User talk:Helpfulwikieditoryay: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 481: Line 481:


Please stop what you're doing with regards to listing of parents. It is weird to swap the order of men and women to always put the woman first, particularly when the surname or house of the article subject is the father's not the mother's. This is an unusual way of writing, which is very uncommon and looks strange. It is the sort of thing that's only done if the child is illegitimate or inherits their notability through the mother instead of the father. We are not here to drive societal change or to campaign on social issues. We should be writing clearly and simply for the benefit of readers. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 07:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Please stop what you're doing with regards to listing of parents. It is weird to swap the order of men and women to always put the woman first, particularly when the surname or house of the article subject is the father's not the mother's. This is an unusual way of writing, which is very uncommon and looks strange. It is the sort of thing that's only done if the child is illegitimate or inherits their notability through the mother instead of the father. We are not here to drive societal change or to campaign on social issues. We should be writing clearly and simply for the benefit of readers. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 07:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Uh, we're not going to stop putting proper information into wikipedia article because a misogynist is bothered. Your comment is frankly insane. [[User:Helpfulwikieditoryay|Helpfulwikieditoryay]] ([[User talk:Helpfulwikieditoryay#top|talk]]) 03:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:21, 6 July 2022

Welcome!

Hello, Helpfulwikieditoryay! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

September 2019

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Johann Strauss II, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Hauschild (painter) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Wilhelm Hauschild (painter), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster talk 03:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wilhelm Hauschild (painter) (March 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Helpfulwikieditoryay! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Helpfulwikieditoryay! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Gallery captions, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wilhelm Hauschild (painter) (July 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Whilst it is likely that this individual would satisfy notability requirements, it requires significant coverage (not merely mentions in passing such as the Neuschwanstein Castle reference) in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. The Heimatgemeinschaft Schlegel reference is an ideal source, just need some other collaborating sources. If you let me know when you have identified and included additional references and I'd be happy to review its suitability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Gender reveal party, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of non-free images

There are restrictions on how non-free images are used on Wikipedia. In particular, per WP:NFCI, you may only display cover art in conjunction with critical commentary of the item(in this case the movie) in question. - MrOllie (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will choose a different image. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Helpfulwikieditoryay[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced birth dates

Hi. I wanted to explain why I reverted a change you made to Lindsay Ellingson. In this edit, you added a birth date, but you didn't cite a reliable source. Wikipedia has strict rules on content in biographies of living persons because this can impact real peoples' lives. Please be aware the many sites on the internet purport to give information about celebrities, but few of them of reliable. Sites like the IMDb use user-generated content, and they should not be cited in biographical articles. Similarly, celebrity gossip websites should not be used because most of them don't have a history of fact checking or publishing corrections. Fan sites and blogs are self-published and have no editorial control. We also can't use primary documents, such as government birth databases. This means that the number of available sources is quite slim, and we often have to either go without this information or wait until a source like Entertainment Weekly or the BBC publishes an interview that includes a birth date. If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, you can ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what source to use, but I'm certain the information currently on the article is incorrect. Her instagram has her place of birth and birthday. I didn't add a source on my own, I just corrected the information using the source currently on the article. The article says San Bernardino and the reference listed for that says San Diego. https://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/lindsay_ellingson/ However this source isn't reliable because it has the wrong birth year. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Helpfulwikieditoryay[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wilhelm Hauschild (December 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SL93 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SL93 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wilhelm Hauschild has been accepted

Wilhelm Hauschild, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spicy (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain?

Hello,

You seem to be in the process of removing topics related to erotica from non-erotica categories (example here). This is probably done in good faith, but I do not think at first glance that this is appropriate editing. You edit comments "contains only categories" did not help me to understand your reasoning. Wikipedia is not censored, and that means that erotic artists are artists, and that Pornographic film actors from Wisconsin are actors from Wisconsin. They need to be categorized as such.

