User talk:Lemongirl942

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Lemongirl942.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Singapore education

While I agree that the content in question is poor, I reverted your pushing forward of my edit. Appropriate discussion has begun on the matter, which was my bold edit of a piece of text that has in fact been around in various forms for a few years. This isn't something that has been discussed recently. Implementation after dispute resolution is of course a different matter, as we have seen with the recent RfC and all that, but it would be best not to conflate the various disputes as much as possible with regards to content. Best, CMD (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Not a problem. I didn't realise that part of the content was there for a few years - prior to the bloating in 2015. However quite a bit of the stuff was also added recently. Regardless, I don't mind discussing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not all of it was there before, but the concept of the bullet points presentation was. I don't think removing the recent additions does much compared to fixing the overall presentation. CMD (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lemongirl942. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Masjid or Mosque

Hi. I believe my page moves were sufficiently uncontroversial, per MOS:PN. That is why I did not start a discussion. If you thought that my edits were controversial, you should have at least started a discussion before making mass reverts.--Peaceworld 16:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Peaceworld111. My reverts were per WP:BRD. These names had been there for a long time. I apologise for not leaving a message on your talk page though. My reason for keeping the names as "Masjid x" instead of "x mosque" is due to WP:COMMONNAME in the Singaporean context where "Masjid X" is more common. I would be glad to start a discussion about this at an appropriate forum (since it concerns a lot of articles). Thoughts? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would assume that MOS:PN takes precedence in cases where we are considering foreign languages. Singaporean mosques are little known outside Singapore. The case is the same with most mosques and religious structures in any country of the world, and we don't usually start adopting country-specific languages to words such as "church", "temple" or "synagogue". You are more than welcome to bring in the views of others by which ever method you consider appropriate.--Peaceworld 18:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Peaceworld111. I will start a discussion later today or tomorrow about this. The reason I would like a discussion about this is because it is not only Mosques but other entities (hills, rivers, islands) about Singapore where the common name is used instead of the English name. If we are having a discussion about this, we might as well fix the other articles as well in one go. In the meantime, I will have a look at how it is done for other countries (particularly neighbouring countries in Southeastasia). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, any updates?--Peaceworld 08:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: My apologies. I was stressed out with some stuff. But yeah, I did look at other countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia and they seem to use "Mosques". Singapore is slightly different though because it is mostly English speaking and the term "Masjid" is widely used. This is also similar to other cases such as "Bukit" for hill and "Pulau" for island and "Sungei" for river. Thus, the WP:COMMONNAME argument might actually favour "Masjid"/"Sungei"/"Pulau" in certain cases. I am personally agnostic to the change, but I realise that other members might be opposed to such a move (considering that this has been the accepted convention for a decade). One thing which I can do it to start an RFC and propose that religious buildings in Singapore be referred to as "x Mosque" or "x Temple" or "x Monastery" and argue for WP:CONSISTENCY (instead of WP:COMMONNAME). If most of the community agrees, then all of them can be moved to " X Mosque" and so on. Would this be a good way forward? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl1942: Yes, I would assume so. Just to note however, there is no consistency among Singaporean articles themselves. While some use the term "Sungei" for rivers, not all rivers in Singapore do. Being accepted as a convention for over a decade can be a consequence of the fact that many of these are articles (Mosques, Rivers, etc) are stub articles, some of which have not had major edits for years.--Peaceworld 09:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

November 2016 - Notice of Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Singapore. This is the second time you have reverted the same sourced content I posted. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. - Shiok (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It was my mistake. I copied her template after seeing it. Shiok (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious why would you impersonate another editor. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to impersonate anyone. Everything in WP is logged. A genuine mistake that's all. Shiok (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "This is the second time you have reverted the same sourced content I posted." Umm, please see WP:BRD. You added, I removed. You now need to get consensus. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please do not Move other editors comments as you did at Talk:Singapore, without consent. I had to copy some relevant information back to the survey section thread before you decided to move everything back to the same place. Please review the Wikipedia guidelines and policies if you are uncertain. Thank you. - Shiok (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Another template by the SPA hahaha. I already moved that back long ago, but you decided to template now after all of it has been done? Really? Continue your antics. You actions show that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclpaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually it was yet another mistake thinking I had posted on my own talkpage. Well, will get use to it and preparing more templates, since you like it. Shiok (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Why would you post that template along with that comment on your talk page? Your "mistakes" are way too many. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Wikipedia Selangor Meetup 1

The 3rd Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup had now arrived on Selangor! Pack your bags and your laptop, and meet some fellow Malaysia Wikipedians in the meetup!

