User talk:HouseOfChange/Archive 5

Moving stuff here from my Talk page, starting from May, 2020.

Outdent template

Hello. After seeing your edit here, where you posted '((restart indent))', I thought you'd like to know about a useful template that does the same thing: {{Outdent}}. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, BlackcurrantTea! I vaguely knew that something like that must exist, but didn't know where or how to look for it. You have improved my ability to be a good editor! HouseOfChange (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could help! English Wikipedia is massive, and sometimes I have to search several times to find something. Another template I use that you might like is {{UserTalkArchiveBox}}; it makes a navigation box for talk page archives. If you scroll down the documentation page to the examples, you'll see it's pretty easy to use. If you need any help, let me know. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DNFTT

At some point, you should probably stop engaging. It's not as if there's any risk of their appeal succeeding. All the best, JBL (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree. Hoping your good advice helps me resist temptation. All the best right back to you again, HouseOfChange (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to email that to me, thx. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I would be grateful for your opinion, I find this troubling. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

Dear User:HouseOfChange I have written an article about persecution of Shia minority in Kashmir, and some editors want it removed or merged somewhere. People are tagging each other to get support and misinterpret wiki laws. I need help from neutral people (e.g. someone from outside the indian subcontinent), to sort things out in the talk page. If you have time, read discussions and have a look at the article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Destruction_of_Kashmiri_Shias

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASSING. I tagged Kautilya3 because he had commented on the WT:INB noticeboard post which dealt with an earlier AfD of the article and was involved. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Centre for Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies has been accepted

Centre for Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

HouseOfChange (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:HouseOfChange/Princess Bride Reunion

Hello, HouseOfChange. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Princess Bride Reunion".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

−

@UnitedStatesian: This is just an oversight on my part. Princess Bride Reunion, based on this draft, is now in mainspace; feel free to delete the draft. Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios in draft

In your draft on Palt, it appears you copied verbatim certain sections of your sources (to be honest, I only verified the first one) into the draft. This is a violation of copyright and you are not allowed to do this even temporarily in support of creating a draft. We can't prevent you from doing so on your own computer, but once you publish the draft to Wikipedia's servers, none of these lifted sections should remain. Will you fix this promptly? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will! Sorry, I was just using those excerpts to support my memory. Thanks for the note. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And you could try a construction like "Austrian-born French business executive" - assuming you have a good authority for her being born Austrian and for her long-term residence and work in France. If you don't know the nationality with certainty, there's no need for you to include it in the draft. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference

This should be helpful if you make that kind of mistake again. DS (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Amira'

Thanks for your help on Amira/Michele. I thought there was one source that said she divorced Edwards, but others said she was there 'til death. Her past is .. hazy. Also, fyi, I can't find a RS, but this is a non-RS about her dad. He started an auction house, apparently. tedder (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedder: I am impressed by the speed and accuracy of your article creation. I had started gathering sources to build a bio, but go nowhere near your level before Michele Roosevelt Edwards was created. (So you will see me adding some stuff I had gathered to what you already did.) The WaPo 2013 article says, her first marriage "broke up" but not that she divorced. FP says she married Ballarin after Golden's death. It is unclear how she became an "heiress" at some point between struggling as a dental assistant in the 1990s and being a Gucci-clad Amira one decade later. At least one source implied she inherited money from Golden. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't WANT to create it but felt I had to, because Wow, Italygate, and piracy needed to be connected. You're right, "broke up" is what made me think "divorced". And she wasn't a dental assistant, she was the exec assistant (eg secretary) to the dentist, which in my mind is even further from that. It makes sense about the money coming from Golden, except it doesn't explain that she was (almost?) living in her car as the exec assistant. That makes me think the wealth is from Ballarin. I don't know, I feel like I'm missing a lot. I assume you've read the WikiLeaks cable? tedder (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up the recent Slate article

In particular I appreciate your changes to the Wingspan (board game) page. I think the page had been getting a bit cluttered. I think it reads much better. I can see one thing that could probably be improved. The article mentions the digital implementation of the expansions before that of the main game.

