User talk:Heavy Water/Archives/ 1

DYK nomination of Recovering America's Wildlife Act

Hello! Your submission of Recovering America's Wildlife Act at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Adoption in Slovenia

Thanks for the ref, but the claim is still getting removed. We have your ref that adoption is legal due to the court ruling, but also that the parliamentary bill failed, without anything addressing whether that the failure affects the implementation of the court ruling. (Same for marriage.) Do you have a recent ref that adoption and marriage either are or are not legal in Slovenia? I justify changes to the maps with our articles and their refs. — kwami (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. I think we're all in agreement now. — kwami (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kigali Amendment

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kigali Amendment you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Arcahaeoindris -- Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kigali Amendment

The article Kigali Amendment you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Kigali Amendment for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Arcahaeoindris -- Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Eric Lynn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Lynn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Lynn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Marquardtika (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

got some trump 2024 Endorsees

Max Miller Elected member of Congress. Link Anthony Sabatini Member of the Florida Legislature Link If i find more i'll say Sithbuilder1 (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll say it here too. Twitter is NOT a reliable source for endorsements. Per Wikipedia:Political endorsements, they need a reliable source. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, they should be used minimally, and not in reference to third parties, which endorsements inherently are. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

NPA

Per WP:NPA, please redact your remark about trust in the SPI User:Anythingyouwant filed against me. My request seeks your retraction about me personally, though I observe you've also cast that aspersion at AYW. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think this necessary.

I said, "Not that I particularly trust either..." This means, "I don't trust your claims or AYW's claims."

At NPA, it says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

To me, declaring that I don't believe either of you/don't know who to believe is not a personal attack, just a statement of opinion. This was a clarification from me that I wasn't taking sides (specifically, AYW's side), just making observations on both of your arguments. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Since your comment is ambiguous, it matters to me, so QUESTION...... if your intention here is to collaborate (though we might disagree) as the guys back in 1776 expected us to do, what harm would be caused by your redaction or at least rephrasing of your remark, now that I have told you it matters to the guy you (out of nowhere) showed up to comment upon? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, I don't think it needs such. But I'll do it, because it was an offhand clarification. How would you like me to rephrase it? Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

And, yes, my intent here is to collaborate. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for being open about clarifying your remark. I can't advise you on how to best express your views, since I don't know what you think. If you are unsure how to express your views, you can use strikeout syntax <s>....</s> to simply redact comments until you have a better way to express them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm changing it to, "Neither has particularly convinced me, just saying." Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

DS Alert US Politics

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-1992 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Timing is interesting. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I've never run across you before, but with AYW's SPI filing suddenly you appear in the SPI saying you don't trust me. Query: as we have never interacted previously, what motivated you to bother commenting in the SPI? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

See above. I don't trust your arguments, just as I don't trust AYW's. You both have good backgrounds as contributors.

I bothered simply because I found the arguments interesting. And on WP, public discussions such as this are public; I don't need to have known either of you from kindergarten, and in fact public discussions seek to draw comment from the uninvolved as neutral arbiters. If they did have an involvement requirement, that would devolve into WP:Canvassing. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I call BS on the notion of "arguments" (plural form) since I didn't make any. All I said was (A) told the IP to leave me out of their drama and (B) said a checkuser analysis would show AYW's complaint has zero merit. Please explain how you determine that I am untrustworty, based on the SPI commentary? Or are you reviewing other material posted elsewhere? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Not trusted doesn't mean untrustworthy. There's a word for that but I can't think of it. If I go into a discussion I don't automatically trust both/all users, since (at least, in an SPI), someone's wrong and someone's right.

I wait until I read their arguments, etc., to make judgements. And no argument there had been particularly convincing, so I didn't side with either of you.

I don't really see the point of continuing this argument when we have one in the above thread that is actually producing results. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Results being that I offered to rephrase it. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

When I am not convinced of an argument but am still willing to "trust" the speaker, I simply say something like "I'm not convinced". In such a circumstance I would never cast shade on the other's trustworthiness. Also, I would never simply say "I'm not convinced". Doing that and shutting up begs the question why are you not convinced? I'm looking for two things as an alternative to redaction.... (A) evidence and (B) reasoning that manages to avoid logical fallacies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.... it seems that we cross-posted. (for reference, see [[1]]) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct way to change discussion page remarks

This comment is about appreciation for something you did (THANKS!) and me teaching you the right way to do that......Per WP:Don't bite the newbies, I have reverted your tweak at the SPI about your first (regrettable) comment about trust.... you did try to walk that back, and I appreciate that effort. However, you have dug a hole and it is not that simple to get out of......On Wikipedia after someone replies you should not alter your prior comment unless you use the appropriate markup..... for struck text, use strikeout codes <s>......</s> For new text use insert <ins>......</ins> NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

1. I'm not a newbie, I've been here 2 1/2 years. 2. I want to make this clear: I'm not walking anything back. You requested I change my comment. I clarified my comment to show that I'm not talking about trust of you or AYW, but about persuasion. I have not dug any holes, because this was not a personal attack, it was ambiguous. 3. I struck the old comment for the new one. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

What matters is this [[2]], and I thank you NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

PS, apologies for describing you as "newbie". I think I was (stupidly) basing that on your user page which only goes back to Jan of this year, instead of your contribs. My bad. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks for being honest, Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Mary Peltola

Hello Brobbz, I noticed you added Category:American people of German descent to Mary Peltola, but this requires a citation to a reliable source in the body of the article. If you can find one, please re-add the category with a citation to a reliable source in the body-I have temporarily reverted the edit. Thank you, Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I linked/timestamped the part of her interview with Joy Reid where Rep. Peltola says her father is a German-American from Nebraska. Thank you, Brobbz (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Request