• Date: Sunday, 11 December 2016
• Time: 12:00 - 2:00 pm
• Venue: Sudo Brew, 7 Jalan SS 22/11, Damansara Jaya, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (3°7′54.1″N 101°37′16.4″E)
• Medium of communication:
  • English language - for the general overall meetup
  • Malay language - for a special session to discuss ms.wikipedia.org (subject to enough number of participants)

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page or at the Facebook event page. (Delivered: 07:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

Roll call of WikiProject Malaysia for 2017

Hello there Lemongirl942! The biennial/annual roll call of WikiProject Malaysia have been started! The roll call was intended for maintaining a healthy list of active members in the WP:MY members section. You may follow the instructions to stay in the WikiProject, or leave the WikiProject. Make sure you've make the right choice! After about 1 January 2017, you will be moved to the inactive members list. The link is at here. On behalf of WikiProject Malaysia, NgYShung ^huh? (Delivered at: 11:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC), one run)

Hira Public School

Hello Lemongirl942, as you have been responding to recent edit requests for this article, just a quick info: I have opened a new SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal, as this is probably another sock of a recurring problem editor. Regardless of this unfortunate issue, your good-faith help on the article's talkpage is appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Lemongirl942,

I understand you live in Singapore, which is a beautiful country (which I've visited).

I'm wondering if you have ever read a copy of The Reader Magazine and if so, how many?

I'm wondering why you would eliminate the work of contributors to this page who actually have lived in the region where this magazine has been published for more than ten years?

You have eliminated neutral, descriptive text such as it's business model, which I contributed and so did others, who quite possibly also live in the region where the magazine has been distributed.

Recently, you added a link to a headline concerning The Reader at the Poynter web-page, a headline which states that most or nearly all of The Reader is plagiarized according to the CJR article.

This is quite a damning statement-- and it is also false.

The CJR article contained no actual numerical analysis of the proportion of articles they alleged The Reader plagiarized. And yet the headline you linked to states The Reader is mostly plagiarized. To use the term "most" or "a lot" or "half" you would want to normally make the case by determining how many articles were original, properly attributed or improperly attributed. Ms. Fry never even came close to this. She simply made a statement without showing any numerical evidence. She went as far as to call the business model of The Reader based on plagiarism-- because she says so, not based on evidence.

Unfortunately, this is how falsehoods become perceived as real. In this case, you placed a link at The Reader Magazine page on Wikipedia that people from all over the world would see that connects these people to a headline that is patently false and quite injurious.

In her article, you may also notice that to make her case "compelling" Ms. Fry did not distinguish between her allegations of copyright infringement and allegations of plagiarism, which are two very different things.

Hopefully, your sense and pursuit of fairness will be affected by this rather large omission of actual evidence in Ms. Fry's article which did not stop her from making blanket and sweeping allegations-- and didn't stop others from repeating them as if they were the truth.

If you can, please read her article for yourself. The Reader addressed Ms. Fry's article at www.readermagazinefactcenter.com.

Please consider allowing those of us who know this magazine and are doing our best to describe it accurately, neutrally and fairly to contribute to the page. I am personally doing the best I can. WikiBalandina (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for reading this!

All the best,

WikiBalandina (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

User blocked. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiBalandina/Archive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Lemongirl942,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 807 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Spec Property Page deletion

Hi Lemongirl942

Im writing to ask you to reverse the deletion of the Spec property wiki page. Im not to clear after reading the reasons why it was deleted how the sources were not credited to be reliable.

The sources referenced used a lot of Australia media that operates in both the Financial and Property areas. The business Spec Property has built over $1b in apartments in Melbourne, Australia. [1] [2]

thanks Tom Specpropertydigital (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Kepompong for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kepompong 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/Kepompong until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ArdiPras95 (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016 - Harassment Notice

You appear to be sending another notice to harass, even when the original tag editor has not done so. Please note that:

• the tag was unexplained and unwarranted
• You have been cited for WP:THREATEN - Threats and intimidation on other editors previously.

You may be reported and blocked from editing the next time you do it again. Shiok (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, another template by an SPA. Go ahead and show me the diffs of my harassment!. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Correcting the founding date of Rajah & Tann Asia

Dear administrator,

I am writing to inform that the founding date of Rajah & Tann Asia is inaccurate. Could we get permission to correct the year to 1976 please? Accurate information: Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (then known as Tann Wee Tiong & TT Rajah) was founded in 1976.