Can you please explain the rationale behind these edits, and, in the meantime, stop them? Place Clichy (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this too and have reverted some of the changes. I'm not clear on the stated rationale either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert these changes. It takes a lot of effort to sort things into proper categories. I'd appreciate it if you removed your revisions. I don't know what you mean by censorship. Putting pages in the correct category does not censor the page. It simply won't appear on that specific page but will continue to exist and appear on other pages. You have placed many pages into the wrong category. You continually put genres of actors into pages that do not sort actors by genre. This is disruptive editing. If the page says actors by state, please put actors by state. It is incorrect to put "comedy actors list, horror actors list, porn actors list" etc. For some reason, porn actors is the only one randomly placed there incorrectly, so I removed it. I feel like this was done because those porn pages didn't have enough categories and they felt the need to add them into the wrong categories just to make the page longer. It's ok to have a shorter page, we can add more later. That doesn't mean you can place them into the wrong category. If you want to put those actors into the correct list, feel free. I have already added many categories to these porn pages. Please don't erase all my edits again. You should have asked if you could erase them before doing that. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not placing them in the wrong categories. Here you reverted my placing Category:Slovak erotic photographers as a subcategory of Category:Slovak photographers. That is a classic parent–child relationship, with erotic photographers being a subtype of photographer. So what's the problem? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, here you removed Category:Canadian male film actors as a parent category of Category:Canadian male pornographic film actors. Clearly, pornographic actors are a subtype of actor, so the parent–child category relationship is appropriate. You have made dozens of these errors. Please stop. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding what categories are for. The category Slovak photographers is to create a list of Slovak photographers. It is not for listing out genres. If you want to create a genre list, go ahead. As you can see, your edit is the only edit on the entire page that is out of place. I ask you to please stop doing this. It is disruptive to the rest of the page. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm quite sure you are mistaken. I have plenty of experience with categories. You are mistaken. Please stop now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You act like you are the only one with experience. You are wrong. Please do not continue to act so immature. I'm going to ask you to stop spamming my page. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just acting like someone who is certain about what he is talking about. If you don't believe me, why don't you believe Place Clichy? Or would you like me to refer this to a place where categories are discussed so your approach can be assessed? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please erase your edits. You are in the wrong category. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this will be helpful. The guideline is at Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization: "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. For example, Category:Cities in France is a subcategory of Category:Populated places in France, which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Geography of France." In our case, a Slovak erotic photographer is a Slovak photographer, and thus Category:Slovak erotic photographers is a subcategory of Category:Slovak photographers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point that I'm trying to explain to you. Cities in France is a perfect subcategory of places in France. Genres of photographer are not a subcategory of photographer by nationality. Place and city are the same type of thing. Genre and country are not the same type of thing. It is exceedingly obvious that you are making a mistake when your edit is the only one of the page that is speaking of genre rather than nationality. I'm really asking you to kindly remove your edits. It's wasting everyone's time. Add your category to the correct genre page, not to the nationality page. I have already added many of the genres to the genre category. You can continue this work if you like.Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refer this to Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I'll post a link here after I've commented there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would at least be better if there were many categories sorted by genre on the page for sorting by nationality. However, yours is the only one. Maybe you can try adding many categories if you must. That would make the page confusing and dilute the point of the page unfortunately. But you must choose one or the other. You can't have a page meant for nationality with one random genre. Would you like to add a bunch of genres to the pages? Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The categories in question are not "mine". In any case, I can see that my explanation is not understood. I have opened a discussion here. It's probably likely to get more eyeballs there than at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I'm going to cool my editing until that discussion concludes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are your edits. I am trying to compromise. Either keep the list of photographers by nationality as a list of photographers by nationality, or you can add more genres to the page. Don't have the list of people and then just one genre there. That makes no sense. You can put them all there if you like. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak erotic photographers and part of the broader group of Slovak photographers. It's a subtype, thus a subcategory. If there were categories for other Slovak photographers by different genres they too would belong in Category:Slovak photographers, until someone created Category:Slovak photographers by genre, which would be a subcategory of Category:Photographers by nationality and genre. But none of these exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true, all genres of photographer should be on that page. