User talk:NEDOCHAN

Welcome

Hello, NEDOCHAN, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

NEDOCHAN, good luck, and have fun.  Cheers!

Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 13:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

English

This isn't a warning or anything. Just a reminder that when you're editing MMA bios, use American English for American fighters. Reason I'm sending this is because you used "recognising" on Jon Jones' page instead of "recognizing". TBMNY (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies that was a mistake. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary

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:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

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:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

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! MX (✉ • ✎) 13:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Would like your input on this.

If you wouldn't mind, could you give your vote on this? Thanks. TBMNY (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, NEDOCHAN. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Bute

OK - per your User page - what's this about? Ben MacDui 18:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

'While' is more appropriate language for an encyclopedia, as it's an international English word. Also, in a factual description of the geography of an area, the literary, wistful 'whilst' stuck out like a sore thumb.

I can't agree - WP:ENGVAR applies. According to Wiktionary the word is "Mostly restrained to use in British English" and this little thread here also suggests the same. The thread isn't very specific but the word is also more commonly used in Scotland than England and certainly has none of the characteristics there that you suggest. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Assessment/FA. ('While' also means 'until' in some British dialects, although that is not a reason to avoid using it.) Ben MacDui 19:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Purcell

What the hell are you doing restoring an anon vandalistic edit? DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Patience- I was fixing it- sorted now. The issue was that the blanking was not the only problem with the previous edit, and that was all that was undone. So I needed to go back to the way it was before the pointless and destructive edit.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Then use better edit summaries, and it would heve been easier just to call up the diff between the last good version and the current one and click "restore this version". DuncanHill (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK- mend your words a little, please, I have not been aggressive. It would have been easier simply to revert the entire anon edit in the first place, too. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Michael Page (fighter)

• Michael Page (fighter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello NEDOCHAN. If you want to submit an edit warring report, please follow the instructions at the top of the board. Your complaint had to be removed because it was malformed. And if there is a war on this article, it's hard to see why both parties aren't in violation. Consider using the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Yes I am not quite sure what the due process is as regards reporting. I believe the difference is that I have attempted to resolve the issue on the article's talk page and that of the anon ed in question. I have repeatedly attempted to discuss it. Please could you advise?NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Try giving an explanation of your concerns at Talk:Michael Page (fighter). I.e., use the article talk page. People are not required to respond to your comments, but often they do. If you can't get an answer there, you could post on a project talk page, such as WT:WikiProject Boxing. If you are reverted by an IP that is not enough reason for admins to take action. You are expected to discuss with IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	It's the small things that make a big difference. Thank you for serving Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sting

Regarding your revert on the Sting article (discussion before reverting would be preferred in future), the template guidance asks for:

• For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
• Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together

Can you please explain how Eric Clapton (appeared on same charity effort), Dire Straits (added vocals to one track), Phil Collins (the odd charity effort, backing vocals on a couple of album tracks), Peter Gabriel (only toured with), Paul Simon (toured with), and Shaggy (one album with him) meet these criteria, or remove them from the list. The album with Shaggy maybe applies, the others probably not. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you not see the contradiction here? You say discussion would be preferred, I agree. Yet you deleted all the associated acts bar The Police without discussion. I reverted to the way it was before. Anyway 'toured with' clearly fine. Unsure why 'only toured with' is relevant. So given the tours with Simon, Gabriel and Shaggy they're in. Sting is credited on Dire Straits biggest hit and receives half of the royalties. Definite association. I agree that Clapton probably shouldn't be there so would recommend taking that to the talk page rather than deleting them all without discussion and then complaining about a lack of discussion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The touring criterion is not 'toured with', it's 'toured with as a single collaboration act playing together'. This means they are performing as an act together, not just appearing in the same concerts. The collaboration criterion requires 'multiple occasions' - appearing on one track clearly doesn't satisfy this. I'm not sure why you are not getting this. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean like the Sting and Paul Simon tour? Called 'On stage together'? Or the Sting and Peter Gabriel tour? Where they played together? Or the Shaggy tour? Where they played together? The guide is pretty clearly saying that a support act for instance wouldn't mean an association but a tour where both acts collaborate would. It's really obvious. So the tours above, which are tours of both acts, clearly count. Look them up.NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

MMA title box

Hi, you reverted my edit of the title box. I feel I clarified the 'mixed gender' description. Saying 'separate' in isolation does not qualify that the practicing of the sport involves mixed gender training, but it is the events which are separate genders. However, saying 'Yes, separate male and female events' does give this information. The term 'separate' in isolation is too brief and potentially misleading.