Thank you and best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTAfan88 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello RTAfan88. On Wikipedia we need reliable sources for that information. The current citation states the founding date as 1954. I would request you not to change it unless you can find a reliable source for the information. Btw, are you affiliated with Rajah and Tann in any way? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am an employee. We have documents to support our claims, may I check how I can pass them to you for verification? Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTAfan88 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

RTAfan88, I will take this discussion to the article talk page then. Usually we don't rely on documents, but published sources. So for example, if a newspaper has published a report saying that the Rajah and Tann was founded in such and such yeah, it can be used to support a claim. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and frustrations

Lemongirl, I find it difficult to read this diff as anything other than a personal attack. I suggest you redact/remove or modify it. I understand you may be frustrated, but simply linking to CIR is not helpful for anyone, nor does it move conversation forwards in any way. Best, CMD (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry for that. I have redacted it and I deserve to be trouted for it actually. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding RfC non-admin closer talk page

Any interactions between us should be on our respective talk pages for now. So please to not obscure my questions to the closer. Wrigleygum (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I am perfectly free to reply wherever I want. You have a problem, you can choose not to reply there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Taking this to WP:ARBCOM?

I see you are really frustrated dealing with Singapore articles and the users. And also seems like WP:ANI doesn't work for that matter. I suggest taking this to WP:ARBCOM and naming it "Singapore" (if you are opening). Remember to read WP:A/G and if you request one I may be there commenting. Good luck! NgYShung ^huh? 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey NgYShung. Thank you for your concern . To be honest, while the ANI didn't have a lot of comments from editors, quite of few editors did stop by and help fix the article and participated in talk page discussions. That helped to provide a diversity of opinions, which ultimately improved the article! Yes, I was a bit frustrated, but I guess as long as more editors keep it on their watchlist, it is fine. ARBCOM is more for behavioural issues rather than a content dispute. Now, this case is partly a behavioural issue, but it hasn't risen to the level of disruption that ARBCOM needs to step in (that would involve multiple ANI threads and blocks). I guess the best solution is for editors to keep monitoring the page and ensure that future edits follow NPOV. Thank you! I appreciate your concern. Btw, congratulations for your recent GA! ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, glad to hear that. I will help as much as I can if I have free time for the article. Thanks for your comment and happy editing! NgYShung ^huh? 13:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion

I would value you opinion on User talk:TheMagnificentist#Category additions. I may be way off base, but I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary of non-notable artists

Thanks for linking to this book at AfD. Pretty clever—hadn't seen it before and actually laughed out loud a few times. By the way, there's a PDF here.  czar 20:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha Czar, thank you. I had seem that earlier on the talk page of WP:AFD or WP:DELETION (can't remember the exact page). It was pretty entertaining to read actually! ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Lemongirl942,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Daniel Son; Necklace Don

If you want the sources for Daniel Son; Necklace Don, here you go. I just find it odd that you'll revert my edits from weeks ago though, weird. JayPe (talk) 1:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

JayPe Unsourced information can (and should be removed) particularly if it is has been recently added (within a few weeks). That is how we maintain the quality of Wikipedia. Thank you for the sources. What I don't understand though is that you can search for the sources but you somehow never add them to the article. Adding them (inline) is what is sorely needed. Anyway, I will source this article later today and you can see how I do it. Later you can source others article similarly. Btw, please please do not add any more unsourced content. I get a feeling that the admins will not listen this time. So when you add content, add sources. If you don't have sources, then don't add content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Thanks for that, just know that edit was made before I was getting into blocks and arguments between you and Magnolia, so you won't have to worry about this next time. JayPe (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand JayPe. But this was recent and although a minor edit, was still modifying the same unsourced content. On Wikipedia we generally WP:AGF, but after someone has been blocked, the editor needs to Demonstrate good faith. As such, you could do that by going over some of your previous edits and adding sources to them. Or if you can't find sources immediately, at least add a {{cn}} template so that others are alerted to the unsourced data. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This Edit

I would be interested to know which parts of the article do not have reliable sources as per your reinstating the notice. TIA TushiTalk To Me 03:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is notability, not RS itself. It requires significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Source in which the subject is talking about themselves are not good enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought notability is conferred by RS. The sources are not affiliates of the subject from the sources I could find online. A source like today.com has been referenced to more than 2K times on English Wikipedia alone and more times in other language Wikipedias. The fact that such a source would publish about the subject is quite something. TushiTalk To Me 03:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Depends. "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability". The source you added is a contributor article which is not considered an RS. The article also went through an AFD where is was not determined if the subject is indeed notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by contributor article. See the subject interviewing Wozniak too * http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2016/11/17/apple-co-founder-steve-wozniak-talks-happiness-and.html TushiTalk To Me 04:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hey @Lemongirl942. Would you mind to respond? Thanks TushiTalk To Me 15:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah sorry. Well, the subject interviewing Wozniak is immaterial - notability is not inherited. The "contributor" articles refer to those which are not written by full time staff writers. These are not subject to the same level of fact checking and hence are not considered RS for the purpose of notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. TushiTalk To Me 16:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for leaving the Exceptional Newcomer Award on my page for Iskandar Ismail! I'm a music student currently based in the USA, but I grew up in Singapore and would love to keep contributing to articles pertaining to Singapore's music scene in the future. I created the page for a school project and it was an honor to do it for Mr. Iskandar. Limjlcm (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome Limjlcm. I liked the article you wrote - well written, to the point and most of the content was quite well sourced. There are actually quite a number of articles about Singapore's music scene already but many of these need additional sources for verification. When I find time I try to add sources. You can always chip in! Happy editing and if you need any help, feel free to let me know. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Illuminating perspective barnstar