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other categories for Slovak photographers of other genres. That's why they are absent – they don't exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was telling you. They need to be created or else sorting by genre when it's meant to be by nationality will continue to be out of place. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think it is out of place. Category:Slovak erotic photographers is a sorting by nationality just as much as Category:Slovak photographers is. All "Slovak erotic photographers" are "Slovak photographers". I can't explain it any clearer than that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained fully so I don't know what more to say to you. When someone wants a list of people by nationality, they're not looking for a list of genres. That's why there are two separate pages. A genre is not a nationality. A city is a place. The distinction is clear. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what other editors say. ;) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather be correct than just take mob rule, even if they agree with me. We need to use common sense. I mean do you want to create more categories and put them there? That would be cool. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really "mob rule"; it's supposed to be "consensus", which is fairly central to WP. If I came to a category of American photographers, I would expect it to contain all the articles on WP about American photographers, regardless of genre. We could double-categorize the articles in both Category:American photographers and Category:American erotic photographers, but that's generally not the practice. The practice is to add Category:American erotic photographers as a contained subcategory of Category:American photographers. (Except when categories are non-diffusing, but that's another story. I'm generally treating these categories are diffusing ones.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of genre, yes. But I expect it to have American photographers. Not genres of photographers. There are two separate pages for a reason. One is the American page and the other is the genre page. There's a reason you don't see a "comedy actors" category on the American actors list. The list is for a list of names. For genres you go to the genre page. I think this really isn't worth the time anymore hoenstly. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But can't you see that Category:American erotic photographers is both a nationality and a genre category? It belongs in the nationality category as as sub- because it is a subtype, by nationality (and genre). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I moved the discussion out of WP:CFD to here. I read the scope of CFD and this was beyond the scope. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's nationality and genre, so it should be sorted as nationality and genre, not just nationality. We don't need to mix the pages. If it askes for nationality, do nationality. If it asks for genre, do genre. My problem is trying to insert a random category onto a list of actors' names. Especially when it's the only one. Now if the page was American actors and it was sorted like American tv actors, American comedic actors, American scream queens, American drama actors, American stage actors, etc, that would be fine. But it's not. It's for a list of people. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A clear example of what I'm talking about is here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Film_actors_by_nationality You can see how out of place pornographic actors is. Silent film actors seems maybe a bit out of place too, but less so. I actually didn't see that one at first but I was thinking of removing it too. However it's less out of place because at least it's not just some random genre of film but rather a true type of film. (Silent is not a genre.) Every single link listed on that page is actors from a place. It also makes sense that it just put actors and actresses at the front. However pornographic actors is RIDICULOUSLY out of place. And silent film actors is questionable. Why would a random genre be placed in the beginning when the entire page is meant for places? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Child_actors_by_nationality Why is child actors not there? Child actors makes much more sense to be on that page than pornographic actors. Child actor is a large group and type of actor, defined by who the actor is rather than what genre they do, that makes nearly as much sense as actor and actress. Pornographic is not a group about who the actors are, it's a genre. I could add child actors by nationality, as well as many other categories. But it would clog the page. It makes much more sense to remove pornographic actors. And I'm questioning on silent actors. Even on the child actor page, the only categories you see are "tv actors" and "identical twin actors." Both of those are types of actors, NOT genres. I really think the only reason pornographic actors was placed there was because the person didn't know where else to put it, and since the pornographic pages were short, they were sloppily placed in the wrong categories to make the page appear bigger. It's a simple thing to fix and makes a million times more sense, while clearing up the page for its intended use. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we just fundamentally disagree on how to categorize and subcategorize, and even, it appears, on the purpose of categorization. Absent that common base of purpose, it's difficult to come to any agreement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I guess so. Sorry for all the arguing. I'd still like to make my edits though. For example, while removing actors from California from pornographic actors from California, I added the category sex industry in California. I will continue to add categories but I'd like to be able to remove them from where they don't belong. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus supports your position, I would not stand in the way of you removing the categories. (So far only one user has weighed in.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About WP:SYNTH