Where is it stated that unified MMA rules can only be practiced in indoor venues? The descriptions I have read make absolutely no mention of it. Besides, the page is not exclusively a page for unified rules MMA- which fluctuate anyway.

Fighting ring is an excessive description; it is usually the same ring as in boxing or kick boxing- both of which are referred to as 'rings'. I am not aware of any modifications which would warrant the name change. Could you please allow my edits to stand?RickyBennison (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem- appreciate the communication. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much.RickyBennison (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Khabib Issues

Hey,

Appreciate what you're doing with the Khabib artile but I just wanted to point out that the reason I put "Having never lost a fight in his career" bit in the sentence that follows: "Khabib is a two-time Combat Sambo World Champion and currently holds the longest undefeated streak in MMA, with 27 wins" is because often in MMA (but mostly in UFC), commentators and fans discuss undefeated streaks that are current. For example, Joe Rogan often says "Tony Ferguson has a x undefeated streak". This means Tony has been undefeated for x amount of fights but that doesn't mean that he hasn't lost before. Do you see where I'm getting at? By adding the "Having never lost a fight" bit we can make sure that it is clear to the readers that he has never ever lost a fight, not that he is currently on an undefeated streak, as some readers can take it to mean as such. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You do need to calm it all down a bit. You have twice been pretty rude, although calling me an 'amateur' is accurate, unless you get paid for this, which I think unlikely. I have changed it for clarity, as we don't know whether he has lost a wrestling match or anything else. Also, your adverbial clause (having never lost a fight) did not relate to the main clause, so there were various things wrong aside from the fact that it did appear tautological.I have changed it to a compromise and I'd be grateful if we could leave it at that. Simply reinstating your own edits ad nauseam isn't the right way to go about things.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange

I would very much appreciate if you, didn't revert edits based solely on your opinion and without prior discussion, and, correctly reviewed any grammar you decide to critique, as "The images leave Alex nauseous" is as grammatically correct as "Alex becomes nauseated by". I would also advise against an edit war.

My Favourite Account ^Talk 22:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted an edit which made changes that did not improve the article. I should point out that you made the changes to the article without discussion. I restored it to how it was before. I did not actively critique the grammar, but rather reactively restored the article to how it was before your changes. Nauseated is the correct adjective. Even if, in your opinion, they're the same, then that still means there's no justification for changing an article. If you're correct, then you simply made a synonymous edit. If you're not, then I restored the correct version. Either way no improvement was made. As for an edit war, I would remind you that you changed a perfectly good article and I restored. It's on you.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The contentious issue appears to be in the following change

"Alex becomes nauseated by the films, and then recognises the films are set to music of his favourite composer, Ludwig van :Beethoven. Fearing the technique will make him sick upon hearing Beethoven, Alex begs for an end to the treatment."

to:

"The images leave Alex nauseous and he begs for an end to the treatment, fearing the soundtrack will leave him feeling the same :upon hearing the music of his favourite composer, Ludwig van Beethoven."

Having requested that you did not revert the edit, again, without prior discussion, I will attempt to address the following :concerns.

"No improvement and a couple of errors (i.e. nauseated correct))" (Initial reversion edit summary)

"I should point out that you made the changes to the article without discussion"... I make edits in good faith, your :reversions assume none. Wikipedia encourages bold edits, however, only major changes to an :article needs prior discussion or consensus.

"I did not actively critique the grammar", "Nauseated is the correct adjective"... How is "a couple of errors" not an active :critique? and just how was it helpful?