	Illuminating perspective barnstar
	It's not too often that I'm gobsmacked by information from someone else, but your points about churnalism has resulted in one of those rare moments where I see the nuances of a situation very differently. Thanks so much for your patience in explaining it to me. CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you CaroleHenson. I am always glad to be of help! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Need your help at COI board

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Lemongirl,

I see you are a helper at the COI board. If you have a moment could you please read the report about the article Charlie Zeleny. there is a SPA ip editor who is acting very aggressively toward me. I think he has a conflict either being the subject himself or a friend or family member. He denied it to me, but he has taken ownership of the article and says he is going to ban me from wikipedia. Look at the talk page with all the threat and calling removing weasel words as vadalism. Thank you. Pauciloquence (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 13:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies Pauciloquence. Was occupied for the last few days. I have placed the article on my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Narelle Kheng

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can you please set it back and do not redirect it to The Sam Willows? Please? I do not understand why you have to do that. Please just make it a standalone page. Please do not delete it or do anything to it. Please please? Can you reply me? CO16 (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey CO16, I had already explained it to you at User_talk:CO16#Narelle_Kheng. That is your "talk page". Please comment there from now on. (I have it on my watchlist and I can see it). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hor Ying Ying

Can you please restore the page, and avoid doing anything to it? I am in the midst of improving the page and trying to add any reference as soon as there is more published, and since the page is still in its preliminary stage, I strongly encourage others to add in more information rather than have it speedy deleted. The page I created is on a relatively new star, whose popularity is on the rise. LMX97 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

LMX97 The article was deleted after a discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hor Ying Ying. The subject doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines. See WP:N. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Narelle Kheng and User:CO16

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note: The header originally contained a Hokkien profanity which I removed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Then why don't you help to improve it? Rather than despising on other noob Editors? Talk so much might as well help. Why can't the singers have their own page? You can have a user page which are not any important or famous person while at least those Singers are famous or to you they are not. Talk only, why don't you help improve. I know I suck i know but all you do is despise, can't you improve? Does 1 more or in fact 4 more articles kill you? No right? Can't you just leave it? If you can't, then ignore it. CO16 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Besides deleting are you sure there is nothing that we can do? All you do is delete people's work, can't you help to improve it? 1 article would not kill you la please. Why would it want to delete it when there is no harm. Even there is something wrong, can't you help the editor to improve? Please la aiyo. CO16 (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. Let's keep the conversation at one place. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Kk then just delete it. But I have another question, if I create a page, how Long must I wait before it appears on the Google search page? Sometimes when I create a new page, when I head to google and search the page I created, it doesn't appear. Help answer this question.User:CO16 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Walao answer leh. You say must be polite then is it polite to ignore people?. Walao eh — Preceding unsigned comment added by CO16 (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Season's Greetings!

Hello Lemongirl942: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Mona778 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

The "China" issue to be at WP:move review

• Talk:Politics of China#Requested move 11 December 2016
• Talk:Flag of China#Requested move 3 December 2016

Do you plan to have the closures reviewed at MRV? --George Ho (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Help re. undeclared COI

Hi @Lemongirl942:, I notice you're an expert with COI issues and wonder if you could take a look at this page and it's archive #3. I'm at the end of my tether with trying the gentle approach, and it's now interfering with improving/editing this page. I would truly appreciate your advice. I think it should probably go to COIN as it's interering with good faith editing, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. Thanks in advance Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi LutherBlissetts. Sorry, was a bit busy for the last few days. I had a look and I'm not sure what exactly is the conflict of interest. There is also quite a lot of text in the page. In addition, has the editor declared a conflict of interest? Or has the editor been trying to promote/POV push a certain viewpoint? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Editions war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Singapore Tamils. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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.
Please stop edit warring and adding content sourced to unreliable sources. If you continue to do so, you might be blocked. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to preserve this warning

• Apparent retaliatory template for this
• Word to word copy of even the custom message "Please stop edit warring and adding content sourced to unreliable sources"
• "Editions War" - that's the first time I have heard this term!

Sequence of edits for reference later 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

AGF can only go so far. And this inappropriate warning you left on another editor's talk page doesn't make me want to AGF any more. At this point, you need to demonstrate good faith and slapping inappropriate templates is clearly not the way to go. I suggest you contribute to the encyclopaedia, particularly outside some South Asian topics, and learn more how WP:RS and WP:NPOV is applied in practice.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Lemongirl942. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my references?

