Jump to content

User talk:Shellwood

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk | contribs) at 08:39, 16 September 2018 (→‎SOURCES!!!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Henna - Palestinian community

Hello,

I noticed that you recently reverted the change I made on the Henna page from Israel to Palestine. To be more accurate, the page must indicate that it is Palestinian and other Arab Jewish communities, not Israelis/Ashkenazi Jewish communities that traditionally do henna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:1100:2B7:65BC:57A1:39CB:DE31 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake.

My mistake, I was just on the Recent Changes log and it came up as a page that may need review, and me not being educated in the subject I reverted it. My bad. --StarlightStratosphere (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StarlightStratosphere: Hey! there is absolutely no need for you to apologize for that, you are doing a great job! Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Croatian Wikipedia - 2013 controversy about right-wing bias

Why did you erase correct article about far right bias of Croatian wikipedia? I know you can't speak Croatian but try to use Google translate for articles I wrote about, those articles severely far right biased, those were about fascist collaborators in Croatia during WW2 and there were no any informations they were war lords and war criminals. Do you support such a articles? Bukowski112 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bukowski112: You are adding unsourced content and you can't use Wikipedia as a reference. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta separatism

This article is filled with inconsistencies, poor grammar, syntax and language. It is difficult to read due to the often conflicting change in tenses midway through a sentence or paragraph. It lacks proper citation on many of its' facts and too often relapses into opinion and conjecture.

Secondly, There is no such thing as an "Alberta citizen" if you are a Canadian citizen who is resident in Alberta you are an Albertan and a Canadian citizen. Albertans receive their right to vote at Alberta general elections by virtue of their Canadian citizenship and not by being resident in Alberta alone! Indeed being resident in Alberta confers no rights or liberties whatsoever and therefore aside from the lack of legislation, common law, tradition or precedent creating and recognising Albertan citizenship such a title is all but useless.

Thirdly, the sentence: "These programs were seen by many Albertans as an attack on oil resources and the promotion of Liberal "anti-Albertan" conservative values were seen as a negative influence for Albertans". Does not make logical sense with the verb "conservative" between "anti-Albertan" and "values". What the writer has inadvertently stated is that conservative values are both viewed negatively by Albertans and are Anti-Albertan as well as Liberal (ie from the Liberal party). You must remove the word "conservative" for the sentence to follow logically from the first premise! ie. These programs are seen as an attack...

Honestly, the article is so poorly written and edited it makes a mockery of Alberta separatism and leads to ridicule. I would suggest a complete and total re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.150.150 (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'socially just'

Hi Shellwood,

I see you reverted my recent edit on Distributive justice and I'm unclear as to what you found unproductive here. "social justice" is a noun phrase and "socially just" is its adjectival form; my edit makes the sentence more grammatical. Is there a compelling reason to keep the more clunky phrasing?

Thank you for the correction. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism on Sweden Democrats

Hi, i talked with another admin recently about this topic on the AIV, and i asked him if it would be the case to apply stricter protection on the article; otherwise, i'm pretty sure that IP vandals and new users will continue to attack it until the end of the Swedish general election, because that's what happened in the last 3 days and is happening right now.--GenoV84 (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GenoV84: Hi, this is a sensitive issue. If vandalism or disruptive editing becomes a problem I support a temporary semi-protection until 10th september. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I really put a lot of effort on that page and i can't spend the next 2 weeks to rollback every disruptive edit from hordes of vandals everytime, the admins neither.--GenoV84 (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert changes to my page

I dont know somehow who edited my page the orignal page was https://web.archive.org/web/20151209212826/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikhil_Thakur with references please have a look and i have all the evidence news papers cutting

Steven Meisel

I removed most of his "early life" section because it was completely irrelevant and unverifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billionaire626 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October!

