User talk:SUM1

Good work!

Keep up the good work, such as your creation of the Nambya language stub. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Gyula Peidl

Thanks for expanding Gyula Peidl article. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. My pleasure. SpikeballUnion 14:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligent work. As I see, there are also quality articles about other Hungarian prime ministers in the interwar period, e.g. István Friedrich, Károly Huszár or István Bethlen. I would be grateful if you could translate those into English in the future. Unfortunately I do not speak Spanish. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice. I'm interested to do so when I get time. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Norden1990 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

István Friedrich

Wow, thank you very much! Nice work, I'm really grateful. Just a remark: currently the references do not point out to publications. Could you translate the "Bibliografía" section too? --Norden1990 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Just translated and added the Bibliography section now. Thanks for reminding me. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Norden1990 (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Translations of the other articles should come soon when I get the time. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I may do a translation of the Aster Revolution, seeing as the Spanish article has "good" status rather than the Hungarian one, confusingly. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Hungarian Barnstar of National Merit
		For all of your excellent translation work about Hungarian politicians. Wear it with pride. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Iran's Population

Hi, I'm unable to edit the Iran page as it's protected. Population count needs correcting since the latest National Census. It gives a count for Nov 2016 and a projection for March 2017. Wiki page currently overstates at 82.8 million. I'd appreciate you editing it, thanks.

https://financialtribune.com/articles/domestic-economy/61421/national-census-preliminary-results-released-irans-urban-population IR94025190 (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this notification. I made the correction yesterday. SpikeballUnion (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for openion

Article Legitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved to Legitimacy (law) requesting your openion at Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Global wind patterns

I don't understand why Global wind patterns was deleted. I see nothing wrong with the grammar and because it is an overview article, sources can be found in the linked articles. Perhaps it could be combined with Prevailing winds, but I don't see an easy way to do it. If anything, it should be linked to Atmospheric circulation which is closer, but is rather theoretical and does not emphasize the surface winds. Prevaling Winds is disorganized, hides importand facts inside details and misses or obscures the 30-degree width of the belts, the parallelism of northern and southern hemispheres, the annual north-south movement, the relation between the belts and doldrums/horse latitudes, the relation between monsoons and land and sea breezes, mixes surface winds with the upper-level counter-circulation in the cells and misses the relation between air and ocean circulation. Deletion removes useful information for no purpose. I think Global wind patterns is a good overview and should to be restored.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page of Global wind patterns, it was just a worse version of the Prevailing winds article. It had no sources, no layout and thorough poor grammar and spacing. It's not the norm to have a bad article serve as an "overview article" on Wikipedia. If you wanted an "overview article", you would create an article named "Outline of prevailing winds" as is the norm on Wikipedia. However, it's not necessary for such a small article as Prevailing winds. SpikeballUnion (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Prevailing winds is rated as a good article, so you might want to talk to the people who brought it to that rating if you disagree. SpikeballUnion (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain why the grammar is poor? Perhaps my grammar is so poor that I did not notice. Why is it a worse version? As noted above, it has more basic information and is expressed more clearly. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It did not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style in any way, shape or form. But this was by far not the most important issue. You have yet to address the fact that you've attempted to have a bad article serve as an "overview article" on Wikipedia for an article that is already rated good and is in no need of a separate article glossing over its content. If you don't like the Prevailing winds article or feel it's missing something, edit it. This is what Wikipedia encourages. Be sure to keep it meeting the good article criteria it's achieved, though. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I cannot find anything in the Manual of Style that the article violated (??). It was not an attempt to simplify Prevailing winds. I do not know of any reason to thing the article was bad. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't take long to find that your article failed to follow Section organisation, Text formatting - Names and titles, all of Lead section since it had no lead section, etc. If you've read at least some Wikipedia articles, you'll know that Global wind patterns doesn't follow any established structure and makes it hard for the reader to follow for this very reason. There's a reason articles have a standardised structure on Wikipedia. Also, "references for this summary article can be found in the linked articles" is not an appropriate excuse on Wikipedia for an article having no sources. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Liaison (French)#Recent move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Liaison (French)#Recent move. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Grand Funk Railroad

