Jump to content

User talk:Philipnelson99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:143:c701:8ac0:607d:8c3:720d:f06a (talk) at 21:47, 10 January 2023 (→hi i want to say hi hi: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome!

Hello, Philipnelson99! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 16:02, Tuesday, November 5, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together


Imagine Wizard

Hello, Philipnelson99. You have new messages at Imagine Wizard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

About revert

Sorry, i had a mistake And thanks for reverting

by: Jappa11

Regarding your undo notification on my talk page

A Wall Street Journal article was cited The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak. Is it not considered a reliable source? Thank you for your clarification. I found your conclusion quite arbitrary.

The same reply was also posted on my talk page.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.CatchBias (talk)


just change in religion of Ivory Coast

I just add a reference about religion in Ivory coast. just look over there or you can see this link https://www.britannica.com/place/Cote-dIvoire/Languages

In relation to your comments on Sangamner page

Hello, you may be misinformed in judging my edits on Sangamner page. I have not removed any info. I have just put an additional info and just corrected some few grammatical errors. Thanks for your concern.

Well hello there.

So you believe to be constructive to call the term Unidentified Flying Object pseudoscience? Until the phenomenon is described its an object that is unidentified and appears to be flying so that would be the correct scientific term for it, you could also call them UAPs like Hillary Clinton said. I believe you are actually seeking to misinform people and what you are doing will not go unnoticed. There is an official report from the Navy stating that the videos that were leaked are official and show a real object confirmed by several different radars. What you sir and Wikipedia are doing is straight up lying. Since describing objects for what they are is pseudoscience I will make sure to tell everyone I know that Wikipedia is a conspiracy page. Have fun in 2021 https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

Neutral POV

You call Fox bashing "neutral"? You call Daily Beast a 'reliable' source? Relying on Mr. Potato Head Brian Stelter as a source is 'neutral'? Please....


Saying Changing Sergio Busquets To "Buckets" Is Not Constructive

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here Phillip, I'd say changing Sergio Busquets to Sergio Buckets is extremely constructive. He's an excellent player and played well in his match against Italy today, I'm sure he'd approve Buckets instead of Busquets. Cheers

thank you

oh, alright. thanks for telling me

Lisa Nowak

I'm sorry I put that on Lisa Nowak's page. I was bored, but that doesn't make it right. I apologize and it won't happen again. God Bless!

Previous edit

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and just tried removing libelous content on Jimmy Dore's page. Any thoughts on the correct way to go about it?

clarification

Just to correct you, I DID in fact state my reason in the edit summary. It was a good edit. Please refrain from altering the page in the future. Have a nice day Philip.

Too Colourful for the League - link you removed

The previous link was to the wrong Ari Cohen. I'm the producer's assistant. He does not have a wiki page. His production company is https://www.rotatingplanet.com/ - he doesn't have any presence under his own name.

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Philipnelson99,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Style

There really is no point in the four letter word even being in the article. Also you appear to think that each article must say stated a certain number of times. That's not right. There is no formula.Infactinteresting (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Infactinteresting It is not the job of Wikipedia to censor quotes. You censored a word in the quote that you edited. There's no need to censor quotes as long as the content remains encyclopedic. I suggest you read through Wikipedia:CENSOR if you want more detailed info. And I'm not sure what you mean about saying the word stated, but I assure you, I have no quarrel with the word stated.
Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editing quotations is fine. I would say you probably are using too many words in a quotation. As for said vs. stated or other words there is not a formula for usage. It's alright for an article to have one "stated" and another to have two mentions. I posted on the talk page about "out-dogfights" being clunky and "successfully destroy".Infactinteresting (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Infactinteresting I think you're mistaken, I reverted your edit because you censored a quote here: [1] . This is what I reverted. I have no idea what else you are referring to. Anyway, your censorship of the quote wasn't necessary, I apologize for issuing you a warning and I will remove it from your talk page, but censorship isn't necessary in an encyclopedia. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in having the four letter word in the article. It didn't need to ever be included.Infactinteresting (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UNHRC

If you look at the summary under bias, that is clear evidence of bias. The recent discussion seems settled. Selfstudier has a history of reverting any discussion on Israel. so I reverted it back to my post.

I will put it back unless you give me a reason not to. You should have discussed it with me first.98.186.29.6 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to discuss it on the talk page of the article at hand before you make the change and also to be aware of WP:BIAS and WP:CONSENSUS Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did and only one person disagreed. I will change back. Please do not revert as you were not in the discussion.98.186.29.6 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, but remember like all editors, you are subject to WP:3RR. I checked the talk page and it doesn't look like there was a consensus built. You should undo your own edit and wait until there have been more comments. You can always go to WP:DRN or seek a third opinion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Anderson-Lopez

I did not remove ANYTHING from the Anderson-Lopez article. I merely resected an overly long paragraph. Please do not make unfounded assertions or false allegations on my talk page. 107.122.161.8 (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lochee, thanks for reverting my edit.