Hi, Helpfulwikieditoryay, I recently removed most of this edit of yours from Gender reveal party, because the implied connection between two assertions, namely the link between the development of sonograms and the origin of gender reveal parties in the late 2000s, was not mentioned in any provided source. This is a type of original research called WP:SYNTHESIS, where no single source verifies the implied connection between two assertions, even if you can verify them individually, and is prohibited. To take an example: suppose I had written, "Gender reveal parties started in the late 2000s,[3] barely a decade after the first Mars rover landed on the Red Planet.[4]" The problem here is obvious: even though the first part and the second part are both true, and both are sourced, the problem is with the "barely a decade" that links them. That link exists only in my own mind, even though both propositions in the sentence are accurate taken separately. That makes it prohibited WP:SYNTH. If you can find a single source that links the development of sonograms in the 1940s to gender reveal parties, you can add your content back into the article, citing that source. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't quite understand what you're saying. Gender reveal parties are able to exist because of sonograms. The fact that gender reveals are due to ultrasounds is sourced in the Planning the Event section. It does make sense to say in the beginning that gender reveal parties came into being after ultrasounds became widely used. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SYNTH, which probably explains it better than I can. Whether it makes sense to say that or not, it still needs to be verifiable, and a citation is the best way to do that. Btw, ultrasound isn't the only method of sex detection; there's amnio, for example. Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is verified because gender reveals are done through ultrasounds. That is sourced. I don't see how it's making up its own conclusion when the sources specifically say when ultrasounds were made and that ultrasounds cause gender reveals. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely what WP:SYNTH is about; I'm sorry I haven't been more helpful in explaining it. You could try asking at WT:No original research where there are editors who understand it very well, or at WP:Help desk, or at the WP:Tea house. If it works out at one of those other venues, please {{Reply}} back to me and let me know who or how they managed to better explain it, so I can keep it in mind for next time. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I'll trust you even if I'm a bit confused how it's a stretch to say that. I guess the problem is it doesn't specifically say in the source that gender reveals came after sonograms, even though it says when sonograms were, when gender reveals were, and how gender reveals are done with sonograms. It seems like a weird rule to me but I can see what you're saying. It seems like precaution against people drawing misleading conclusions and putting them in articles. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, you've got it! Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I'm getting very concerned by these - this one is clearly wrong for example. And this. Mass reversions may be appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be concerned. My edits are correct. The first one was a typo. Czech male autofills to painters rather than to artists. You don't need to say mass reversions when it's just one typo. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Johnbod may be concerned with the latter edit because you removed Category:Etchers] and Category:Printmakers from the article and did not place them in any subcategories of these categories. The article Nele Zirnite clearly belongs in both. Categories can contain subcategories and articles. You don't need to empty it of articles just because it contains subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely! Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no subcategory for their nationality, so I didn't add them to another category. I don't personally want to create one but someone else can. Etchers is for the broad category, not individual people. That's why there were only a few individuals listed while every other etcher on wikipedia was placed in their appropriate category. The reason wikipedia does this is to prevent pages from becoming sloppy and difficult to use. For example, it is redundant to list out all 48 French etchers onto the etchers category when you can simply find French etchers listed on the etchers category page. The etchers page will continue to grow as more nationalities and types of people are added, so we cannot have individual people clogging the page. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are people supposed to find the entries for these new subcategories, if you have removed the articles from the tree completely? Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Sigh). I think we have been here before. Your interpretation of how categorization works is unusual. When I last raised issues with you, I opened it up to general comment here, and no users agreed with your approach. It's time to acknowledge that you might be wrong. If a person is an etcher, they can be categorized as an etcher, even if no by-nationality category exists yet. "Clogging" has nothing to do with it, really, and is highly subjective in any case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to go with what several people say when they are wrong. Certain pages need to stopp being clogged. Categories are meant to have a parent-child relationship, not grandfather-child or great grandfather-child. It is tempting to spam a bunch of categories on pages I have created and am proud of to increase their visibility, but they don't belong there, so I have refrained from doing so. I am especially not convinced by a very tiny number of people who choose to personally insult me rather than make their argument. Their goofy, rude comments pushed me much further away from agreeing with their ideas. This conversation has gone on long enough. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any editor that a person who is an engraver does not belong in Category:Engravers when there is no appropriate "FOOian engravers" category. If you don't stop making edits like this, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Users who put pages in the wrong category should be simply told why their edits are wrong, not blocked. It's not fair to block you just because you don't understand something. That's not what wikipedia is about. It's an open encylopedia for making good faith edits. As you can see, individual engravers do not belong in the broad engraver category. Please do not threaten users. Your behavior is unacceptable. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you why they are wrong. I said you would be blocked if you don't stop making the disruptive edits. This is not meant to be threatening, it's just letting you know the consequences of continuing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you continue your behavior doesn't mean you deserve to be blocked. That's insane. There is no harm done in your mistaken edits. Mistaken editing happens thousands of times daily on this website. Disagreements happen daily. Your harsh behavior is highly unnecessary. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Disruptive editing? If not, you should familiarize yourself with it. The WP:NOTGETTINGIT subsection is of particular note here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As I said on the project talk page, I prefer a ban from editing categories, rather than a full block, but if you continue there will be consequences. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator who doesn't much care how categories are organized (but who has Wikipedia talk:Categorization watchlisted for some reason anyway) I hereby warn you that if you persist in the specific species of category deletion in which you've been engaging, you will be blocked. Your edits are clearly against consensus. Steve Smith (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate issue this edit is problematic because, while it's normally true that you don't want an article in both a parent category and a subcategory, there are exceptions, and one of those is "subcategories defined by gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality"—see WP:DUPCAT. Steve Smith (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, should I remove that page from the modern printmakers category? Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Reddy (artist)