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kangolu

hi.i am a man from kangelo village. this village name is kangelo.kangolu is incorrect.you can see in google maps. Nasim96 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

kangolu

how delete a wikipedia page like kangolu that incorrect? kangelo ia correct. can you edit this name or delete kangolu? Nasim96 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nasim96: See here for information about such process WP:AFD, but your own article with the alternative spelling has yet to be reviewed. I think some sort of redirect based on consensus would be best in this case. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to July 5.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. Another editor has gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: I am fully aware of this policy and the sources used in the article indeed states that his birthday is 5/7/89 [1], I suggest you correct this. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And why wasn't that in July 5? You accepted it without a direct source and you shouldn't have. Toddst1 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1: There is a direct source in the article, do some research. I also suggest you remove the warning template you gave to the user who insterated this in the first place, since that edit clearly was constructive. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, I don't know how to say this more plainly. A source in the article is not good enough. As it's stated in WP:USERG, "a wikilink is not a reliable source." That is why the requirement for a direct source on the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide was added. Toddst1 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1: And I cant understand how you again and again fail to see the source above, which also is used as a reference in the article about the subject. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it doesn't matter if it's in the article. Toddst1 (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Recent Changes Barnstar
I went to do some old school RC patrolling, saw your name, and decided that I couldn't compete
against your Huggle! Glad to have you around! -- Dolotta (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dolotta: Thank you very much for this, I appreciate it. You are doing a wonderful job too! Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales user page

Why you revert edit? Wales could found funny that phrase, he have a good sense of humor... --151.49.88.52 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are disruptive. I suggest you stop trying to be funny, this will only get you blocked. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir edit

Hi, I removed the newly added 'Controversy' section because I did not feel it was not necessary to add this section - it seemed to be designed to disparage. The section was created to add information on the publication of the long Dossier on Boris Johnson, which included a short reference to a 14-year old article by the Daily Mail stating that there were rumours of a 'friendship blossoming' between Boris Johnson and Ruzwana Bashir. That original article was already taken down by the Daily Mail many years ago and is now not available, but had actually already been referenced in this Wikipedia page on Bashir. As a result I added a link to the new Sunday Times article which references the original Daily Mail article, and included that link in the appropriate section under Bashir's Oxford career. Bashir is at most peripherally referred to in the Boris Johnson Dossier, and so I do not feel it warrants a new section on her Wikipedia page. I hope that is sufficient information for you. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGSmith (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewGSmith: Hi Matthew and thanks for your explanation, a good idea would be to include an explanation in your edit summary or use the talk page to discuss changes in order to avoid any problems or misunderstandings in the future if you remove sourced content. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shellwood. Is this Talk page enough or do I need to add the explanation to another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGSmith (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spix's Macaw Classification Status Change

I don't know why you reverted my conservation status change in the Spix's Macaw page from "Critically Endangered and Possibly Extinct" to "Extinct in the Wild". If you actually did your research, you would know that the Spix's Macaw has been officially declared extinct in the wild quite recently (with the last wild specimen spotted in 2000). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkurapat (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkurapat: Very simple, you can't provide a source for that. The burden is on you to provide a source that supports your claim. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rebel Vandalism

Shellwood, I see that 2a02:c7f:a463:3800:41b9:dce8:812b:3990 has again incorrectly and pointlessly changed the date of death of "Johnny Rebel (singer)" even after you warned him to cease doing so. I reverted his most recently change. Please feel free to report this user for blocking if you think warranted. Thanks, --Skb8721 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Skb8721: The IP seem to have stopped vandalizing, thankfully. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I didn't notice the timestamps: I thought the user had been vandalizing repeatedly for hours, not just a few minutes. Thanks, --Skb8721 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