Thanks for reverting my edit to the article; Lochee. This is my first edit fir a very long time and I clearly made a big mistake. I wished to add an alternative derivation of the place name which I found in a trustworthy source. It is quite short. Need to do the job properly and also remind myself how to add the reference. Back to learning the proper way to edit within Wikipedia. Paw42 Paw42 (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paw42 Welcome back to Wikipedia. [2] does not appear to be a constructive edit as you blanked part of a section and replaced it with your username. If you need to test edits, I encourage you to use Wikipedia:Sandbox Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I had to write better but I couldn't use the wiki syntax, I put that link because that site belonged to Patricia Araujio, but I had to explain it, I know, 2.196.209.220 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia 2nd district

not sure why you reverted my edit when on the wikipedia page for 2016 presidential election results in Virginia it says Trump won the district 48-45... plus based on election data it makes no sense how Clinton would've won the district- 71.178.214.235 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@71.178.214.235: the section you changed is for statewide results not district wide, thus your edit contained a factual error. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no the section was referring to the results of Virginia's 2nd district in specific statewide races. If what you were saying was true then literally every other data point in the section would be incorrect- It makes no sense why a page about a specific Virginia congressional district would contain results for the entire state of Virginia... 71.178.214.235 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Discospinster can you explain why you reverted an edit on this page from this editor? Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly fine being incorrect, but I believe the explanation I provided was sufficient justification for the revert. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was an unexplained change to cited content. ... discospinster talk 19:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have credible sources to back up my change, the original source was about the statewide results of the 2016 election in Virginia while the wikipedia page is about results in Virginia's 2nd Congressional district in specific statewide races. @Philipnelson99's justification does not make sense as the page is referring to the results of Virginia's 2nd district in specific statewide races. The current data also does not match the wikipedia page for 2016 presidential election results in Virginia, where it says Trump won Virginia's 2nd district 48 - 45%. 71.178.214.235 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@71.178.214.235 That's fine! Just source it with a reliable source that says this. I have no problem with reliably sources content. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I just sourced it. Please let me know if there are any issues! 71.178.214.235 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@71.178.214.235 Please see WP:DAILYKOS, there's general consensus that this source should never be used. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Daily Kos because it publishes election results by congressional districts. The same article cites Daily Kos for another data point. 71.178.214.235 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@71.178.214.235 I know but just because someone in the past used a source considered unreliable doesn't give everyone license to! If you find a source that's listed at WP:RSP, I'd encourage you to replace it. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you! I will try to find another source. 71.178.214.235 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@71.178.214.235 Absolutely! Sorry if I came off as hostile earlier, I just didn't understand why you were introducing what looked like a factual error to content that was already sourced. Happy editing! Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Philipnelson99,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Ghouls'n Ghosts edit

You reverted my edit to Ghouls'n Ghosts I wasn't aware cites are ALWAYS required. All I said is that it's easier than Ghost's n Goblins. 72.93.242.131 (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal experiences are not a reliable source. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did u delete my edit?

A MexicanEditor5151 (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query about my edit

Hello there, If you be great help if you let me know about my edit that has been removed recently. Hydro 2230 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydro 2230 Spamming of External links is not permitted. I don't think lining to a blog post is really necessary, right? If you feel inclusion of these links are necessary, discuss at the relevant article talk pages. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo bills

I inputed good information. The bills and cincy game was canceled and the score was 7 to 3 so why revert my changes? Kingsley0123456789 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You beat me to several vandals! Humor aside, good job fighting vandalism. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 23:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@James-the-Charizard thank you so much! Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georginio Rutter

Hello - you reverted changes due to not having a citation provided. Well I have now done that but please note providing references for emerging news stories is hard to do immediately. 2A02:CB80:4243:4AD3:397E:503C:F985:210E (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not it is difficult to source, articles concerning a living person must have sources for all claims according to the biography of living person policy. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2603:7080:803F:F8D4:946:6985:ADA2:4F69 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social media and politics

Hi Philipnelson99,

I believe you have made a mistake in revoking what I published on Social media and Politics today. I would like to question why you have done so? Thank you. Cmn22 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmn22 I was specifically referencing [3]. I apologize if this was a good faith edit. Regarding your other edits that I rolled back are those original research, if so you should refrain from adding them again. If not, feel free to add them back and I encourage you to use the article talk page when adding such a large amount of information. Also, some of the additions you added didn't adhere to the manual of style, for example, asking a question in the context of an article in not encyclopedic. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Your great! Widget-Policy Thy Editor (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi

hi 2601:143:C701:8AC0:607D:8C3:720D:F06A (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi i want to say hi hi

hi hi 2601:143:C701:8AC0:607D:8C3:720D:F06A (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philipnelson99&oldid=1132845366"