Just adding a note since there was some confusion, Krishna Reddy is a famous and known intaglio printmaker, and intaglio is etching. Please do not remove tags in the future if you are unfamiliar with common terminology. Jooojay (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually am familiar with intaglio! The source did not state he was an etcher. Etching is a method of intaglio. Etching is not the only method. It would be like calling someone a watercolorist when they are an oil painter since they are both painting. If you have a source saying his method of intaglio is etching, please add it to the article. Otherwise your edit is not appropriate. You can familiarize yourself with intaglio here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intaglio_(printmaking) Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Clarification

  • "Categories are meant to have a parent-child relationship, not grandfather-child or great grandfather-child."

Hi Helpfulwikieditoryay.

I was reading the discussion at WT:CAT, and the discussion above, and saw your comment that I've copied to the top of this thread. I'm not extirely clear on what you mean by this. Could you please clarify? - jc37 03:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure! So for example, Leonardo da Vinci is an artist. However he does not belong in Category: Artists. This is a very broad category so it would be difficult to navigate if it was simply a massive list of artists. So we narrow it down, and Leonardo da Vinci is listed under other categories, such as Italian Renaissance painters and Painters from Florence. To find the longest comprehensive list of Italian artists (as far as I know), you can look at Italian male painters and Italian women painters. But putting Leonardo da Vinci in the artist category would be wildly incorrect. There is one single individual person, William Utermohlen, on the Category: Artists page, and I believe it should be removed. However I've been threatened with being banned if I remove it so I can't.
Where it gets interesting is Leonardo da Vinci is not listed under Category: Italian painters, despite being a perfect example of one. The reason for this is obviously to organize wikipedia and make it usable. There are only about 50 individuals listed there. Since there are many thousands of notable Italian artists, and almost all of them are not listed individually on the Category: Italian painters page, that shows almost all editors agree that category is too broad for individual names. However I have never attempted to remove anything so large. There are about 50 people there, and that seemed like too many for me to remove. I only removed just a few that only had several people on it, like the example with William Utermohlen I gave.
Italian artists is a great grandfather category of Leonardo da Vinci. Artists is a great great grandfather category. A grandparent category is Italian painters by city‎, where he is narrowed down to Painters from Florence. He is a 15th century Italian painter, so he goes under that category. 15th century Italian painters goes under the category 15th century Italian artists. There are just two people under that category. I see they are both manuscript illuminators as well as painters. Perhaps they were placed separately because of their illumination, however other manuscript illuminators are placed in the painters category, and these two people are regular painters as well, so I don't see why they would be separate. Since there are the only two, and all of the other over 600 pages of 15th century Italian painters were not placed there, I think that shows editors basically universally agree about where they belong. The two should be removed and placed under parent categories. For example why is Martino di Bartolomeo, a 15th century Italian manuscript illuminator and painter, not placed under the grandfather category of 15th century Italian artists, but the other two are? This is inconsistent and I believe should be fixed. Thanks for reading, this was pretty long. :) Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I think you are misunderstanding the reason that you have been "threatened with being banned," to use your words. Yes, articles should be moved to subcategories whenever possible; everyone agrees on this. What you have been doing, and what is not okay, is removing articles from categories when there are no appropriate subcategories. See, for example, this edit, which was mentioned above. You were correct that it should be (should have been?) removed from Category:Printmakers, because it is (was) a member of Category:Etchers, a subcategory of Printmakers. However, it does not fit into any of the subcategories of Etchers, so it should remain in Etchers.
Using your own example of Category:Artists, that is actually a different case, because the category is marked with {{Category diffuse}} (meaning that yes, there shouldn't really be any articles in that category (aside from obvious ones like Artist), and there are appropriate subcategories that articles could and should be moved into. However, the solution is not to just remove William Utermohlen from Category:Artists. The solution is to move the article to appropriate subcategories. In this case, the first one that stands out to me is Category:Artists from Philadelphia‎; and I'll probably go and move the article after I finish typing this out.
So, ultimately, the problem here is that you are removing articles from categories where they actually do belong because there are no appropriate subcategories where they should be instead. Let me know if this makes sense. Aerin17 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds great! That makes perfect sense and I agree with that. Where I am confused is, for example, Chng Seok Tin is listed under Modern printmakers, Women printmakers, and Printmakers. I removed Printmakers. I was the one who added Modern printmakers. (Even if I didn't add it, would it still be ok to remove Printmakers because the page was already in Women printmakers?) Is it correct that Printmakers should be removed because this page is already in two subcategories for Printmakers? Chng Seok Tin is the only individual person there despite belonging to others. In almost all cases that I've been removing categories, I put them into subcategories or they already were listed in subcategories, but they still told me I'm not allowed to do this. My removal of Printmakers was reversed, even when I added Modern printmakers. I agree with not just removing. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to refrain from giving you an answer on this one because, to be honest, I don't completely understand myself. I know that gender-based categories like Women printmakers are marked as non-diffusing, which means that articles should be in, e.g., Women printmakers and Printmakers, but I don't know how that interacts with subcategories like Modern printmakers. Hopefully someone else will see this and respond who understands better than I do! Aerin17 (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Helpfulwikieditoryay, thank you for your response. I appreciate it.

It looks like User:Aerin17 is already discussing this with you, so I'll step aside from that as it appears you both are having a nice productive discussion : )

A fair amount of what you seem to be talking about appears to be covered in Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization. If there is anything there which you find to be less-than-clear, please let me know and I'd be happy to take a look at the text and try to clarify it.

And yes, the category structure can sometimes be seen as a "tree" with parent and child relationships. But not always.

One of the things to always try to bear in mind is that the category system's primary goal is not necessarily orderly organisation in and of itself, but rather as a mode of navigation for our readers. Organisational structure is merely one means to that end (and not the other way round).