Could you add the Mods template to this page? 2600:6C5A:417F:794E:4952:BDFE:9BA8:EF84 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I see you did good work on that template! But I'm not sure which page you're talking about? Heavy Water (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Tried to ping you

Which explanation? Must figure out why my pings are not working. I wish reply let me preview. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I replied on that page. I just type the "@" symbol. I type in Reply's source mode, and I get a live preview below. Heavy Water (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Heavy Water. Thank you for your work on Mike Pence classified documents incident. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! Hopefully you will write more articles! Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Heavy Water. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Harry Reasoner

The obituary for his son Harry Stuart Reasoner says that his father's name was Harry R. Reasoner. 172.59.80.94 (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@172.59.80.94: Then can you cite that on the page and re-add the middle name, please? Heavy Water (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Mosbach lion

Bro why you give me warning atleast see the talk page first before, I have given valid arguements bruh and also done many useful edits on many pages pls take my warning away I am trying to help Wikipedia not vandalise ugh please understand my intentions they are no ill Razeangst (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That stepe lion is not even correct info bro why you so biased Razeangst (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ugh leave it I don't wanna edit anymore if a I get is defamation, just wanted to help y'all whatever tho Razeangst (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because you removed referenced content without explanation. You also added "Mosbach lion" without a citation to a reliable source. You are free to remove the warning from your talk page; it serves merely to inform you. Accusing other editors of "defamation" may be construed as a legal threat, which would be taken very seriously. I doubt that is your intent, but you should avoid such in the future. Heavy Water (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Razeangst. Heavy Water (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I had given explanation in previous edits and talks but the people just keep re editing man I don't gonna keep on typing same thing again and again and also does 4 warnings not get me banned? Razeangst (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Razeangst: After four warnings, continuing vandalism or other disruption would get you reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, then probably a short block (31 hours is common).

I see you did give a summary originally. Another editor refuted that, pointing out this was non-standard style and that the name was not widespread. You kept it up, breached WP:3RR against multiple editors-one is supposed to begin discussion on the talk page after three reverts, if not before. Oh, and you also called one of the people who reverted you "some ignorant fool" here.

So you could be reported for edit warring, but I won't do that if you cease the reverts and discuss this on Talk:Panthera leo fossilis. Heavy Water (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize you already were there. Multiple editors are telling you the same thing. Heavy Water (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

And yeah lol idk about legal thing I just thought defamation meant false info bout some one sorry if it hit u that way Razeangst (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh man my bad duh whatevrr and the ignorant part was a joke man I don't want no problem Razeangst (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks might be a joke to you, but tone doesn't come through in a virtual setting. Heavy Water (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ugh sorry man didn't known it was all so strict here will try to not use those kinda words Razeangst (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a serious place. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and it also happens to be the fifth-most popular site on the Web. Heavy Water (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ugh ik man I am sorry I told u Razeangst (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Controller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Controller (computing). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of IndiaCo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IndiaCo, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndiaCo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Return to Monke"

You can see I made my edit repointing Return to Monke on July 13, 2022. At the time, Satiric misspelling (revision dated August 2, 2022) had no mention of "Return to Monke" on it, so I repointed it to an album on which it is a song, somewhere it was actually mentioned. Now satiric misspelling does, obviously, but you're acting like I just made that edit when it's from July 2022. You could have taken that into account and silently reverted the edit; I would have been none the wiser. Ss112 16:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ss112: 1. I was aware you made it in July.

2. I had that revision in mind when thinking about changing the redirect target; it states "Another intentionally [sic] misspelling of dog is doggo, a word from the internet slang DoggoLingo, which also includes respelled words for...other animals such as...monkey with monke which, I'd argue, if not as helpful as the current version of satiric misspelling, is still an explanation. On July 13, "monke" was indeed mentioned twice on Cave World, but there was absolutely no explanation of "Return to Monke"; it could be a conspiracy theory, for all one can see there. Heavy Water (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The word "monke" is not a mention of "Return to Monke". That would only make "monke" a valid redirect. I have no issue with the repoint now, except I don't think you needed to revert me when the edit was made in July last year because there was no mention of that exact phrase on the article at the time. Song titles don't need "explanations" on their parent albums' articles. They're considered valid redirects if they're even so much as mentioned on the album article. This is why in deletion discussions, if a song is not considered notable enough for its own article, it is most of the time redirected to its parent album, where it is at least mentioned in the track listing. Ss112 16:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Exact phrase, OK, good point. But we're not talking just about the song title here; it is also the phrase, which otherwise goes unexplained. Heavy Water (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't concerned with whether the meaning of the phrase that the song was named after was explained on Cave World, only repointing the article to where the exact phrase had a mention. As I said, I have no issue with the repoint now that the exact phrase is mentioned on satiric misspelling, and it probably is more helpful to point to its explanation. Ss112 16:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Gaslight someone else

Don't care about your insinuations and gaslighting. Especially when you are trying to defend a horrible klan-linked bigot like Kacsmaryk. 76.143.192.197 (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Informing you about NPA after you declared me "[one of] his klan defenders" is gaslighting? Let's see...Wiktionary defines gaslighting as: "To manipulate someone such that they doubt their own memory, perceptions of reality, or sanity, typically for malevolent reasons." Nah, the diff is pretty clear on what happened (and your comment's still on the page, of course). Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 13:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Weather whiplash

On 1 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Weather whiplash, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that weather whiplash is the phenomenon of rapid swings between extremes of weather conditions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Weather whiplash. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Weather whiplash), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)