Who are you and why are you deleting my references? They are valid and not spam! — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4km4k (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS for what are accepted as reliable sources. The links you are adding are not reliable sources for the purpose of Wikipedia. The best sources are news websites with a proven editorial oversight. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct they are the best links but the links I posted are also relevant and I'm pretty sure people would appreciate the reference and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4km4k (talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice

As you and I were discussing (separately) on Juliancolton's talk page about the inappropriateness of merging the content of Conviction: A Sequel to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice into List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, and as the merge has taken place already, I'd invite you to continue the discussion at Talk:List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiDan61 I have temporarily reverted the merge. Just commented on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Unitus Seed Fund

Thanks for your contribution to that article - it recently went through an AfD (result: keep, at my urging and that of others) and I have begun to improve it in the wake of that process. I hadn't yet worked my way down to the portfolio section, but my plan was to trim it back substantially, which you did - so, thanks!

That said, a few of the funded companies had separate profile-type articles on them in reputable publications (NYT, Forbes), so I'd consider them deserving of mention in this article. I will incorporate them into the History section, today if I have time. I'd just humbly suggest that maybe next time, if you are going to remove that much content from the page (including a slew of references) that you check the talk page first - in this case, for instance, I had flagged a couple of notable portfolio companies there. I fear that aggressive WP:NOTDIR edits like this run the risk of removing useful content - much of which deserved to go, but some of which should have been kept, albeit in a different form. Once that content is deleted, realistically, no one is going to remember that it was there and retrieve the good bits. I almost missed it myself; I skimmed my watchlist and saw that you removed the excess external links but since it wasn't in the last edit, I didn't notice the removal of the portfolio section until I went back to the page.

Thanks-

--Vivisel (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hindi (clarification)

Hi, I saw that you reverted the disruptive user's edits on Hindi. Your edit summary said that you were unsure as to why he arbitrarily removed a lot of information. It is highly likely that this user is a Dravidian nationalist, that is, a person of South Indian descent who harbours an intense and irrational dislike of North Indian culture, languages, or festivals. Hence the user's removal of Hindi, a N. Indian language, Holi, a festival that is predominantly associated with people of North Indian stock, and so on. Just informing you in case the user continues with his disruptive edits after his 30-hour block has expired. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Lemongirl942

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Lemongirl942. May your house be safe, and may you and those having the privilege of your company enjoy good health in a Happy New Year 2017! Kind regards, — Sam Sailor 02:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Wishing you a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2017. Thanks for your friendship! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Query on things deleted on Algebris Page

Hi Lemongirl942!

Wanted to know the meaning of the phrase you used when reverting my edits on the Algebris page. I wanted to know what this phrase means - "Doesn't seem to be an RS"

Thanks!FlyingBlueDream (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick note

Hi Lemongirl, how are you doing? Good to see you around Afds. Just wanted to drop in a small, quick note. Generally, I would have done this by first striking out my earlier vote and earlier statement rather than overwriting it, and adding a new comment before or after the struck !vote. Nothing important, but it helps understand what your original view was and how it changed. Thanks. Lourdes 15:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of relevant attribution to Bus Interchange articles

Please refrain from removing relevant references to the Land Transport Guru website as you have done so on multiple pages with regards to Bus Interchanges in Singapore. The proper removal of SPS content as per your intentions should be the complete deletion of all copied content from Land Transport Guru, and not the convenient deletion of proper content attribution which other Wikipedia users have done.

Wheelandaxle293 (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wheelandaxle293. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we only use reliable secondary sources. The "Land Transport Guru" website is what we call a WP:SPS - a self published source. As such, we cannot allow it to be there in the references. Please do not add it back again.

Regarding "content copied from Land Transport Guru website", could you please point me out where is the copied content. I would be glad to have a look and if it is a copyvio, remove it entirely. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lemongirl942 and thank you for your reply and clarification. My concerns are with regards to constant plagiarism performed by editors to Wikipedia pages covering the Singapore bus scene. On many occasions, content is lifted word for word from the "Land Transport Guru" website, with or without attribution. One such example would be Bukit Batok Bus Interchange, which shares paragraphs copied from a similar Land Transport Guru page. Note: the "'Thank You , Bukit Batok !'" and "The Day Before- 28th May 2016" sections.

