English-language Wikipedia, but one thing I am certain about is: in an equivalent article on an earthquake in the U.S., knowledge of the state, even if happens to be as unimportant as Missouri, is more often than not assumed. If you are from the U.S. and read international news outlets regularly, you should also know. This is unfair treatment, given China is, in terms of geographic area, equivalent to the U.S. 3) As I have alluded to in numerous edit summaries, to introduce a province every fucking time it is mentioned (yes, your switch of the pushpin map may be interpreted in that light) in a biographical, events, etc. article consumes far too much space and actually belittles the reader's knowledge. If the reader happens to not know, then a wikilink serves that purpose, and IMO, provides a greater incentive to look up information on one's own than stupidly blurting out, for example, "the explosion, which occurred in Northeast China's Jilin province, killed...". More importantly, making exceptions to this "introduce the province" rule that exists in most media sources for only Beijing and Shanghai: A) does little to improve readers' knowledge of Chinese geography. B) potentially casts other areas in an unimportant light. GotR ^Talk 20:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI

I noticed your recent back and forth with User:211oo1 on the Xinjiang article. The editor that reverted your edit, User:Sayonara101, has only three edits, and looks like a single-purpose account whose sole purpose was to add back the content that User:211oo1 created. Does this look like something for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? I assume the reversion was made in good faith, and I can understand his frustration with the human rights situation in Xinjiang which I sympathize with, but the circumstantial evidence raises red flags.--Ross Monroe (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)