User talk:Richard-of-Earth

Today is Saturday, November 09, 2024. It's 07:42 (UTC).

Click on "New Section" above to start a new conversation.

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Revert of talk page heading improvement

Re this revert of my edit, I gather from your editsum that your sole rationale was that I shouldn't have changed a heading created by a different editor. Please see this at WP:TPO (emphasis mine):

Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc.

My heading is more appropriate because the thread turned out to merely educate the OP about process that everybody else understands (as far as we can tell), and is therefore of little importance to editors in general. To say it's "important", then, is misleading and likely to attract more attention (consume more editor time) than the thread merits. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: interesting. I was not aware of that particular policy. I still think keeping the original title was important. Most editors are mature enough that they know the "important" part shows the OP's does in fact need educating and are not misled by it for a second. Also I noted after I made the revert that there was a link on Talk:2019 Dayton shooting#Important (procedural) question about this discussion and !vote to that conversation as the OP put it on both pages and your change broke that link. Of course if I had not reverted you and instead just fixed the bracket pairing, I could have just fixed that link. It was really just less buttons to push to revert it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hi Richard, there's a question related to this [1] edit. The article does have a "blog" word in URL but it's just a list of articles of a well-known service, which is not a private or self-published blog. So it doesn't seem to violate this rule. Goo3 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Goo3: the link you gave does not work, The reason we do not use self published sources is they are not peer reviewed. I overlook that if the self published source is from a published expert like a professor at one of the major universities, but it depends on the use. If it is a list of articles, use one or more of the listed articles as a source. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Richard-of-Earth, sorry Richard, I gave you a wrong diff, here's the correct one. I've used an article from the list as a source. It's neither a blog nor a self-published source. They've just had "blog" in the URL, dunno why, though it's an articles' list. Thanks for the explanations, I'll use the article as a source then. Goo3 (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(conversation moved to Talk:Cover letter#Citation for additions)

High crimes and misdemeanors

I formally apologize for and removed the previous assertions that I mistook for misconduct on the editor's behalf and now understand that the misrepresented removal of edits on basis of edits not summarizing the article were not targeted bias but perhaps lack of diligence on proofreading the other edits in the summary section. While I still believe my removals were unjust compared to the other text existing, it doesn't justify the comments made previously by myself as I attributed bias that I now believe didn't exist. --Human On 3rd Planet (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Link spamming

If you don't like the resource I linked to, that's fine, but please don't accuse me of link spamming just because I wrote it. The tutorial on informal fallacies seemed directly relevant to an entry on logical fallacies, which is why I put it there and only there (and the entry on informal logic, again because it seemed relevant). Before I closed down the web site that used to host it, the tutorial had received positive feedback from several people directed there from Wikipedia, and I never received any complaints for linking to it. When I was finally able to restore and even update the material on my current blog, I figured I should update the Wikipedia entry with the correct link. Looking at my talk page, I now see that the link was removed once before, so maybe there was some sort of change in the policies on external links or something. Anyway, the link is gone, so no harm done, and I'm sorry for whatever grief I caused. Like I said, please just don't accuse me of link spamming. I honestly thought the link was relevant. BMN (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Napzilla: Oh my, no grief at all. A couple of clicks. I just assumed you did not know. I am sorry if it caused you grief. You can certainly link to your blogspot web pages on your user page, but not at the article external link section. Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided mentions in item 11 Blogs, personal web pages ... except those written by a recognized authority. I see you are published on Geography, but not in Logic. I suppose if you wrote something about Geography and it was hosted on you university web site and used by your students and it was not really available anywhere else, then we would use it. An example it James E. Morrison's page on Astrolabes is simply not available anywhere else. (It is a good read.) Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia, we do like having your contributions. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Vegetarianism on Common Misconceptions Page

I am confused on your reversal of my edit on the common misconceptions page about whether or not vegetarian diets get enough protein. It has already been reverted and un-reverted before. The supposed misconception is that vegetarians have a hard time getting enough protein in their diet. Specifically it says "A vegetarian or vegan diet can provide enough protein for adequate nutrition." It explains this with "In fact, typical protein intakes of ovo-lacto vegetarians and vegans meet and exceed requirements. However, a vegan diet does require supplementation of vitamin B12 for optimal health." which, worded as it is here, actually supports the supposed "misconeption" when it is supposed to be refuting it. The first and second sentences agree with each other when they are supposed to contradict each other as per the style of the article.

The sources also support that the misconception is that vegetarians cannot consume enough protein. See https://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/082510p20.shtml (citation 411 at time of writing) where it almost verbatim says that the misconception is that vegetarians cannot get enough protein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonharrisoncode (talk • contribs) 17:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Brandonharrisoncode: I do not actually care how you interpret it or about the issue. I went by the first citation I looked at and that the article says no such thing and that the stable version of the page has said "can" for a long time and lastly that there are not a bunch of dead vegetarians from malnutrition. Frankly I consider what you did vandalism, because if you know it has been reverted and un-reverted before then you know you need consensus before changing it. So you should be discussing it on the talk page. That you are here on my talk page means to me you are trying to be disruptive about it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Richard-of Earth: I think there's been a misunderstanding here, I'm not trying to be disruptive and I'm sorry if it has come across that way. I added the not because I believe that the bullet point in the article contradicts itself. I don't have any particular interest in the issue and I don't want to offer my own interpretation, I simply wanted to fix what seems to be a contradiction. From what I understand we even agree on what the sources say. As for the reversions, I mean that someone else had the same thought process as you, reverted my claim, and then looked at it, and then undid his reversion saying 'I was mistaken. Previous version correct.' Which is why I was confused as to why it was getting reverted again instead of creating a discussion on the talk page. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia, so if I was wrong in coming to this talk page instead of creating a new section on the article then I'm sorry, I simply wanted to understand why my work was reverted. Brandonharrisoncode (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)