I do apologize for the slightly overzealous reverting of edits on the other pages with regards to freely available information. -- Wheelandaxle293 (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Wheelandaxle293 Thank you for your diligence. I managed to find the edit responsible. This is a pretty blatant WP:COPYVIO. (In fact on Wikipedia, copying content is not allowed, unless the source has released it under a compatible license). I also noticed that it actually replaced previously sourced information. I will try to clean this up maybe later today and ask for a revision deletion. I will also check the other contributions, particularly the bus interchange articles. In the meantime, if you know of any other plagiarism incidences, please let me know. I would be happy to help remove them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hey Lemongirl, long time no see. I wanted to apologize for the things I said a while back, it wasn't professional of me and I hope you can forgive my actions. In the meantime, I've looked into Too High to Riot and made some changes to it. I was hoping to get your opinion on it whether what I did was right or wrong. Thanks. JayPe (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey JayPe. How have you been doing? I was on a Wikibreak for the past week. Don't worry about the past . All of us are human and we make mistakes and learn! Anyway, am gonna have a detailed look at the article later. But for right now, it would be helpful to source the information about the producers of the individual songs. In the references I looked, I wasn't able to find them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Mayank Prakash

Hi,

I see you've been monitoring the Mayank Prakash page. It looks to me like he's been editing his own profile from an IP address of 92.237.49.254 - the amends sound like his rather distinctive use of English. Is it appropriate for him to be puffing his achievements in this way?

Sjoh0050 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Manulife page

You were probably right about the list of presidents - but I've seen it on other bank pages so I thought I would get some credit for adding it here. Not sure why you would then question my motives. The Kendall-K1 removal of sponsorships and awards is not warranted. Those are both common sections. This page is easy to update so I was trying to score some points.

Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastboy18 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan moves

Hello Lemongirl942. I noticed your recent request at WP:RMTR. In fact, there is a recent trend to have ROC things renamed to be Taiwan things. I don't have the links handy, but it's not a question of pure nationalism any more. More like common usage. This happened even with some election-related articles. So I wouldn't be shocked to see some undiscussed moves go by in this area. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I understand. But I also think that it needs a bit more discussion. The terms ROC and Taiwan are not always interchangeable and this needs to be looked at in a cases by case basis. (For example such as here and here). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: FAC

Thank you for reviewing This England. I withdrew my FA nomination, but also asked you a question on the nomination page, which I hope you can answer there or on my talk page if the page is closed. Also, I wonder if you would have similar concerns about Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King, or if you think this sourcing is better. I'd consider nominating this article for FA status, but only if I knew sourcing was not a problem. Thanks again for your time and feedback. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping - Arrow Scout Group

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrow Scout Group :)--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh! That's been left untouched since months. OK, will do it today. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lemongirl942. You have new messages at Renzoy16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please Read this

Since u all are talking to me with no respect while u all are idling the way sending me message I suggest u all should make a wiki page for Tan Jun Sheng u all have the time to leave message on my chat page I suggest u all use the time to do a research Bryan4562013 (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

page move

Thanks for your advice, will do page move according WP instructions. I read carefully the article. I moved page w/out talk page because old name is mistake apparently, doesn`t reflect the content and it means old talk page is not applicable. The article should be rewritten as I note on the talk page. Thanks for your thoughts.Swissfishpool (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Swissfishpool Please don't move pages again, particularly not without the talk page. And if you are using any other accounts, please disclose them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I challenge this decision? Both the admin and the user need to be punished. That page was under 1rr and I documented 4 reverts, and admin just writes "no violation" without comment. I am refiling too

Honestly, did you see that? Ridiculous! This wasn't even close! He reverted 4 times in a row on a 1rr page, and the admin says "no violation!" Is every admin in this joint corrupt? I don't get it. 4 is obviously more than 1. I didn't even get an explanation.63.143.196.107 (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Umm, who are you? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hang on, is this related to this and this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry my IP address keeps changing. I do not understand the decision. The page was under 1RR. This is clear. User warred with me reverting 4 times when I told him to stop, and that this article is under 1RR. I report him. Admin says "no violation by JFG", yet gives no explanation (and then protects the page, effectively locking me out, when JFG was the 1st reverter, and I had every right to keep reverting him after he ignored 1rr and reverted again. I don't get it. Aren't rules rules? If the rule says "no more than 1 revert per 24 hours" and I provide clear evidence that he did so, why does an admin just ignore it and say "no violation" without even so much as giving an explanation? Not only that, JFG repeatedly lied, 1st lying about the document he kept removing being "copyrighted" (it is not), lying about the fact that the document "isnt used on any other wiki pages" (it is, in the corresponding page on German wikipedia, which he knew), lying stating the page is not under 1rr (it is, as he should have known when I told him to discuss the removal on the talk page, since two other editors had already restored it that day before he reverted their edits, and in fact all US politics pages are) and then lying about the relevant policy, stating the "burden of proof is on you" (he provided no evidence for this either. So far as I can tell, the policy just says content that violates copyrights will be deleted, and there is no evidence that the document is copyrighted and it would be implausible that the document is copyrighted) There is no legiitmate argument to not linking to the document the article is about, and more to the point, he simply flaunted the 1rr restrictions to get his way, and he's just getting away with it. This is corrupt! I do not even see what the argument can possibly be for not linking to the primary source. He has zero evidence that it was copyrighted. Aargh.63.143.196.107 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Whatever, I think I'm just going to let it go, since I doubt filing again is going to get anywhere. . But he clearly crossed the line, and he was very dishonest about his reasoning, and he's getting away with deleting the relevant document, which no one claims to have a copyright. And the admin isn't even going to stop him from flaunting the revert rules. I don't get it. The admins seem to play favorites, since every time I even come close to violating 1rr or 3rr I get slammed. He went way over. It really doesn't make much sense to me.