So, for example, removing a page from an existing category can reduce the ability for a reader to navigate to that page. (And, depending on the situation, could be seen by other editors as disruptive editing.)

Also, we should be careful about removing pages from a "top level" category, even if the page may be categorised in a subcat of that top-level cat. Sometimes diffusion is appropriate, and sometimes it is not. Again, the goal is ease of navigation of our readers.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response. I hope my comments above have been helpful as well. - jc37 04:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Catholic Draughtsmen

A tag has been placed on Category:Catholic Draughtsmen indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic composers

I am not sure what Category:Catholic composers is meant for. I don't need it at all. If we have it, the category article should say who qualifies. Someone simply baptized Catholic? I doubt it. How about Category:Composers of Catholic church music? But again: who qualifies. Bach wrote a few Latin masses, but really, the core of his music is as Lutheran as can be. If we'd include every composer of a hymn tune of a song in a Catholic hymnal, that would be many, and many not Catholic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same thing as the Jewish composers category. Nothing complicated. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that one, and would not use it. Is music Catholic or Jewish? If there's no influence of a denomination on the music, the category makes no sense, but should mean the person instead (not the composer), and if it has, the category seems wrong and should mean the music. How about saying for certain compositions (Latin mass, Gregorian hymns, hymns) that they are Catholic? Mozart's piano music has nothing to do with him being baptised Catholic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Catholicism is a very strong culture. Mozart wrote a lot of sacred music. You wouldn't have a category like Catholic bungee jumpers because that has nothing to do with them being Catholic. I won't include people like Gabriel Fauré in the category because although he wrote a lot of Catholic music I can't currently find proof he was Catholic himself. Catholicism had everything to do with Mozart's music, as you can see here: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and the Catholic Church. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was I unclear saying that Mozart's piano music has nothing to do with him being baptised Catholic. Or do you believe his sonatas would sound different had he been Jewish, or Lutheran? I sang his Requiem in choir many times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you were very unclear, because it is obvious his music has a lot to do with his religion. He would not have made the same music at all if he was not who he was. This is the same as Jewish composers, as their religious culture influences - even creates - their music. You will also find categories like LGBT composers and black composers. Religion especially has everything to do with how someone creates art. It is a perfect category and I'm having trouble understanding how you think it has nothing to do with it. It's practically the entire thing. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is the category different from this? Is this not a recreated deleted category? Antandrus (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those categories will merge. There's no reason for different types of Catholics to be separated. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking at some of the articles in the category. The only one (of the ones I glanced at) that stood out to me as actually fitting in the category was Joseph Haydn, who "was a devout Catholic who often turned to his rosary when he had trouble composing, a practice that he usually found to be effective." Most of the others seem to have simply played church music at some point. For very few if any does the category seem to be WP:DEFINING. And given the way the CfD discussion Antandrus linked above went, it definitely seems that this category shouldn't exist. Aerin17 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have already explained why the category should exist. A composer who makes church music is like an author who writes fiction. It is the appropriate category. Can you give an example of a page you think doesn't belong on the category? If necessary, pages can have the tag removed. That doesn't mean the category should be deleted at all. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A composer who makes church music is like an author who writes fiction." If that's the goal of the category, shouldn't it be called Category:Composers of Catholic church music, as Gerda suggested above? That would make much more sense. As for examples of pages that shouldn't belong, see Pedro Albéniz, whose only connection to Catholicism seems to be that he was an organist at a church. Or František Brixi, who was apparently the Kapellmeister at a cathedral, which his article notes was "the highest musical position in the city"; we don't know if he was actually particularly religious or took this position (and wrote church music) because it was the easiest path for a musician at the time, and it would be a decent amount of speculation on our part to assume that his Catholicism did actually have a part in his composing. He would, however, fit very nicely in a category of composers of Catholic church music. Aerin17 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I followed suit when naming the category. I saw things like lgbt composers, black composers, Jewish composers, etc. Usually "[adjective] [occupation]" fits. Pedro Albéniz was Catholic, he worked inside a Catholic Church, his father was a priest who also composed Catholic music, his music teacher, Rossini, was Catholic, you can see under his list of works there is Catholic music (Villancico real al nacimiento de N.S. Jesucristo means Christmas carol about the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ in English). It's fair to say Catholicism completely determined his career path and compositions. For František Brixi, he was Catholic, worked in a Catholic Church, and wrote Catholic music. I'm not sure what other qualifications are needed. You can take a look at his list of works to see things such as Litany for Saint Benedict, Judas Iscariot - The oratory for St. Parasceva, The Solemn Mass, Passionate opus for the Seven Pains of beatified Virgin Mary, and Queen of Heaven. His music was distinctly Catholic because of the Mass, emphasis on Saints admired by Catholics especially, and emphasis on Mary. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree. (Beethoven, for example -- Catholic? It's hard to know but he was probably some sort of pantheist.) But according to Wiki precedent the category is CSD:G4. I didn't want to speedy it until talking though. Antandrus (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the category would probably not survive a deletion discussion. I recommend to not put more effort into it, nor similar ideas. I could tell you a few areas where time would be spent better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will use examples at random of why this category must stay. Niccolò Antonio Zingarelli "Being a deeply religious Catholic, Zingarelli devoted most of his attention to masses, oratorios, cantatas, and motets." Severo Bonini "...became a Benedictine monk... he was maestro di cappella and organist at Santa Trinita until his death." (Santa Trinita is a Catholic Church.) Licinio Refice "...was an Italian composer and priest... His first opera Cecilia, about the legend of Saint Cecilia" (Cecilia is highly admired in Catholicism.) It would be terribly difficult to argue their musical composition was not fully connected to their Catholicism, let alone had little or nothing to do with it. It is a perfect category. Their Catholicism is not just relevant to their musical composition, it is the reason for their composition. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"must stay"? I guess you are new here. - You have been told not to invest your time in a category that has been deleted before, with arguments. Your choice to listen. The problem is that if you pursue, it wastes also the time of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The category was already made and had 44 people listed in it before the first complaint was made. It is a perfect category. The arguments for deleting it have been incredibly weak and debunked by other editors. You can stop wasting your time any time you want. You were the one who told me not to invest time in the category... after the category was already made. It has already been explained to you by many people why the category must stay. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you write an article instead, about composers strongly influenced by Catholicism? Back to the question whom the category - just a bunch of names without context - would serve? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because a category makes much more sense. The category has already been made. It helps users find the people when a category is made. Do you know what a category on wikipedia is? It's supposed to be a list of names. The context is in the title of the category, as always on wikipedia. Your criticisms genuinely make no sense. If you have anything more to say, please share. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the education, it made me smile a lot. I am a creator of categories, did you know? The first thing a category article should have is what the conditions to be included are. That was my request in the first entry in this thread, and you have neither explained here who exactly should be included in the category, nor have you added it to your category. Still smiling, so thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't tell you were a category creator. I am also a category creator, which I'm not sure if you knew or not. I have explained at least half a dozen times already that the category is for Catholic composers of Catholic music. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Join the Discussion at John Mew?

