Abuse filter log for this page
This page documents a current or recent alien contact event. Details may change as the event progresses. Initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this page may not reflect the most current information.

User talk:PaleoNeonate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Thanks. Love the claim I'm a Francophobe. Ironic that his only purpose in editing this over a fair bit of time has been to argue a French origin. Anyway, I've started an RfC, I'm tired of him. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes that's quite strange... I'll try to look at it again in the next few days, who knows if a mention that my primary language is French may help at some point.Face-smile.svg "Sauce"!—PaleoNeonate – 08:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The user User talk:Doug Weller, keeps deleting all the overwhelming references stating that the poodle is of French origin. Not the 95 countries members of the FCI, nor the history of the breed, and neither the official statement madd by Germany in 1936 when the country joined the FCI (the main international dog association) stating that the poodle is solely a French breed is enough for him. It looks like he is in cruisade against the French origin of this dog as if being French was a shame.... for encyclopaedic purpose I let the assertion saying that only three kennel club worldwide, the akc, the ckc and the English kennel club are stating the opposite. But he can’t erase the fact that the rest of the kennel clubs are stating the poddle as a French breeed. He is acting like a censor that erases all the pertinents info that displeases him. For god sake, this is an article about the poodle and its origins, we are not dealing with any political or sensitive issues. Even the German article states the poodle as being French origin and cancelled his previous edits on this matter. I am tired to keep replacing the correct and documented info in the article. S’il aime tant les races allemande qu’il se concentre sur les spitz ou autres schnauzers...--Gabriel HM (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The same users cancelled again the edits and threat me of blockage, even though he his the one keeping erasing the well documented facts of the article. He is acting like a bully that does not use the talk page, threat the contributors and ignore simple plain documented facts. This is not the proper way to act in Wikipedia. The threats, and the cancelation by force should not be admitted. I am a member for several years without any problems, I have always be patient and understating but his actions are more related to threat intimidation and “passage en force” than anything else. On dirait que le simple fait de dire que 95 pays reconnaissent le caniche comme race française le rende dingue et s’évertue systématiquement à l’effacer et me menacer en plus de POV alors que c’est lui qui s’obstine sans aucune discussion à effacer des faits avérés. Please intervene to stop this constant threat against my edits. Cordialement --Gabriel HM (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gabriel HM: Let's look at what's actually happened. You've called me names and I've been polite. You reverted me and I didn't respond by reverting you. Instead I started a formal discussion asking which is the preferred version. Someone else reverted you and you reverted them. I gave you the standard warning that editors should get so that they can modify their behavior before they are blocked. I did not threaten you with a block and would not block you in any case as we are engaged in a content dispute, and I wouldn't use my Admin status in that way. I've not threatened you in any way. I certainly haven't used force. Not counting my changes yesterday, you've now been reverted by two other editors. And I just noticed that your French edits are simply insults including another accusation of preferring Germans over French. You are quoting policy against me while violating our policy of civility. That's not a good idea. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller:::I am so sorry if you don’t understand a word of French and treat it like it was an insult.. please indulge you to open a dictionary and find the proper translation. The one that keeps reverting the edits it is you. For an obscure reason it looks that you can’t stand that the overwhelming sources and 98% of the kennel clubs worldwide say that the poodle is a French breed, and honestly I really start to wonder where this obsession comes from. Being of German origin would be more ok for you?? If I tried to erase your 3 references stating that the poodle was German you could accuse me of being partial, but actually the one that keeps erasing the simple and documented facts that 93 countries worlwide states the poodle as being of French origin is you, and this the real issue here. We can go to an arbitration committee, your status does not put you over the rules that you are supposed to protect.Be free to bring any other sources to assert your point of you, but do not erase my pertinent and corrects facts just because they do not please your. Remember what the admin on the German article told about this issue «Ursprung laut FCI-Standard ist Frankreich. Bitte dem Link in der Box folgen für Bedeutung von „Ursprung“. Ursprung ist nicht unbedingt Herkunft der Rasse.don’t worry it is not in insult neither . All the best--Gabriel HM (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate:, please as ludicrous as it might be can you intervene in the subject of the poodle breed. They keep erasing proper and factual facts. I never ever touched they ref nor depreciated their assertions. Why on earth stating that the majority of the kennel,clubs worldwide describe the poodle as a French breed intice systematic cancelation with threats. Since when accurate, pertinent and documented facts are CENSURED? My contributions does nort harm nor decredite Amy of their assertion, and this just pure intimidation and edit warring without real justification. Thank you --Gabriel HM (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gabriel HM: I'll look at the article soon. The debate should also not occur on this talk page but on the article's (as I wrote at Doug's talk page). I can read French so will also be able to check the suggested sources. Adding: I recommend using the preview button more often when posting, rather than making several actual edits correcting eachother, for technical reasons. "Sauce" above was humor about sources, as that's what matters the most. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