Umm, I don't know which article is this and what is the dispute about. In general the place to post any challenge of closes is WP:AN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's Donald Trump Russia dossier. The article included a link to the dossier hosted at Wikipedia commons. He reverted the addition of the dossier (not mine). The article is under 1rr. I reverted his addition. He then reverted me 3 more times. I reported him. I don't understand what the meaning of 1rr is if someone can revert 4 times and be told "no violation" by the admin. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I posted diffs of him reverting 4 times. I guess I'll take it up at AN. Thanks. 63.143.196.107 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This IP is a sock of Kingshowman, just to let you know. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taiwan under Japanese rule. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt Smith Wow, retaliatory template? Heck, I opened a discussion, but you didn't even look and didn't bother to participate. Instead you decided to blindly revert quoting IAR. You behaviour is tending towards WP:BATTLEGROUND here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read this message

Every edit all must be made by you It is also let us new editors to gain some experience if not why not u run the entire Wikipedia if that is the case or close down Wikipedia!!!!!!!! 😡😡😡😡😡 Bryan4562013 (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Bryan4562013: Please do not disparage editors on their own talkpages. And if you are going to do so, please make yourself clearly understood. You have not so far. Carry on, LG! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bryan4562013. I am happy if new editors gain experience. But some of your edits are creating problems. For example, on a school article, you copy pasted stuff (which is not allowed on Wikipedia). We also do not create new articles - unless absolutely required. Before creating an article, we need to look at sources and find news articles. Otherwise, someone will come along and delete it.

I know that you have created some nice articles, so I don't want you to be blocked by an admin. If you want, I can help you learn a bit more (such as how to add sources, what are reliable sources and more. Tell me if you want to learn!. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Reasons of the revert

It has been two hours since you reverted my edits on that article. I hope you have been preparing a list of your reasons of the revert for starting a discussion in that article's talk page. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt Smith My suggestion here for you would be to try editing in an area other than Taiwan/China. That would help you to understand better how policies and guidelines are applied in practice. It will also help you to understand that a lot of what you consider NPOV problems are actually not problems.

As for this particular revert there are multiple reasons - adding coatracky information, changing content which doesn't follow the source, and adding redundant info. If you edit in different areas (where you are not involved in the topic), you will understand better how NPOV works. For example try American politics. You will also find more editors there willing to help you to understand. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. But I have been editing Taiwan/China articles on Chinese Wikipedia since October 2014 and I know mostly how Wikipedia works.

Please make it clear that which edits are adding coatracky information, changing content which doesn't follow the source, and adding redundant info, respectively. You may also explain about them in that article's talk page. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: The English Wikipedia works differently from the Chinese Wikipedia. (Every language Wikipedia has its own rules). And the way policies/guidelines are applied in spirit here, often differs from how the guideline is actually written. I know this is hard to understand, but the only way to understand is to edit outside your comfort zone. I myself learnt it that way. When you edit in an area outside your own, it also helps to provide an additional perspective - for example you might be able to see bias/undue content in an article, which an American may not be able to see. And this helps to improve the encyclopaedia while also helping one to realise one's own bias. Editing in one narrow area is also generally frowned upon by the community here due to multiple instances of POV pushing and disruption and WP:ADVOCACY editing. I suggest you try editing a different area for once. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion.

Please rationalize your revert by making it clear that which of my edits are adding coatracky information, changing content which doesn't follow the source, and adding redundant info, respectively, in either this page or that article's talk page (preferred). --Matt Smith (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that later today. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Strange editing skills

Hi there, I noticed, several times, that you keep reverting true info to untrue and, in fact, this is an attempt to defend untrue info. I noticed that you don`t work on how info is correct or incorrect. On top of that you disseminating conspiracy and that I am the paid user. It is very strange to see how you don`t examine true or untrue information but escalate simple situation to conflict. Sorry about that, but it is very strange and non-constructive behaviour.

Also, how do you come to conclusion that corporate info is not useful info? Please give the source or link.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.216.246 (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, still no reply on my questions , so I am feeling that I am entitled to ask you , please, stop disruptive editing/reverting. Most of them doesn`t make sense and it gives feelings that you are defending untrue information and in not-good-faith mode. Thanks and kind regards!

regarding recent edit dispute

hello. The reason that I'm writing here on your talk page is because the discussion on the notice board was closed before I got a chance to respond, due to the Admin's decision and action (that you had a bit of a disagreement with). Forgive this lengthy comment here, but I needed to thoroughly state some things, on this matter.

