User talk:Lembit Staan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Alien language

Hi, concerning the passages you took out from the article alien language (in particular the "linguistics" section)I would need some explanation on why you consider this to be original research. Please go to the Talk page of "Alien language", where I added a section on this isssue. Linguist2017 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi

Schwede66 00:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Entity

I noticed that you redirected "Entity". Unfortunately, that leaves a number of links to disambiguation pages. Could you fix the links in Template:Metaphysics, Template:Philosophy of language and Template:Philosophy-of-language-key-terms? Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 10:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Verifiability thread

Hey,

I'm enjoying the discussion but I need to get to bed now; and I expect to be working night shift. Will continue over weekend :)

Cheers, Anothersignalman (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doxycycline

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doxycycline. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Management consulting page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Carltheo Zeitschel

WP:LEADCITE - did you bother to actually read it before placing that on my talk page?

The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. (my emphasis)

I've restored the citation needed twice and opened a section on the talk page. You've removed the maintenance template three times and only now have provided an edit summary "The refs are in the article bpdy. PLease read our guidelines about refs in the lede", which clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of the very policy you directed me to. It's clear from LEADCITE that your removal of a good-faith request for an in-line citation is disruptive, and your edit-warring compounds that.

Now, either revert yourself or provide the citation that I've requested both with the maintenance template and on the talk page. I'm ready to prepare an ANI report on your edit-warring and disruptive editing. --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: Which living person you are talking about? Which exactly fact you are challenging? The article has plenty of refs covering all items from the lede sentence. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a BLP, as you know. Nevertheless, WP:V is clear that "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" – and that applies to all articles. Yes, it has multiple refs, but it's by no means obvious what sources support what statements, because of the scarcity of inline citations. Thank you for your understanding; I've gone into more detail on what I'm looking for on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:overlink

I see you really enjoy reverting my edits! However you might want slow down, as in this edit you reverted something that did not need to be reverted. See the previous sentence. The city I was unlinking is linked in the previous sentence, and in two other places in the article. Apology accepted.104.163.141.185 (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Artist Publishg Group Discog.

Could you please explain why you are deleting the Discog. on the Artist Publishing Group page when it is a publishing group first and foremost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab34hj788 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Ab34hj788 (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no relation with the company, I just saw that there was no page made under the link on Mike Caren's Wikipedia page. I am doing my best to adhere to the rules, again, I don't mean harm, I simply want to create a page without all of this harmful and harsh discussion. I am abiding by the rules and taking all necessary precautions this round. Please do not continue to purposely flag and bully.Ab34hj788 (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Hello, I'm Meiloorun. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Billy Barr (naturalist) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 00:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with Virgin, and am not trying to promote them, I was just referencing a conversation with Branson using paraphrasing, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneaterman (talk • contribs) 15:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Field-programmable gate array

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Field-programmable gate array. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Garden path sentence

As a long-term admin, I know that example text and explanations do not require sourcing: these need citation no more than do explanatory comments anywhere else, because anyone fluent in the English language understands them. If you continue removing this text, it will be treated as disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: As a long term admin you should have known that everything challenged must be referenced. I challenge the dubious descriptions and other unreferenced text. If you continue restoring text tagged as unreferenced for longer time, I will question your credential as an admin. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BLUE, which notes that demanding citations for such matters is disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend:There is nothing blue in demanding citations in dubious places. See WP:AGF before accusing non-random fellow wikipedians in disruptiveness; Or at least Hanlon's razor. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Bravura (disambiguation)

i tagged it for speedy deletion because there is only one notable/actual article that starts with it. why have i been in error?68.151.25.115 (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• @68.151.25.115: Because we list not only articles but also other subjects discussed in articles which are blue links in disambig page items, such as book titles, songs titles, districts in cities, etc. BTW, please get yourself user name. It will be easier to talk.Staszek Lem (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

but the entries are not blue links. only one entry has one blue link.68.151.25.115 (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You didn't read my reply carefully. I wrote "discussed in articles which are blue links in disambig page items". E.g., "Malibu Comics" is a blue link, and this page says "The Bravura imprint was then launched for the creator-owned and licensed titles." Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

ok, so are the articles WP:N (topics) and will they be written in the future? i dont think i see that since the march, etude, and protagonist are minor topics which havent been written on.68.151.25.115 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• @68.151.25.115: No they don't have to be written. If you have more questions, then you best read our guidelines directly, without a middleman : WP:DAB, WP:MOSDAB. If something is unclear, please ask questions in talk pages of these guidelines. People who watch these pages will probably have a better knowledge of this topic. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

well, maybe they should be red links. either way, I disagree that a disambiguation should exist for Bravura.68.151.25.115 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@68.151.25.115: Did you read the guidelines I mentioned in the previous reply? Is you disagree with them, then you have to have solid arguments against; "I disagree" is not enough. And you have to present your arguments in the talk page of the guideline for the community discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleting material