I think there is disagreement about (1) whether we can say oral myology can reshape the jaw because it is used for other issues, and (2) whether the term "incel" belongs on Wikipedia. Want to figure it out on the John Mew talk page? DownstateElitist (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can discuss there. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Douglas Wick. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His birthday needs to be added. It was referenced. If you have a problem with the date or reference then change it. Don't just erase it. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Unless there's a reliable source, it must not be added. That's the whole point of having a policy on biographies of living persons. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not correctly responding to what I'm saying. I added a valid source. Don't just erase it. I think you might have thought I said add it even without a source? I never said that. I added the source. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Douglas Wick. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not threaten other users. If you have a problem with the source, can you please post a source you approve of? Don't just leave his birthday unsaid. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to barge in here, but could you clarify which "valid source" you added? All I see is Wikidata, which then sources the birthdate right back to English Wikipedia, making it effectively no source at all. And if there's no reliable source for the birthday, it is indeed better to leave the birthday unsaid. See WP:BLPSOURCE. Aerin17 (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it would be difficult for you to list out everything that is and isn't reliable, can you or someone else look up his birthday and source it? I don't want to give another source that might not work. I think it would be easier that way. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did take a (brief) look, and I could find literally no sources for his birthday besides random gossip websites, which obviously do not count as reliable. If you can find another source, feel free to drop it here and I or someone else can take a look. (Also, although I don't presume to be an expert at sourcing, something I've found useful for determining if a source is likely to be considered reliable or not is WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - you might be interested in taking a look!) Aerin17 (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you! Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP discretionary sanctions alert

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for repeated addition of unsourced, poorly-sourced, or disputed-by-sources BLP content and edit-warring to re-insert them, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

DMacks (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just did what you asked... This was really cruel. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous accounts

Please declare any previous accounts that you used. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any other accounts. Thank you! Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what account did you use before this one? DrKay (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have another account. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your sock puppet: Violet Feet (talk · contribs). Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry for further information about wikipedia's policy on single editors operating multiple accounts. DrKay (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop harassing me? You know perfectly well I don't have multiple accounts. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noble ranks