edit removed

Hello Shellwood, I am new to this and all I was trying to do was put back in a paragraph that has been historically on the page for ages, it was just recently removed and I feel that it shouldn't have been removed. All I am trying to do is revert it back to the way it has been. Someone savvy like yourself could assist me in doing this. I run a business for a living, I am not an avid Wikipedia editor. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjkj18 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjkj18: Is this [2] what you are looking for? A simple copy and paste without references will do no good, may I suggest you discuss this on the article's talk page before re-adding it. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shellwood: Thank you for providing that information. I will have to do some learning over the weekend and I will add it back to the page the proper way. Is their guidelines as to how to handle content if people disagree on the talk page? I do not foresee the editor of the recent changes wanting it back. Rjkj18 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjkj18: Users are encouraged to seek consensus through this discussion, if you find yourself in a position where several other users disagree with you, you can request for comment WP:RFCST or take the matter to the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I urge you to stick with any consensus reached on the article talk page. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjkj18: Hi, I'm one of the editors that keep removing the Hitler Speeches section. If you want the section back in the article, you should consider addressing the arguments against inclusion that Amerul, Beyond My Ken and me have made on the article talk page. Just finding sources for the quotes as such isn't going to change anything because the objection is not that Hitler didn't say these things. The objections are that:
  • The quotes are not examples of anything that mattered much in terms of actual outcomes (or even policy) and the article shouldn't falsely suggest they are.
  • There are plenty of Hitler statements contradicting these quotes (because Hitler pandered to just about everybody at one point or the other) and the article shouldn't falsely suggest ideological consistency and coherence where none existed.
The fact that the section was "on the page for ages" is not an argument. It basically only means someone should have caught the problem earlier.
There has always been a tendency in the popular imagination to attribute everything that goes on in an authoritarian system to the person of the dictator, as though no other forces, interests, or influences existed. It's an expression of a more general cognitive fallacy, a general tendency to forget about the supporting cast and remember everything as having been done by the protagonists, usually on purpose. Scholars are trained to recognize and resist this kind of thinking. Scholars of Nazi Germany in particular also know that Hitler was a very weak dictator, comparatively, who was frequently ignored or overruled by his top lieutenants or by the industrialist and military power players behind the throne. You're going to need fairly substantial scholarship to convince editors that a bunch of random examples of Hitler pandering to this audience or that adds anything of value to the article. Damvile (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Hitler was a "weak dictator", but rather than he was disinclined to make decisions until he absolutely had to. He allowed, and even encouraged, competing authorities in the state and the party to "work toward the Fuhrer" -- i.e. to do what they knew, or thought they knew, that Hitler wanted, and if there was a conflict, he would decide between them, a process which was often dragged out. That means that Nazi Germany wasn't the kind of dictatorship where everything originated from the top, except for core principles, but it also means that, essentially, everything that was done was done with Hitler's approval or acquiescence. No major thrust made by the state or party (or, especially, the Wehrmacht) was anything except what Hitler wanted, whether or not he had explicitly ordered it to be done. (Especially in the run-up to taking over, and in the early days of the Nazi regime, Hitler and his high lieutenants would say what needed to happen, and the SA would follow their implicit instructions without receiving explicit orders as to what, exactly, to do.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: You're absolutely right about Hitler's allowing and even encouraging competing authorities. I actually made the exact same point in my Aug 15 comment on the article talk page. But to the best of my knowledge there is fairly broad academic consensus that Hitler was not only reluctant to decide but also weak, in the sense that he would not have been able to ignore the opinions of his gauleiters, his top generals, and his inner circle of top industrialists even if he had wanted to. As it happens, the consensus is especially strong where the economy is concerned. Part of the reason is that economic policy is where Hitler was the most obviously outclassed by the professionals. Another part is that the economy is where Hitler had to satisfy vital and powerful allies with especially strong personalities, e.g. Göring, or especially strong agendas, e.g. the IG Farben a.k.a. More Slave Labor Now Or We Throw Some Serious Spanners Into The Works, Inc.
The topic is important to me because I'm Austrian. Playing up Hitler's personal competence and dominance was (and is) a tactic used by revisionists to play down the culpability of everybody else and the complicity of the general population. If it was Hitler's decision and nobody could have stopped him, it obviously wasn't anybody else's fault, right? If you want to believe in the Opferthese or in the Clean Wehrmacht or if you want to deny the degree to which the entire nation was complicit in the Holocaust, then you need Hitler to have been an autocratic strongman answerable to nothing and nobody. So that's the fiction people with bad consciences started building up in 1945. It worked well for a while, particularly after the Cold War started and both sides suddenly lost all interest in holding their respective German possessions to account. The result is that German and Austrian academia are still fighting to set the record straight 70 years later.
(Related: Remember the disagreement we had on the question whether Goebbles was a journalist? Same issue! The idea that there was a clear distinction between "journalism" and "propaganda" in 1920s and 1930s Germany is ahistorical and was invented in 1945 by journalists fearing for their professional survival. ("No, we journalists had nothing to do with any of this, never mind the 50 million articles we published railing against the Jews, starting ca. 1860. It was all just the evil propagandists who are nothing like us responsible professionals! Honest! As luck would have it, there really only were about two handfuls of them and guess what, it was the same two handfuls the Allies already hanged. Absolutely no reason to fire anybody still alive, what an amazing coincidence!") As with the mythical larger-than-life Hitler, the fact that we let the guilty parties get away with that has repercussions to this day.)
I'd go into much more detail except I'm still on Shellwood's talk page. Damvile (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, which gave me much to think about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