(moved to Talk:Beno Dorn, where it belongs) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please move this discussion back to its original location. Per WP:RTP, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." -- IsaacSt (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not refactor anything. I moved the whole piece "as is". Besides, this is my user talk page, and here I can do pretty much anything I want. Not to say that WP:RTP is not a policy/guideline. In wikipedia, things are done to the benefit of wikipedia. I explained you my move: article content must be discussed in article talk pages, where other editors may chip in. If you explain me how my move is detrimental, to wikipedia, then we can talk. Otherwise I would strongly recommend you to avoid wikilawyering. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Schnabl (surname) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Schnabl (surname). Since you had some involvement with the Schnabl (surname) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Narky Blert (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Schnabel (surname) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Schnabel (surname). Since you had some involvement with the Schnabel (surname) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Narky Blert (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Mad scientists of Stanisław Lem

You sure this is notable and not WP:OR? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Yes notable; no, not OR. See eg [1], which gave me the idea. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

re: List of Polish Socialist Party politicians

Tough. On one level it is an unreferenced OR. On another, it is a potentially useful list of red-links to create. I'd tentatively say 'weak keep' unless you can show some of those names are bogus/clearly non-notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Piotrus: This means I have to painstakingly go thru this list and try to create verifiable/notable article. I have better things to do than to promote micropoliticians. I'd rather apply WP:ONUS & WP:LIST. IMO reldinks are really useful in the actual articles which mention these names and where people may actually see them. Nobody actually reads these listicles. As a tradeoff, I may check whether wp:pl articles exist and interlink them using {{ill}}. The rest is to be gone. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I know it's tiresome, which is why my recommendation is to let it be. It's unlikely to be a spam/hoax, and it more likely to be a useful redlist of notable topics. PS. I checked few red links at random, all have entries on pl wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Stanislaw Lem

What do you man exactly with "sloppy language"? Do you think a sentence such as "... one of the main reasons Lem decided..." is well-articulated? Where is the conjunction between reasons and Lem? You should also give a glance to format rules: decades must be written entirely as "1940s", not "'40s". Further, novel titles must be in italics": the edits you reverted now leave the with many novels formatted as short stories, i.e. "Fiasko". Please be less arrogant next time. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh? What format rules have to do with my edits? [2] . [3] Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You reverted all mine: I refer to your contro-edit of 20:59, 8 May 2017! Without noticing that now half novels mentioned are formatted wrongly, for example... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Attilios: I did nothing of the kind. Here is the diff: for 20:59, 8 May 2017 Please learn how to use history diffs in discussions. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

So since you are not the person who undid my revisions, I restored all format tweaks. Thanks and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian reversal

Not sure what else needs verification. Would it be ok with you if I removed the tag? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 00:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nicnote: A lot of stuff needed verification. I cleaned up the article and removed the tag. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Wow, you're right! Thanks for putting in the hard work! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The anti-spam barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		For frequently detecting and removing spam and undue-weight promotion from articles. — PaleoNeonate — 05:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Spaces

Re, [4], see [5]. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That template

Hi Staszek Lem. I noticed the back-and-forth at Lina Medina. Thanks for your edits there. I had never seen Template:BLP living dead before today. I can imagine its being used on a talk page, but I think it should never be placed in article space. Do you have any experience with template documentation? I don't. It occurs to me that the template page should have instructions warning against applying it to an article, but I'm not sure if that needs to be discussed first on the template talk page and, if so, what notifications are proper. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see much problem with the template itself. In this particular case it was fault both me and OP. My fault is that seeing edit summary "(Undid revision 786461864 by Staszek Lem (talk) dead according to the Russia wiki)" I assumed the OP inserted the date of death circulated in lazy media. OP's fault is that it did not look into the talk page where the issue of death was reasonably discussed. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: I agree that the template needs some guidelines documented to prevent this kind of miscommunication in the future. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

,,,\o-o/,,,

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Tardiness and predatory journals

Staszek Lem, while investigating something I discovered that in this edit you seem to have copied information from this or a similar version of another article. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Also, one of the sources you copied is a predatory journal, the International Journal of Business and Social Science, published by the "Center for Promoting Ideas". Please see Jeffrey Beall's list. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Slavic neopaganism

I know. This source is verified and adequate for described topic (symbolics). --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wojsław Brożyna: Przepraszam ślicznie ale nie. Please see Talk:Deities of Slavic religion. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

NOTHERE

Hi, Staszek. I agree the guy you reported to UAA is NOTHERE, but there's not much I can do other than hardblock the account. I generally don't even like to put a template on the page when I block obscene names, per WP:DENY and also because I'd rather not have the name adorn my contributions list. Hardblock means the IP is blocked too — but only for about 24 hourse. Basically, as I guess you know, there's little we can do, other than briefly, to stop abusive individuals from editing. Thanks for reporting. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Robert McClenon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Old soldiers never die, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: What are your reasons? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mistake. The disambiguation page hadn't originally been there. I think it's okay now. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

International Sakharov Environmental Institute

Could you please not revert my edits? Specifically, International Sakharov Environmental Institute was formed in 2017 from International Sakharov Environmental University which can be referenced at [6] --Jarash (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC) @Jarash: Sorry, I figured it out myself. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