Hello SpikeballUnion, I removed a disruptive IP edit that effected the maintenance templates you had placed, I just wanted to give you a heads-up, you might want to have a look and see if any of the issues have been resolved, Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 08:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. SpikeballUnion (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Garam shah lā garam shah

Hi, I'm Boleyn. SpikeballUnion, thanks for creating Garam shah lā garam shah!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Map of zones of Ethiopia.svg

Thank you for making this beautiful map. Can you please add the label for Doolo/Dollo Zone? Thanks! Cobblet (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing out that mistake. I also made the colours brighter so they're easier to differentiate. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SUM1. 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)

Your edit

Sorry, i had to revert your edits because you deleted some other users messages.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it was an edit conflict that didn't show up to me, because I only posted my vote. SUM1 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah i understand, it happens to me too. My goal was just to let you know why i rollbacked your two edits. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tdl1060 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This was not necessary. Refer to discussion above. SUM1 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Torp (architecture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thorpe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palestinians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian exodus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Politics of Israel

Please revert your introduction of incorrect grammar into this article. "politics" is a singular noun and should not be treated as a plural. Thanks, Number 57 21:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Please watch what you're reverting. If you had an issue with the grammatical number of "politics" (which you do, since you've reverted a bunch of other people over the same thing), then revert only that. You restored incorrect bolding, missing links and double spaces. Now, on the issue of "politics", I edited in line with several other "Politics of ..." articles (Politics of Belgium, Politics of Canada, Politics of the Netherlands, etc.). If you disagree with that so strongly, then go ahead and change "are" to "is", since the dictionary consensus is in your favour. SUM1 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the incorrect grammatical changes – it's not a question of disagreeing strongly, it's a simple question of what's right and wrong when it comes to English grammar. I also don't see any issues with the bolding, although I'm guessing you must be one of the stickers that insists the bolded text must match the article title exactly (which in practice, isn't the case across much of Wikipedia).

I'd be interested to know where I've reverted other people on the same thing. This isn't a very common mistake and I don't recall seeing many other editors making it. Number 57 21:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Then I accept that the grammatical number of "politics" was wrong, however you proceed to go back on the "right-wrong vs. opinion" logic by saying that it doesn't matter if the bold text matches the title because it isn't the case much "in practice". That doesn't matter. Wherever I see it, I fix it, because it's wrong. I realise that if the text redirects to the article, it can be bold, but why forfeit standardisation? Virtually every "Politics of ..." article begins with "The politics of [country]". That's something I don't understand why you insisted on changing. And, on a third note, I added beneficial links and removed double spaces, which you reverted. On the topic of you reverting other people, I mistook one revert for this, but you did revert someone here. SUM1 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

So one other person is a bunch? Clearly plurals are not your strong point ;) I reverted the whole set of changes because (a) I didn't see the removal of double spaces due to the lack of contrast on my screen, and I didn't feel the internal links you added were beneficial. Number 57 21:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That remark was completely unnecessary. I just told you I mistook one revert you made being for "politics" when it wasn't and was ready to accept that. Be civil. SUM1 (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Both the links I added help the unfamiliar user understand the article. SUM1 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SUM1. 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)

Derg

You revert the correct definition of a political party Derg. The current version is meaningless and inaccurate manner. It doesn't sense me that the accurate definition til. Please find the correct and obvious definition for Derg for the "first page paragraph" if you are free. Video game task (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Video game task: Your version is inaccurate. Firstly, you write that the Derg "is". The Derg does not exist anymore. Secondly, you omit the definite article from the title. Thirdly, you remove several acceptable synonyms and official names for the Derg. Additionally, your version has terrible grammar and for that reason alone it cannot remain. SUM1 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