Also there was some interesting material about Hargrave's experience as a female game designer but I am not sure where in Wikipedia that could be used. if at all. Slimy asparagus (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slimy asparagus: Thanks for the kind words and suggestion. Some biographies have a section on "Activism"; or maybe Hargrave could have a section "Diversity in gaming." In other news, if you roast asparagus at 400F for 25 minutes (roll it around in some garlic salt and olive oil first) it tastes better than asparagus cooked in water. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My wife likes it wrapped in bacon. ;-) Slimy asparagus (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Chen Wenxin

On 11 October 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chen Wenxin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 00:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Chen Wenxin also made it to DYK on October 31, 2021. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

Hello HouseOfChange:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
—usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Feynman and his claimed technique

Hi, I noticed you undid my change and said it was an uncited and wrong claim. I am new to wiki editing and would like to understand why. The Feynman technique article is certainly lacking in quality citations but there are plenty of claims of his technique being used. On the page citation, 157 is used to support his dislike for the rote method of learning and for supporting his preference of clear explanations which is part of the acclaimed technique. citation 160 supports his explanation of science starting from the beginning and for students to use open-minded curiosity to explore it which again is in line with his technique. but I haven't consumed either of the references so didn't want to cite them. Would you suggest me buy both books to confirm the citations or use the citations anyway as using some sub-par citations from articles is not ideal? Of course, if the Feynman technique isn't his, or isn't something he ever mentioned or spoke about then the article about the technique should be deleted. Would appreciate your thoughts :) DannyHatcher (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyHatcher: The Feynman technique was named after Feynman. Rather than searching, probably in vain, for a reliable source that says Feynman used the technique or that Feynman taught it to his grad students, try to find accurate information about the technique and then use that to improve the encyclopedia. It would also be interesting to know who did invent and name the simple few steps that are widely promoted now as "the Feynman technique." HouseOfChange (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: Yes I have struggled all day to find a viable citation and on reflection shouldn't have included it, my apologies for the hassle. I am curious where the name first came from if it is the case that he didn't teach it. The science behind the technique is much more substantial as it pertains to pedagogy and learning science. Thank you for the help and link to the wikiquote page. I didn't know that was a thing.DannyHatcher (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyHatcher: If you have RS supporting the science behind the technique, that would be good to add to the FT article. Wikiquote also has a good debunking of the supposed quote from Einstein about explaining something to a six-year old that is also often quoted on websites promoting "Feynman technique: "Einstein, having a final discussion with de Broglie on the platform of the Gare du Nord in Paris, whence they had traveled from Brussels to attend the Fresnel centenary celebrations, said "that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.'" HouseOfChange (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah going to do a deeper research dive tomorrow. Never questioned it seriously before but when writing about it, there is almost no evidence for the naming but lots for the science behind the method. Yeah, the quote is almost always there. I will have a look at that tomorrow. YouTube seems to be the source of much of this confusion supported by the blogs and articles but we will see what the research says. Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyHatcher (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi HouseOfChange! I noticed that in your recent edits at Max Blumenthal you described a number of articles as opinion pieces when removing them (including this one [1]) but when I checked the sources they did not actually appear to be opinion pieces. What are you seeing that I am not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: This article expresses strong opinions about the BLP subject, as does its title: "Clinton-Linked Israel Basher Max Blumenthal Disparages, Defames the Late Elie Wiesel." It includes some facts, but less-opinionated sources are better sources for those facts.

I am trying to do surgery on a BLP that is an overinflated embarrassment to Wikipedia. My concern is for Wikipedia not MB. It's time to remove some of the overkill: piled-up citations of articles taking multiply repeated potshots at this jackass. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing or having opinions does not make an article an opinion piece. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other issues with your edit summaries for example the edit summary here is [2] "nPOV" but the edit itself actually appears to have gone against our WP:NPOV policy as thats the word used by the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back:Well, I am happy if you feel you have improved the article by reverting many hours worth of my efforts to improve it, based on your dislike of my edit summaries. Please, improve the article yourself, unless you approve of it in its current state. There are many more productive and less frustrating projects for me in Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry you feel that way, but its not my dislike of them that matters... Misleading edit summaries are actually pretty serious and can land an editor in a lot of trouble. I’m sorry that you don’t feel like engaging further, I have one last question though: this edit [3] has the summary "condense and rmv obvious BLP violation” but looking through the edit I can’t find a BLP violation (obvious or not) and I would hate for that to be there so can you point out what you saw as an obvious BLP violation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I hope you enjoy your other projects. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: Replying, but after this, please go away:

1) I consider the inclusion of this quote an obvious BLP violation and SYNTH violation, since it indirectly accuses MB of physically threatening an MOP and endangering the parliamentary process: "Every attempt to exert pressure on members of parliament, to physically threaten them and thus endanger the parliamentary process is intolerable and must be prevented"

2) You are mistaken in claiming that the "source" accuses MB of "denying" the scale of Uyghur genocide. The headline uses the word "deny" but in fact the source text says: "On air, he questioned the scale of the detention of Uyghurs in camps in China’s northwestern Xinjiang province." That is why I changed "deny" to "question," a change that you of course have now reverted. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]