That's OK. --Jarash (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Batteroo

Dear Staszek Lem , I think Frost & Sullivan Award is not a fake award. The user:StarmanG added with Frost & Sullivan award with its own reference frost.com, I am sorry but i reverted your edits. 27.60.4.94 (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Longest words

Please bring your comments to the article Talk, not my personal talk, so that others can join in - it's a complicated topic. Wikipedia has long frowned on littering articles with lots of repetitive tags rather than using over-arching tags, but this is a complicated article so perhaps a different method is appropriate. But, as I say, this should be discussed at the article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you did - should have checked before responding to the message on my Talk page. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Veyshnoria on WP:3O

Hi, I see that you removed the request for a third opinion on Veyshnoria, here. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a cursory glance at the talk page doesn't look to me like it's been resolved, so I've reverted your removal. — e. ripley\^talk 23:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you had added it initially! — e. ripley\^talk 16:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

About usage of primary sources in Scottish_Russians

Dear colleague, sorry for disturbing, its about usage of historical documents (primary sources) as sole references. I find out that those records from "finance books" was published already by Russian Academy of Sciences in 1983, Ed. by academician Veselovsky. After it was published ones it's possible to use as for references or not? "Академия наук СССР, Отделение истории aрхив АН СССР. Приходно-расходные книги московских приказов 1619-1621 гг. Составитель академик С.Б. Веселовский. Издательство Наука, Москва 1983 г." Best regards, Kravtz (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Rape myths NORN / NPOVN requests

FYI, I've asked both WP:NORN and WP:NPOVN for additional input at Talk:Rape myths, since three and only three editors arguing circularly with each other isn't likely to produce anything but irritation. These are not noticeboard reports, but requests for input at the article's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Pomoc

Dzień dobry kontaktuje sie w sprawie mojego artykuły ktory bym orzez Pana sprawdzany. Bie wiem co powinno być zmienione/dodane i w jaki sposób to zrobić proszę o pomoc zależy mi na publikacji. Dziękuje :) Talented musicians (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

elimination Alcione Sortica

is in the process of being deleted WIKI-PT [7]. 189.123.246.16 (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

03:22:38, 22 November 2017 review of submission by Talented musicians

• Talented musicians (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sylwia Majka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I need a help with my article I dont understand why it is declined, pleae advise me what to change. i am a new user. Thnak You

Article about Prof. Lendl

I think this article should be deleted and have suggested it on the article. Galaktico (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Alcione Sortica

Page has already been deleted in Portuguese [8]. 179.154.60.96 (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Special Barnstar
		This is a Special Barnstar for you, Staszek, as we don't yet have a Barnstar for Exceptional Reasonableness, and I don't have the graphic skills to create one. You deserve it because I can't remember any other editor on Wikipedia going out of their way to meet halfway an editor whom they had reverted and whom they didn't have to try to meet halfway because the other editor had already thrown in the towel. Thanks. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

What the hell? These articles have been disrupted by advocates and you are now following directly in their footsteps.

Your recent editing history at pfSense shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Inamorata (brand) merger

I have expanded Inamorata (brand) and undone your malformed merger attempt. Ping me if you disagree that this will now pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved

I moved this section to the book: Europe: A History. I think it belongs there, not in his bio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Superstition in Turkey

I had to undo your edits because you added them to a version of the article I consider problematic. Feel free to add your edits to the current version, or better, we could use a third party comments on the issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

To editor Piotrus: -- Ah, I see. Both of you have valid points. Still, Nazar and the more, the evil eye, are not limited to Turkey, so IMO there is no reason to add more. In addition, "your" version (I guess not really your :-) is written in the language of modern Western kook ("negative energy", etc.) In such things we do really solid need refs to ethnographers. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Time to ask for an assessment?

I think it's about time for one of us to ask for an uninvolved admin to rule on whether your proposal (Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Proposal) has consensus, though you might perhaps first want to add your own vote as nominator to make it 4 to 1 in favour instead of 3 to 1 (I don't know enough about such things to know whether it makes a difference or not). Regards, and Merry Christmas. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you're not sure whom to ask, I thought Kudpung made a fair assessment a few days ago (here), and I also usually trust DrMies when I need advice. But I don't know whether we're supposed to ask for our own admin, so it may be a matter of asking for their advice on who to ask and how to go about it, always assuming, probably wrongly, that, like me, you don't already know what to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Having now read the rules Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs, I'm not sure whether or not we shouldn't just agree to close it ourselves rather than posting a request at the indicated noticeboard (it all depends on the definition of 'contentious', I guess, but I don't really think it is 'contentious', and in such cases we're told not to post at the noticeboard, which is only meant for the most contentious stuff). But if so, we arguably still need to ask somebody uninvolved (such as Kudpung or DrMies, as mentioned above?) to do that for us. Otherwise I'm worried it will just hang around until a bot deletes it around the 7th of January Tlhslobus (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should just ask at the proposal, which I think I will now do. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Done.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)