POV Pushing on Francafrique

I have reverted your edit once again. You need to stop POV pushing and discuss this issue and actually get consensus. You made a bold edit, I reverted, we then discuss. THAT is how things are done in WP. See WP:BRD. OK?!?! danielkueh (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Danielkueh: I'm not sure why you consider "a system of foreign policy adopted by France towards its former African colonies" a more controversial edit than "France's relationship with its former African colonies". There's no POV to push here, only a spirit of accuracy, for example to specify that Françafrique is a specific arrangement and not just all relationships ever between France and its former African colonies, which is just a lie. All the citations refer directly to my proposal:

• BBC: "The system of personal networks which backed these controversial practices is pejoratively referred to as "Francafrique"."
• The New York Times: "These arrangements, dubbed “Françafrique,”"
• openDemocracy: "Françafrique, the special French way of doing business in Africa to preserve its economic interests"

I also haven't seen anyone else but you dispute this type of edit to the lead sentence. In fact, I've seen many people try to edit the lead sentence with what could actually be called "POV pushing", like adding "neo-colonialist", which I'm not trying to do, most of which have been reverted by you.

If we can't come to an agreement, I'd be happy to open up a request for comment on this edit. SUM1 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@SUM1: Best to discuss this on the talk page there. Appreciate the quotes and sources. However, they have to be seen in context. These articles are describing Francafrique as it was applied in the decades right after the 1960s. For example, the full quote from the New York Times opinion piece (my emphasis in bold):

"When France gave most of its African colonies independence in 1960, it retained considerable control. French advisers pulled the strings in ministries from Abidjan to Libreville and reported directly to Jacques Foccart, Charles de Gaulle’s powerful chief advisor on African affairs, a man who could decide to overthrow a president or send French paratroopers to rescue one.

These arrangements, dubbed “Françafrique,” remained almost untouched for nearly three decades, no matter who ruled in the Élysée Palace.

All that changed after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. France’s attention progressively turned to Europe, with the enlargement of the European Union, the opening up of Central and Eastern Europe and the perception that the troubled African continent was waning as an asset."

Likewise, from the BBC:

"Critics have consistently railed against what they perceive as a form of hypocrisy.

They say France has repeatedly used anti-democratic means on the continent to further dictatorships or overthrow unfriendly governments if they serve French interests, while openly extolling democratic values.

The system of personal networks which backed these controversial practices is pejoratively referred to as "Francafrique".

The times are long gone when a French commando unit would fly parachutes in broad daylight into an African capital to restore a deposed head of state."

If this point of view of Francafrique remains unchanged 'till this day, you have a point. But as the above articles show, it isn't. The term and situation have clearly evolved and I'm not sure fixing the definition to a particular period (1960s-1990s) is the best approach. Hence, the present definition, which came from a New York Times news article ([[1]]), which I just noticed, was mysteriously edited out. In fact, a couple of the sources (e.g., Al Jazeera) are questionable and heavily tilted. Similarly, I won't be commenting on the opendemocracy article above as that site is not impartial, especially as a reliable source for an encyclopedia article. That said, I myself have nothing against its agenda or politics but that is besides the point. danielkueh (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have started a new discussion thread on the article's talk page. Best to continue this discussion there. Since it's the weekend, I may not be prompt in my responses. Please don't take it personally or assume I'm no longer engaged. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TMS (production team), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Read All About It (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Prion

Hi there, when you get a moment, please review your edit of Prion (here), which I just reverted. I have no doubt this was meant as an improvement to the article, but there were a lot of formatting issues in there. Perhaps a copy and pasting error? There were also a lot of errant pipes | and nowiki tags really messing things up. I thought it best to simply revert, but please do resubmit the improvements you made. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: Hmm I notice that now. I've no idea how those get in there, but I use the VisualEditor mainly and it sometimes causes lots of artefacts. I'll revise the edit in source editor and resubmit it. Thanks. SUM1 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SUM1,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SUM1,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SUM1,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of counseling topics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Counselor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I think your maps of languages in Africa are fantastic! ElVacilando (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)