gnomish guidance

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for service from 2005, for welcoming users and improving references, for evaluating drafts, for a list of useful links on your personal page, for guiding and missing, - gnomish user expressing spirituality in music, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda Arendt! —PaleoNeonate – 22:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy not a forum[edit]

yet SALON is enough to challenge the opening slogan of mad men and gets a spot in the opening paragraph yet the most controversial and shady scientific citations are the ones that get 10+ cites attached to one line i.e. alexander hamilton source control completely ruined wikipedia and you're another enforcer — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem was that you did not suggest anything that could be implemented, but only posted an unconstructive rant. Suggested reading: WP:NOTFORUM, WP:FIXBIAS. —PaleoNeonate – 11:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding: source control completely ruined wikipedia If you would like to assess if a source is reliable, WP:RSN can be used (and its archives searched), we also have WP:IRS on identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia does have academic bias (WP:ABIAS) and must reduce its WP:FRINGE coverage to what is available in reliable sources (WP:RS). In relation to Homeopathy, the WP:PSCI policy also applies. —PaleoNeonate – 11:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Barlow Forbes Draft[edit]

Hi PaleoNeonate, Thmazing asked me to help with the Joseph Barlow Forbes draft which I think you were involved in moving to his sandbox. I've added more in-line citations, including mentions of Forbes in a book of Utah history and an article on Mormons participating in the Civil War. I don't want to move the page without addressing the previous concerns with its deletion--do you think the sources I added help the page pass notability criteria? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Rachel Helps. My involvement was to detect a recreation of the article in mainspace (at Joseph Barlow Forbes) after a clear-consensus AfD discussion that resulted in its deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Barlow Forbes), then to tag it as such (WP:G4). After a user request it was restored and userfied by an admin. CSD G4 is for articles that get recreated in mostly the same state and I see that there were improvements since, so it no longer risks getting speedily deleted (quote: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"). I cannot access all sources, but what I could read unfortunately doesn't convince me that it would survive another AfD discussion. An idea would be to go through the WP:AFC process and to submit it for review, so someone more experienced could also assess it (adding {{subst:submit}} to the draft then clicking Submit should allow that). If it's declined, it could still be worked on either in the existing sandbox, or moved to Draft: space to invite more community editing. It may be possible to find more editors interested in improving it by mentioning it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement or Wikipedia:Mormon collaboration. I hope this helps (and sorry if any of that was already obvious to you), —PaleoNeonate – 18:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I moved it to the draftspace to submit it to AFC--I'm never sure if it's better to submit to AFC or simply create the page, but in this case submitting the page to AFC makes sense to me. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

your latest addition to the collection[edit]

I was actually listening to this when you added it. In case you're not familiar with the genre, synthwave is a fairly recent genre which aims to reproduce a mix of 80's new wave and video game music with a modern aesthetic. GMTA. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for the link. I also listen to such music at times, this reminds me that I should check if Necarine radio still exists, it used to play various retro-inspired (and real retro) electronic music... I composed a number of compositions using OctaMED back in the day (also with its midi support to drive external synths, mixed with the Amiga native sound, albeit passed through the Sound Enhancer and with the low pass filter disabled)... I still compose, but no longer have Amigas.Face-smile.svgPaleoNeonate – 16:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
$ cat nectarine.m3u 
#EXTINF:0, Nectarine Demoscene Radio

PaleoNeonate – 16:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Creationism and NPOV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, funplussmart (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This arbitration case request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for your response to the correction I made earlier. I understand your point, leaving religion out of the equation is for the best, but I also feel it would be more accurate to rephrase the sentence in a way that conveys that this is actually a theory held by some scholars rather than undisputed fact. The way it's currently phrased makes it sound like there's an entire scholarly consensus (from all schools of thought) that this story indisputably crept into the Quran from Alexander Romance, which could be potentially misleading to someone who is new to the subject. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbhard (talkcontribs) 18:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nbhard: Likely that the lead wording could be improved... maybe something like "according to modern scholars", or "is considered by some scholars to", etc... Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn is the best place to discuss this, so other editors can also provide their input. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018[edit]

Hello PaleoNeonate, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

  • Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
  • In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
  • MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
  • User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
  • User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)