Anyway, thanks for your consideration and concern to this matter from yesterday. I want to say that I do apologize for going a bit past the 3RR rule myself (though Jytdog went further beyond as you can see), and also my occasional somewhat battle-ish tone, or maybe sometimes over-bluntness.

And I do appreciate that later the editor Jytdog made an excellent modification, and found an agreeably better and more solid source for my section and paragraph. If he had done that to begin with, I swear I would NOT have undone it or fought it, as I respect people’s meaningful modifications, adjustments, or better source referencing. You see though that that’s not what he did at first, nor later on even. But only after he went beyond 3RR and for some reason afterwards he went to the noticeboard where he didn’t think that he’d be reprimanded or would get in trouble or have 1-day block himself. But after I wrote my defense on here, he did see (is my surmise) that he broke 3RR badly, and was gonna be in hot soup as well as myself. We both edit-warred, obviously, with 3RR violation, though he a bit worse, and yes I a bit worse with a more combative tone (though not every statement of mine). But I was rightly and understandably both hurt and annoyed, at what was disrespectful and overly hasty, and it came across as "Own" and "I don't like", rather than totally valid reasons to completely delete. Yes, admittedly the source I put in was not the best, or the most reliable, in WP policy, but I hope you can see that WP policy is not necessarily to wholesale remove everything just because the source used is not the most reliable by WP standards.

There are plenty of other sources, more solid, for the drift of my addition. (And Jytdog, to his credit, did a good job later on in finding and placing one, and modifying etc.) But before that was the problem, where he totally removed hard work, that a very good-faith (and accurate and copiously sourced) contribution, and hard work, were just summarily dissed and dismissed by him, simply because the source that I put was not the best, but he wrongly accused or said that it was just “original research”. That is patently not true. I did not come up with the Jesus using Lot’s wife to warn against clinging to material possessions at the end of a world thing. That’s obvious from the Biblical text itself, AND ALSO FROM VARIOUS OUTSIDE SOURCES. Yes, I may not have picked the best source (admittedly), but it seems to be forgotten that WP policy and strong recommendation is to NOT destroy another contributor’s edits because of that, completely, but to try to find a better source, or give a source TAG, or modify the edits or additions. Not totally remove or eliminate. And sorry, I had a very valid point with that. '

And as I said, it was arguably very needed, and sorely lacking, the thing that was only slightly briefly mentioned in the lede. Needing elaboration, as NO "New Testament" reference in the body of article regarding "Lot's wife" was present anywhere.

Now, as far as another thing that’s been said by both Jytdog and you Lemongirl etc, that is actually a misunderstanding, and NOT what I did, regarding “pointy” about the name of God matter. No, that’s not what I meant. The edit itself (in that small matter of putting the Anglicized form “Jehovah” instead of what was there “God”) was to NOT “make a point” but for valid varying and clarity, in the Jewish context, of the God of Jews, and elaboration etc. When I said “my point” that was only in my comment on the TALK page, in response to Jytdog’s objection that that form “Jehovah” (the tri-syllabic English Latin form) is somehow not used by “scholarly sources” even though it clearly is, past and present...in various reputable works, by various scholars and theologians...though maybe not as much as the less-accurate two-syllable form “Yahweh”. When I said “it was not that big a deal to me” I meant if consensus (which is what Jytdog was later calling for on that specific matter) went against having that form there in that specific place. I would not fight against that so much, because it’s overall minor...though my EDIT on the actual article was NOT “pointy” but simply clarity and varying and elaboration. The edit itself was not meant as “to make a point”, but rather my comment to Jytdog on the talk page about “scholarly sources” and that the motive to remove that form was not really warranted given the fact that it’s a long-established form and found in a number of scholarly books, sermons, and references, as well as in a number of reputable Bible versions. THAT was my “point” about “point”. Not the actual original edit itself in the article. That was just for clarity in context.

Anyway, as I said, I do appreciate your thought to all this, though I do not think it was all that necessary for Jytdog to even go on the board to report me, since he was (though unintentionally) also ipso facto reporting himself. But his subsequent modification and compromise and collaboration and better source that he found I do appreciate and have no problem with. It’s cool. I appreciate also Jytdog’s diligence for good sourcing on Wikipedia, though I don’t agree that he handled it originally in the best way or in line really with WP recommendation or policy. And that was my argument with all of that. Anyway, sorry for the long presentation here. I appreciate your taking the time to read through it. I felt it was necessary (since I was not able to all day yesterday) to further state my case and maybe clarify a misunderstanding or two. thanks again. Regards....... Namarly (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)