"My edit was clearly explained"... How? By implying edits are mistakes you alienate and drive away potential editors, making :yourself the disruptive element

"Nauseated is not the same as nauseous. However, even if it is, it's the same meaning, so why did YOU change it?" (Second reversion :edit summary)... You seem so assured, at first, that I had introduced at least one grammatical error?

"So the onus is on you to demonstrate improvement", "It's on you"... here goes

For clarification and to make sure the wording is accurate, it needed stipulating that it was just the :images from the film that were causing nausea, not the soundtrack. There was unnecessary repetition in both sentences, of :Beethoven and terms for 'make sick'.

It was neatly reduced to a single sentence.

From reviewing your contributions, it appears you like to revert, so often contentiously and based on opinion.

My Favourite Account ^Talk 21:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you criticise me for 'opinion' when that is all you seem to be offering. Also, that your edits are good faith but mine assume none. I should also point out that there has already been consensus that agrees with me. Your other bone of contention seems to be that saying 'Alex becomes nauseated by the films' is ambiguous, as it was the images of the films that made him feel nauseated. That is a strange thing to say. 'I went to see a scary film' is not ambiguous. It would not invite the response, 'What was scary, the images?'.

As for your saying I like to revert, then I would respond by saying that I revert unexplained changes which do not improve articles. You'll notice that I rarely get in arguments. And I don't blank my talk page. And this is not 'my favourite account' but my only one.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why you need me to explain the meaning of each comment. It was not a criticism of you for "opinion", simply that yours is not superior. My edits are made in good faith, your reversions suggested otherwise. You have incorrectly assumed that I am an American and that your English is impeccable. Both are untrue, evident in your last 2 edits to the article on 9 September, among others. Still, you argue my usage of "nauseous" is wrong, even after writing earlier, "even if it is". Either it is or it isn't. If you aren't sure, why are you arguing? Each scary film is accompanied by a soundtrack composed specifically for that film, often quite scary in their own right. The works of Beethoven were not composed for the same purpose and are far from scary unaccompanied by images. Your recent contributions reveal several repeated reversions that came close to edit warring, one of which you also consider the opinions of two constitute a consensus, and your talk page history reveals some bickering over edit wars, reversions and aggression. As for blanking my talk page, had you chosen to research properly, you would have seen I removed a single comment from an editor who had committed a string of acts of vandalism and was blocked shortly after, and finally, this too is my only account.My Favourite Account  ^😊 13:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

First, I did not assume you were American. I said your misunderstanding of the difference between the words might be as a result of its use in US English. Read it again. Secondly, I did not make any edits on 9 September, so not sure what you mean there. Thirdly, read this. 'Nauseated is the correct adjective. Even if, in your opinion, they're the same, then that still means there's no justification for changing an article.' This is not demonstrative of uncertainty. The point was that the words are not the same. Even if they were/are (which they're not), then it's still a synonymous edit, which are pointless. Fourthly, another editor agreed with me. None has agreed with you. So that's a lot more consensus than you got. Blanking talk pages is blanking talk pages, which is discouraged. Finally, if this is your only account, you seem to be awfully keen to argue for a new editor. Now, the main point. I sought to compromise. I changed it to include your edit as to the ambiguity you felt was there. I was civil and assumed good faith. You reverted my compromise. You offered no compromise, which is odd considering I'm supposed to be the one being argumentative. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So tired of explaining every sentence to someone who shows such little effort. [Edit 1 09:37, 9 November 2018], [Edit 2 09:42, 9 November 2018‎]. I'm sure you tried so very hard to find these two. You say I made no compromise? Did you even look?. Wow! One person agreed with you and you're trying so hard to make something of it, are you really usually so starved of support. 26 June 2017, you're hardly a veteran on Wiki, as if that even matters in this case. Enough with all your BS, I'm done. My Favourite Account  ^😊 04:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey

Hi NEDOCHAN

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0xE0vVW1MclX1d3

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, NEDOCHAN. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

hi

NEDOCHAN,

what u remove my edits for?

Kawhilaugh42 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe I explained the edit quite clearly. The incident which you wrote about had already been dealt with in the article. Your edit also did not display a neutral point of view.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NEDOCHAN. You have new messages at TBMNY's talk page.
Message added 16:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TBMNY (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)