Herzogin rank above Prinzessin in Germany. Look in any reference work. DrKay (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have directly asked a German historical professor before doing these edits. He was the one who advised me to correct the wikipedia pages in the first place. It's very awkward to put the father, a duke, before the mother, a queen or princess. Some of these women did not even have their proper titles. I added the titles but you erased them. I have taken a great deal of care into this. I'd really appreciate it if we can have the correct edits back. Herzog is actually a military rank acquired through war merit. Herzogin is feminine. It is incorrect to say dukes are above the monarchial family. I have done so much research on this and am in touch with authorities on this subject. It's important we have the proper information. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh. I am a German historical professor. Or maybe I'm a rocket scientist. I'm actually neither, though I have performed brain surgery, for real. Faux claims of academic merit have little traction here. DrKay (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcasm and rudeness are not appreciated. I'm trying to assume good faith. You have already made multiple mistakes showing you do not have knowledge in this area. What do I have to do so you won't revert the edits? You are engaging in an edit war. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could stop making false claims about your academic connections and credentials for a start. DrKay (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming bad faith is against wikipedia rules. I did not make false claims. I contacted a German professor and he was the one who told me to edit these pages. I asked him first if I should edit and he said yes. He spent a long time explaining to me the ranks and meanings. He was the one who just now corrected you when you mistakenly used the feminine form for duke. I don't speak German but he does. You are not educated in this subject, so you need to stop reverting. You need to stop accusing others of lying just because they have proven you wrong. My edits are correct. You put back in place incorrect spellings and missing titles that I have corrected. Your edits are highly destructive and you are engaging in edit warring. You are mass spam editing without even reading the edits you have reverted. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An meinem Deutsch ist nichts auszusetzen und dein Versuch, jemanden zu korrigieren, der es besser spricht als du, lässt dich nur dumm dastehen. DrKay (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just told you I don't speak German, so speaking German to me is trolling. You're not trying to help anyone understand your point of view. You're trying to create fights. You have already made it clear you only want to fight by mass spam reverting all my edits without even looking at what I edited. You made many mistakes on your reversions. Many times you gave reasons for reverting that weren't even on the correct article. You reverted ALL the edits I made that day, not just the ones that had similar reasons, because you just want to be controversial and erase all the work that was done. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proving to you that your claim that I'm ignorant about German and titles is wrong. DrKay (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't prove anything. You're trolling. You were talking about dukes and princesses the entire time, and then claim you switched to suddenly say duchess and princess when you were called out for getting the gender wrong. Even if you did suddenly switch, you can be normal and say you decided to say a new word in German rather than the word you were using in English rather than trolling and being combative and snarky. You're not even discussing your edits (that you refused to read, and half the time you edited the wrong page) anymore. You're just trying to fight. You've been absolutely nothing but sarcastic and rude this entire time. All you're doing on your edits is erasing titles that belong there. This is really harmful and against etiquette. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are describing yourself. You are trolling. You are not reading my edits, my edit summaries or my talk page posts. You are simply undoing my repairs and corrections because you're angry. DrKay (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This can't be real. You do realize wikipedia is public and everyone can see what you're doing, right? Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. DrKay (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edit summaries are badly misinformed. This, for example is totally wrong. Firstly, a German princess is not higher in rank than a German duke. Secondly, Princess Antoinette was not in line for any throne. The Saxon duchies operated Salic law, so women could not inherit the throne. Thirdly, she is from the ruling house of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, which is a duchy not a kingdom. So, she had no prospect of 'rule over a kingdom' on that ground as well as her sex. Some copy-edits of article text are also misleading. Here, you've used the construct 'Empress of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel'. Please don't mash together the married title and the maiden name in this way as it is very strange, not typical at all, and confusing. It makes it look like she was empress of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel, but Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel was a duchy not an empire. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Victoria, Princess Royal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hi Helpfulwikieditoryay! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Princess that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I thought minor edit could mean changing a couple words. I do think my edit did not change the meaning. Since a prince is already a member of the monarch's family. Saying prince and monarch is repetitive. I will not mark it as minor in the future though. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rosa Petzel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rosa Petzel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ★ Ayaena Aya helps you 04:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Marie Remy

Hello, Helpfulwikieditoryay,

Thank you for creating Marie Remy.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hello! Your article needs cited sources and some reorganization. Please read Help:Citing Sources and WP:Manual of Style.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|CollectiveSolidarity}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Petzel moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rosa Petzel, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idiom

Please stop what you're doing with regards to listing of parents. It is weird to swap the order of men and women to always put the woman first, particularly when the surname or house of the article subject is the father's not the mother's. This is an unusual way of writing, which is very uncommon and looks strange. It is the sort of thing that's only done if the child is illegitimate or inherits their notability through the mother instead of the father. We are not here to drive societal change or to campaign on social issues. We should be writing clearly and simply for the benefit of readers. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, we're not going to stop putting proper information into wikipedia article because a misogynist is bothered. Your comment is frankly insane. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Helpfulwikieditoryay&oldid=1096698358"