hello I am sorry for vandalising I thought it would be fun. it will not happen again. sos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.22.68 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Shellwood,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. ​

Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Koehl: Thank you for the invite Dan, but I already joined this group some time ago. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Risk (magazine)

I am the managing editor of Risk magazine and Risk.net. All the changes I am trying to make are valid - for example we no longer have any connection to Incisive Media, so most of the bottom section needs changing, like I did. The section about Risk Quantum that has been removed is relevant to our audience as it is a new addition to the Risk 'family', so I would rather we could leave that in where I had it. I realise now that I'm not supposed to add too many external links, but I wasn't aware of that before, so I won't add more links. Jon


OK, I'm giving up. I'll leave the old info on there as I keep getting told I'm vandalizing. My manager won't be happy but there you go. Very unhappy with this process though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonfopro2018 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about I just tell you what the changes need to be and you do them or not? And by the way, it would be polite to offer help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonfopro2018 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonfopro2018: Please provide a reliable source. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonfopro2018 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonfopro2018: In the article. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see you've also taken off the lists of Quant of the year and Lifetime achievement. What is the point of doing that? Those have been on there for ages.

There is nothing on this article left that needs a source. You've got rid of everything that didn't have a source. Do you have a manager I can speak to? I'm really not happy about this treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonfopro2018 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonfopro2018: I only removed unnecessary external links you created in almost every section of the article, other users have since then removed parts they deemed promotional. I suggest you bring the issue to the article's talk page. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sign of any other action other than that done by yourself, unless you can point me in the right direction. I am new to this, and it's been a dreadful experience. The page has been ruined since I started trying to make it better. The talk page on the my article just shows a list of who the article would be of interest to on Wiki - what do you mean by 'bring this issue to the talk page'? I find this whole thing unfathomable to be honest and wish I'd never started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonfopro2018 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonfopro2018: See page history [3]. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnaturally fast

How are you so damn fast? Every time I see a flagged edit you've always reverted it, leave some for the rest of us!


On a more real note, nice job and keep up the good work! Kyle 13:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kb03: That's all thanks to Huggle :) Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For reverting so much vandalism, I regularly see edits in the filter that I hit rollback on only to find that you have already reverted it Tornado chaser (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tornado chaser: Thanks a lot, your own contributions deserve recognition too, keep it up! Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Tornado chaser (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Al Kassy

Hi there. You recently undid my changes to Adnan Al Kaisy's page. I've been in contact with him the past two weeks and he informed me that his real name listed on this site is incorrect. He also no longer lives in Minnesota as stated on the site so I updated that as well. He appeared a bit upset that his name was incorrect so I told him I would correct it. If you'd like I can take a picture of the letter where he stated this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itstoocool22 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Itstoocool22: Please cite a reliable source as we are dealing with a BLP. Shellwood (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCES!!!

I used goverment sources and you just say that i vandalised. Serbo-Croatian does not exist. The END!!!ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shellwood&oldid=859787725"