User talk:Xsharpeconrad
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Xsharpeconrad! I noticed your contributions to Odsonne Édouard and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Mattythewhite (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Your message
[edit]I absolutely agree with your assessment, sources on basic phonology have no place in articles on individuals or places etc., but if the pronunciation of a certain term is contested, of course it may be necessary to provide a reference for the pronunciation given. This is especially the case for proper names, i.e. placenames or personal names, as in many languages the correct pronunciation of a proper name can not necessarily be derived from the spelling of the name and general knowledge of the language's phonology. --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I apologise, but I am not willing to conduct a discussion on vanilla Wikipedia best practices via e-mail. It may be different if the topic is more sensitive, or if you were an established user I have had extensive interaction with. Fwiiw, I generally agree with your position, but that is of little value if you fail to get consensus to keep your preferred version. Sometimes the dynamics of Wikipedia results in dodgy articles, with lots of accommodation to just to appease the angry and clueless. This isn't too bad in itself as long as the important information is still there. Sometimes you just need to pick your battles, and I have learned it isn't worth your time to campaign over some detail that will be gone again as soon as you don't watch the page for a week.
The approach has served Wikipedia well for over a decade. It is now broken, but that is a consequence of the historical processes that appear to have taken hold of America as a whole, and there is no way to avoid them other than by forking the project and in doing so abandoning pretty much every advantage of Wikipedia along with its disadvantages. I do think that Wikipedia will historically be seen as an important facet of the culture of the 2000s and early 2010s. Fortunately, the full edit history is preserved, and we will always be able to go back to a version when the project was in its prime. --dab (𒁳) 05:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Restoration of a clearly unreliable source
[edit]Please be more careful when reverting IP edits, as you did here, restoring a source that doesn't come close to meeting WP:RS standards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't respond to emails
[edit]Use my talk page, please. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |